Tracking the Pistis Christou Debate Paper

8/13/2019 Tracking the Pistis Christou Debate Paper

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tracking-the-pistis-christou-debate-paper 1/25

LUBBOCK CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

TRACKING THE !"#$"# %&"#$'( DEBATE

SUBMITTED TO DR. MICHAEL MARTIN

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFBIB4360.01

BYBRYCE NULL

APRIL 1, 2010



"

The essential question concerning the )*+,*- %.*+,/0 debate is whether or not salvation comes

by means of human faith or by means of the faithfulness of Christ. In biblical scholarship the

debate comes down to translating )*+,*- %.*+,/0 either as an objective genitive, “faith in

Christ”, or as a subjective genitive, “Christ’s faithfulness” or even better “faithfulness of Christ.”

However in all actuality it comes down to reading Paul’s Epistles and his use of the phrase

“)*+,*- %.*+,/0” either anthropocentrically or Christocentrically or in layman terms it is the

difference between human faith gaining justification for themselves or the faithfulness of Christ

for all who believe. Richard B. Hays suggests that “the [Christocentric] reading highlights the

salvific efficacy of Jesus Christ’s faith(fullness) for God’s people; the [anthropocentric] reading

stresses the salvific efficacy of the human act of faith directed toward Christ.”1 Sigve Tonstad

offers, “Radical as it may seem, our reading of )*+,*- %.*+,/0, which on the surface may seem

like a minor revision, lays the groundwork for an entirely different paradigm in the theology of

the NT.”2 Just as this new reading lays a different paradigm in Pauline and NT Theology it is still

necessary to emphasize that the subjective genitive exponents do not deny the human response of

faith to Christ’s own faithfulness. This paper is offered in support of the subjective genitive,

Christocentric reading of )*+,*- %.*+,/0 using the support of grammar, syntax and theological

implications and also an overview of Christ’s faithfulness displayed in non-Pauline writings, it is

through this evidence that the subjective reading is the logical choice.

1 Richard B. Hays, "!"#$"# and Pauline Christology: What Is at Stake?," in Pauline Theology. Volume IV:

Looking Back, Pressing On, ed. David M. Hay, and E. Elizabeth Johnson (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars, 1997), 35-60.

2 Sigve Tonstad, “!*+,*- %.*+,/0: Reading Paul in a New Paradigm,“ AUSS 40.1 (2002): 37-59.







%

)*+,*- in Hellenistic Jewish Literature as a whole supports the subjective genitive.” In the OT

Apocrypha )*+,*- occurs 23 times and is never followed by a personal objective genitive and “in

the Greek Pseudepigrapha the genitive after )*+,*- never occurs at all.” Howard adds that )*+,*-

occurs 116 times in Philo and “never is it followed by the objective genitive.”13

Therefore

Howard concludes that in Hellenistic Jewish writings that “when )*+,*- is followed by the

personal genitive: the genitive is virtually always subjective” and that “the writers use the

preposition when they wish to express the object.”14 Howard also cites the Syriac Peshitta and

the Sahidic Coptic consistently translating )*+,*- %.*+,/0 as a subjective genitive, “faith of

Christ,” and states that “the translators understood the genitive as subjective and clearly

distinguished it from pisteuein eis Christon.”15

Just as the 1960s and 1970s saw an increase in

the discussion of the )*+,*- %.*+,/0 debate and the 1980s until the present day has seen an

explosion of research, articles and presentations on this debate.

The current debate was advanced even further when, in 1983, Richard B. Hays’s

dissertation, The Faith of Jesus Christ , was published and since then a second edition published

in 2002.16

Although Hays admits that his dissertation “is not a discussion of how to translate the

contested expression )*+,*- "3+/0 %.*+,/0” but rather “a book about the narrative elements that

undergird Paul’s thought.”17

Hays spends much of the introduction of the second edition

criticizing Rudolf Bultmann’s theory of “de-narrativiz[ing]” Paul’s thought world and it seems

13 Howard, “The ‘Faith of Christ’,” 213.

14 Ibid..

15 Ibid..

16 Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11 (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).

17 Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, xxiii.



&

clear that Bultmann fully supported an anthropocentric view while Hays believes that “the story

is the word of God, and we know God in no other way than as the God who acted through the

faithfulness of Jesus Christ.”18

Douglas A. Campbell also supports a subjective genitive and has

written extensively on the issue at hand. Two worthy opponents of Hays and Campbell have

arising in the wake of his dissertation: James D. G. Dunn and R. Barry Matlock. Both Dunn and

Matlock argue that the traditional, objective genitive is the proper translation of )*+,*- %.*+,/0.

Perhaps it could be said that these four men are the four horsemen of the )*+,*- %.*+,/0 debate,

the former two arguing for a subjective genitive while the latter two argue for an objective

genitive. For now it is still necessary to address the issue of grammar and lexical semantics of the

debate, arguments concerning theological interpretations will be addressed later.

Originally Hays admits that he felt like much of the lexical semantic evidence remained

inconclusive and ultimately settled that Howard’s evidence was sufficient in addressing this

issue. However in his recent edition of The Faith of Jesus Christ Hays believes that the lexical

semantic issue should be fully dealt with especially in light of R. Barry Matlock’s findings but

criticizes Matlock by saying that his “’exegetical’ procedure is basically nothing more

sophisticated than to look up the word )*+,*- in various lexicons…to see how these lexicons

classify the range of Paul’s uses of the word” and concludes that the “lexicographers are not

making theological judgments”; therefore, although lexical semantic studies are crucial for the

debate one should not solely rely upon them for an interpretation of )*+,*- %.*+,/0.19

James D. G. Dunn opposes the subjective genitive translation on grounds of the absence

of the definite article in the debated )*+,*- %.*+,/0 sections. Dunn believes that if Paul wished

18 Ibid., xxvi.

19 Ibid., xlvi-xlvii.



'

for the phrase to be read as “the faithfulness of Christ,” then he would have included the definite

article, which would then read, “3 )*+,*- %.*+,/0.”20 Dunn agrees with the suggestion of E. D.

Burton who suggests that when )*+,*- is used in a subjective genitive construction “the article

is…almost invariably present.”21

Arlend Hultgren also agrees that this is a common objection to

translating the )*+,*- %.*+,/0 as a subjective genitive. Hultgren concludes that “once can expect

Paul would have supplied the article (so 3 )*+,*- ,/0 %.*+,/0) if he intended to speak of the

(subjective) faithfulness of Christ,” but because Paul has not supplied the article Hultgren

therefore concludes that )*+,*- %.*+,/0 should be translated as an objective genitive.22

Hultgren

could be accused of construing the information to favor the objective genitive. He does this by

stating that )*+,*- always has an article when it is a subjective genitive on the grounds that when

it is followed by a genitive pronoun, 3 )*-,*- 3µ28, it must contain the article.23

However, Sam

K. Williams picks up on this misconception and expresses that Hultgren’s evidence should serve

as no evidence at all “because in the NT we typically do not find the anarthrous noun with

hym9n, h:m9n, autou, etc…a noun with a genitive pronoun is usually articular.”24

However

there are two significant cases that act against both sides of the argument: Mark 11:22 and

Romans 4:16.

The quotation from Mark 11:22 is “1;1,1 )*+,*8 <1/0.” And the quotation from Rom

4:16 in question is “,2 14 )*+,12- ‘56.77µ.” Although up until now the majority of evidence

20

James D. G. Dunn, "Once More, !"#$"# %&"#$'(," in Pauline Theology. Volume IV: Looking Back, Pressing On, ed. David M. Hay, and E. Elizabeth Johnson (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars, 1997), 61-81.

21 Dunn, “Once More,” 64 n17.

22 Arland J. Hultgren, “The PISTIS CHRISTOU Formulation in Paul,” NovT 22.3 (1980): 248-63.

23 Hultgren, “Formulation,” 253.

24 Sam K. Williams, “Again Pistis Christou,” CBQ 49 (1987), 431-47.



(

has been in support of a subjective genitive being more common than the objective genitive in

Greek, it is important to note instances where the objective genitive does occur. Hays admits that

Mark 11:22 is perhaps the clearest example of an objective genitive but states “the objective

genitive construction after )*+,*- is possible, though rare, in NT Greek.”25

Although Mark 11:22

is almost all but an anomaly and a minor set back for those who support the subjective genitive.

Most scholars agree that Rom 3:26 (,/8 14 )*+,12- "3+/0) and 4:16 are parallel construction.

Hays suggests “the parallelism between 3:26 and 4:16 is a fatal embarrassment for all

interpreters who seek to treat "3+/0 as an objective genitive.”26

I feel that it is at this point in

light of the information presented above concerning the grammatical and lexical syntactic

analysis that those who support or oppose the subjective genitive are locked in a stalemate.

Although the conclusions seem to lean considerably more towards the subjective genitive,

“faithfulness of Christ” side, it still remains the minority view; however, through the following

theological and exegetical considerations hopefully the minority will become the majority and

further advance the Gospel.

The remainder of this paper is dedicated to exploring why the subjective genitive is the

preferable choice for the )*+,*- %.*+,/0 construction by examining the specific texts containing

this construction and its surrounding context. Romans 1:17 will be the starting point for a couple

reasons. First, in order to fully understand the theological implications of the subjective genitive

one must have a proper view of 14 )*+,12- 1*- )*+,*8 in 17a and / =1 =*47*/- 14 )*+,12- >3+1,7*

in 17b. Secondly, although Galatians was written prior to Romans, Romans offers a very

systematic approach to Paul’s theology allowing one to better understand the message that Paul

25 Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 149.

26 Hays, “Pauline Christology,” 47.



)

was trying to convey. The other passages significant to the debate that will be dealt with below

are: Romans 3:21-26; Galatians 2:16, 20; 3:22 and Philippians 3:9.

Although Romans 1:17 does not contain the )*+,*- %.*+,/0 construction it has been

considered a crucial starting point for the )*+,*- %.*+,/0 debate for a long time. In the Greek

Rom 1:17 reads, “=*47*/+083 ?7. <1/0 18 70,@ 7)/47A0),1,7* !" #$%&!'( !$( #$%&$) , 47B2-

?1?.7),7*’ * +! +$",$*( !" #$%&!'( -.%!&,$ (italics added).27

In English: “For in it [the gospel]

God’s righteousness is being revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, “The righteous will live

by faith” (Rom 1:17 ISV). This verse contain three significant sections: =*47*/+083 <1/0, 14

)*+,12- 1*- )*+,*8, and / =*47*/-. Douglas A. Campbell believes that “=*47*/+083 is best

understood in a ‘Hebraic’ sense that rather transcends the subject-object distinctions.”28

However, a full discussion of “the righteousness of God” is beyond the scope of this paper. So

one of the major issues at hand is how to translate 14 )*+,12-. From a traditional anthropocentric

reading it is simply rendered as “from (human) faith for faith.” However Campbell translate the

first part of 1:17a to mean that “‘the eschatological, saving righteousness of God is being

revealed within the gospel’…this is accomplished independently of the individual’s faith,” if this

is the case then the “eschatological disclosure of God’s saving power” is “conditional upon the

believer’s faith” and therefore “presses the role of anthropocentric faith rather too far.”29

If the

construction )*+,*- %.*+,/0 is to be translated as a subjective genitive then 14 )*+,12- cannot be

translated anthropocentrically; unfortunately, some of the scholars who support the subjective

27 NA

27.

28 Douglas A. Campbell, “Romans 1:17—A Crux Interpretum for the !"#$"# %&"#$'( Debate,” JBL

113/2 (1994): 265-85.

29 Campbell, “Romans 1:17—A Crux,” 273.



*

genitive interpretation cannot agree on how to properly interpret 14 )*+,12-, whether this refers

to the faithfulness of God or to the faithfulness of Christ. Charles Talbert agrees on the difficulty

of this phrase and suggests that translating it “’through/out of either God’s or Jesus’ faithfulness

for the faith of humans’ is preferable” to the numerous other options people have come up with

in the past.30

However a Christocentric translation of 14 )*+,12- in 1:17a is intrinsically linked to

how one interprets to the Habakkuk 2:4 quotation in 1:17b, as well as how Rom 3:22 is

translated. Because Rom 3:22 resembles 1:17a it would be best to start there. Here is a basic

comparison of these two verses:

Romans 3:22 Romans 1:17

A =*47*/+083 =1 <1/0 =*47*/+083 ?7. <1/0

B =*7 )*+,2- "3+/0 %.*+,/0 14 )*+,12-

C 1*- )78,7- ,/0- )*+,10/8,7- 1*- )*+,*8

Although Romans 3:21-26 is a significant section on its own it will be dealt with below

but for now Romans 3:22 essentially restates and clarifies the thesis that was made by Paul in

1:17. Campbell points out that Paul uses the phrase 14 )*+,12- several times as well as =*7

)*+,12- both of which mean should be read to mean the exact same thing, he attributes this to “a

mere stylistic flourishes supplied to avoid needleless repetition.”31

14 functions instrumentally

and should be translated as “through” or “by means of.”32 Therefore 14 )*+,12- 1*- )*+,*8 in

30 Charles H. Talbert, Romans, (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary 24; Georgia: Smyth & Helwys,

2002), 41.

31 Douglas A. Campbell, “The Faithfulness of Jesus in Romans 3:22,” in The Faith of Jesus Christ:

Exegetical, Biblical and Theological Studies (ed. Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle; Peabody, Mass.:

Hendrickson, 2009), 57-71.

32 Campbell, “Romans 3:22,” 59.



"+

Rom 1:17 should be read as a paradigm for other similar )*+,*- %.*+,/0 constructions

specifically where =*7 is read synonymously with 14 and the accusative construction, 1*- )*+,*8,

in 1:17a referring to human faith should also be a part of this paradigm in reference to the ,/0-

)*+,10/8,7- participle in 3:22. This understanding along with the following interpretation of

Paul’s use of Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17b should prove that a Christocentric reading of 1:17a is

necessary and logical.

As indicated above, one of Paul’s favorite phrases to use is 14 )*+,12- and Hays suggests

that it “is an exegetical catchphrase that alludes to the Habakkuk text.”33

Within Rom 1:17b, Don

Garlington suggests that Paul’s phrase “/ =*47*/- 14 )*+,12- >3+1,7*” should be translated as:

“’The righteous shall live out of faith(fulness).’”34

Garlington also suggests that the LXX’s

addition of the personal pronoun, µ/0, signifies that 14 )*+,12- should be understood as God’s

fidelity but Paul has omitted µ/0 specifically to shift attention to Jesus and a Christocentric

interpretation and therefore concludes that the Hebrew translation “unambiguously…designat[es]

the person’s own faith(fulness),” in this case, the )*+,*- of / =*47*/-.35 However, Hays suggests

that within the context of the LXX translation of Hab 2:3-4 the use of the participle 1.;/µ18/-

(“the Coming One”) in v3 should be read as a parallel term for / =*47*/- (“the Righteous One”)

in v4.36

A Messianic interpretation of / =*47*/- in Hab 2:4 seems to be in line with other non-

Pauline texts that use “The Righteous One” as a synonym for Jesus.37

Campbell translates Rom

33

Hays, “Pauline Christology,” 42.

34 Don Garlington, “Paul’s ‘Partisan 14 ’ and the Question of Justification in Galatians,” JBL 127.3 (2008),

567-89.

35 Garlington, “’Partisan 14 ’,” 583 n49.

36 Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 135.

37 Acts 3:14, 7:52, 22:14, 1 Pet 3:18; 1 John 2:1.



""

1:17 as “The =*47*/+083 <1/0 is being revealed through it [the gospel] by means of fidelity and

for fidelity, as it is written, ‘The righteous one, by means of fidelity, will live’” therefore

Campbell fully supports a Christocentric reading of 14 )*+,12- in both 1:17a and 17b.38

If Hab

2:4 is seen as a reference to Jesus as the Messiah then clearly it predicts the “passion” of Jesus,

i.e., his death and resurrection; so Campbell agrees with Hays that / =*47*/- should be seen as a

synonym for Jesus. Campbell states that Paul often uses a “generalized arthrous construction to

denote Christ” e.g., / 0*/- (1:3, 4, 9; 5:10; 8:3, 29, 32), / %.*+,/- (9:3 5; 14:8; 15:3, 7, 19;), / 1C-

(5:15, 17, 18, 19) and probably also / 7)/B7828 (6:7; 8:34).39

Perhaps one reference missed by

all others except Campbell is that of “the righteous man” (=*47*/-) in the Wisdom of Solomon

2:12-2040

displays a heroic and innocent character and is possessed by wisdom in his soul and is

therefore resurrected.41

Campbell ultimately concludes that the =*47*/- in Wisdom 2:12-20 fits

“Christ better than they fit the generic Christian, especially in his heroic and resurrected

features…” and so the early Christian readers “would probably have interpreted Paul’s first

explicit intertext in the letter concerning ‘a righteous person’ in a way that was related to their

heroic messiah.”42 In summation Rom 1:17a stands as a paradigm for all following )*+,*-

%.*+,/0 constructions containing the prepositional phrase 14 /=*7 )*+,*- 1*- )*+,12- while 14 or

=*7 )*+,*- implies the faithfulness of Christ and 1*- )*+,12- indicates the human response of

faith. Paul quotes Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17b clearly indicating that he viewed Hab 2:4 as a messianic

38

Douglas A. Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 613.

39 Ibid..

40 Also 3:1-9; 4:7-16; 5:1, 15.

41 Ibid., 614.

42 Ibid., 615.



"#

prooftext therefore offering further support of a Christolocentric interpretation. This

Christocentric interpretation is done in two ways: / =*47*/- as a reference to Christ and

understanding that 14 )*+,*- refers to Christ’s faithfulness thus Campbell’s translation makes the

most sense: “The righteous one, by means of fidelity, will live.”43

With this foundation it is time

to move on.

The common refrain among objective genitive exponents is that a subjective reading of

)*+,*- %.*+,/0 might lead to a reduced emphasis on human response to God’s saving act through

Christ.44

In Rom 3:3 there is a clear parallel between humanities 7)*+,*7 and the )*+,*- of God;

then later on in Rom 5 Paul presents Christ as the Second Adam who has come in order to

reverse the First Adam’s sin. Supporting a Christocentric interpretation of Rom 3:22 M. D.

Hooker states, “[m]an’s unfaithfulness in no way destroys the faithfulness of God – but the

faithfulness of God should have been answered by the faithfulness of man” therefore this has

been fulfilled by =*7 )*+,12- "3+/0 %.*+,/0 in 3:22.45

Therefore, ,38 )*+,*8 ,/0 <1/0 in 3:3

should be understood to mean =*47*/+083 <1/0. As it was stated above Rom 1:17a is a paradigm

for several of the following )*+,*- %.*+,/0 constructions that follow, Rom 3:22 is one of those

constructions. “The =*47*/+083 <1/0 (has been revealed) =*7 )*+,12- "3+/0 %.*+,/0” this

construction seems to restate and clarify what Paul spoke of in 1:17a while “1*- )78,7- ,/0-

)*+,10/8,7-” clearly represents how a person should respond to Christ’s fidelity. Dunn answers

Hays question as to why Paul has chosen to restate the first )*+,*- %.*+,/0 phrase by stating that

it was “to emphasize the )78,7-…’the righteousness of God through faith in Christ to all who

43 Ibid., 613.

44 Morna D. Hooker, “!"#$"# %&"#$'(,” NTS 35 (1989): 321-42.

45 Ibid., 324.



"$

believe.’”46

However Campbell fully supports the subjective genitive and offers a better

interpretation of the phrase that is in question. Campbell explains that here Paul is arguing

against the Teacher who is suggesting to Roman Christians that they must do certain things in

order to be saved but Paul’s repeated use of “everyone who…” “clearly argues here that God’s

saving purpose has broken out from Israel in Christ and now encompasses pagans as well.”47

This sentiment is also further supported by Paul’s consistent use of “to the Jew first and the

Greek as well” (ISV) and by 3:22b which states that “there is no distinction.” If 14 /=*7 )*+,12- in

1:17a is a reference to Christ’s fidelity then certainly 1*- )*+,*8 is a reference to human fidelity,

therefore Campbell states “the apostle’s use of the participle of )*+,102 in 3:22…inclines fairly

strongly toward the presence of God as the participle’s implicit object.”48

So =*7 )*+,12- "3+/0

%.*+,/0 in 3:22 should be taken as a subjective genitive construction emphasizing Jesus Christ

as the subject of faithfulness and then the participle construction clearly illustrates that God is the

implicit object of 1*- )78,7- ,/0- )*+,10/8,7-.

Next we turn our attention to a similar )*+,*- %.*+,/0 construction of Paul’s in Galatians.

Specifically in Gal 2:16 it appears that Paul has essentially restated Rom 3:22 and therefore 1:17.

Rom 1:17 Rom 3:22 Gal 2:16

=*47*/+083 ?7. <1/0 (compare) =*47*/+083 =1 <1/0 (contrast) /0 =*47*/0,7* 78B.2)/-

1D 1.?28 8/µ/0

14 )*+,12- (compare) =*7 )*+,12- "C (compare) =*7 )*+,12- "C

46 Dunn, “Once More,” 75.

47 Campbell, Deliverance of God, 616.

48 Ibid., 620.



"%

1*- )*+,*8 (compare) 1*- )78,7- ,/0- )*+,10/8,7- (compare) 1*- %.*+,/8 "3+/08

1)*+,10+7µ18

In these passages it appears that Paul is jumping from one construction to the next, initially

speaking about the )*+,*- of %.*+,/0 "3+/0 and then automatically switching to the )*+,*- of

human’s. And so Hays suggests that “if Philo can pivot about in this way in a single sentence,”

which he does then “we should hardly be surprised that Paul can similarly speak in the same

breath of our faith in God…and of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.”49

Another important fact that

is somewhat illustrated in the graph but fully expressed by Campbell is the distinction of )*+,*-

and 8/µ/0 in the Gal 2:16 passage:

“/0 . . . ED E.?28 8Fµ/0 EG8 µ3 =*7 )H+,12- I3+/J %.H+,/0

E4 )H+,12- %.H+,/0 /K4 ED E.?28 8Fµ/0.”50

Remember that the objective genitive supporters view Paul’s use of redundancy as a way

to emphasize the importance of the faith of the believers, so Galatians 3:22b from the NIV reads,

“being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.” After reading

over the verses where redundancy occurs seems a little awkward of Paul. However, it is also

important to remember that the subjective genitive supporters agree that when Paul wished to

emphasize Jesus Christ as the object of human faith he used 1*- )78,7- ,/0- )*+,10/8,7-.

Galatians 3:26 certainly seems ambiguous because Paul decided to construct the phrase =*7 ,3-

)*+,12- !) /0$%&1 2.%*3, this could possibly be viewed as an example of Paul using a different

variation other than the subjective genitive to illustrate “faith in Christ.” Certainly translators

49 Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, xlvi.

50 Douglas A. Campbell, “The Meaning of !"#$"# and L'M'# in Paul: A Linguistic and Structural

Perspective,” JBL 111/1 (1992): 98.



"&

cannot agree on the proper way to translate v 26 (e.g.: “You are all sons of God through faith in

Christ Jesus” NIV; “for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith” NRSV; “For all

of you are God’s children through faith in Christ Jesus” ISV) but just as it would be nonsensical

to translate =*7 )*+,12- "3+/0 %.*+,/0 as an objective genitive in Rom 3:21 amidst the other

clearly subjective genitives; so to here, it would be nonsensical to for Paul spontaneously refer to

human faith amidst a section of Scripture that clearly is Christocentric. Campbell argues that

starting in v. 16 there is a string of different titles that refer to Christ (“the seed,” “the coming

one,” “the promised one,” and “the )*+,*-.”51 Obviously Gal 3:16 confirms that Christ was

viewed as the +)1.µ7 of Abraham and so %.*+,/- could be substituted for )*+,*8 in v. 23 and

still convey the same meaning. Understanding the stylistic flourishes of Paul helps us understand

that )*+,*- and %.*+,/- should be seen as synonymously and used in order to avoid the risk of

sounding redundant. This section could read “Now before [Christ] came we were held…until the

coming of [Christ] would be revealed…the law had become our guardian until Christ, so that we

could be declared righteous by [Christ]…For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through

[Christ] (NET). A Christocentric reading of this text relies fully on understanding the

synonymous terms used for Christ.

Until now this paper has lacked a key element that is made explicit by Hays and others,

that is that of a person’s participation with Christ. Philippians 3:9-10 is perhaps the best example

of this participation model. The main problem that the church of Philippi was having were

arrogant false teachers teaching circumcision and works of the law to bring about righteousness

but Paul states that all the things he did, all his credentials were but +4067A7 compared to the

“=*47*/+083...=*7 )*+,12- %.*+,/0.” To illustrate:

51 Campbell, The Deliverance of God, 871.



"'

A 47* 10.1B2 18 70,N

B µ3 1;28 1µ38 =*47*/+083 ,38 14 8/µ/0

C 7AA7

D =*7 )*+,12- %.*+,/0

B2 14 <1/0 =*47/+0838 1)* ,O )*+,1*52

In B the µ3 automatically indicates that we do not have a righteousness by means of (14 ) the law.

In C 7AA7 is a marker of emphatic contrast to clarify the source of righteousness (D) i.e., =*7

)*+,12- %.*+,/0. Significant to Paul is the emphasis of those who are found in Christ and

according to Richard R. Melick, Jr. “Paul defined being in Christ in terms of righteousness.” 53 So

it is clear that two kinds of =*47*/+083 are in view here, the first 14 8/µ/0 and the second =*7

)*+,12- %.*+,/0. Certainly v. 10 (“My aim is to know him, to experience the power of his

resurrection, to share in his sufferings, and to be like him in his death“ NET) exists to emphasize

participation with Christ. Hooker states that “we discover that ‘sharing what he is’ involves

‘sharing in what he became’. Participation in Christ is demanded at every stage: he is the true

Adam, who lives our human life as it is meant to be lived.”54

So a Christocentric reading of this

text clearly indicates =*47*/+083 comes from =*7 )*+,12- and not 14 8/µ/0 and participation is

explicitly referenced in v. 10. This explaination of Phil 3:9-10 concludes the section concerning

the )*+,*- %.*+,/0 contstruction within the undisputed Pauline letters.

52 This illustration is my own and does not necessarily follow a chiastic pattern rather the letters should be

used in order to better understand what Paul meant.

53 Robert R. Melick, Jr. Philippians, Colossians, Philemon (NAC 32; Nashville: Broadman, 1991), 133.

54 Hooker, “!"#$"# %&"#$'(,” 339.



"(

Most supporters of the subjective genitive reading of )*+,*- %.*+,/0 have started to

realize that if Christ’s faithfulness can be illustrated outside of the usual )*+,*- %.*+,/0

construction or in the wider-NT, in non-Pauline writings or in the Apostolic Fathers then this

gives further support to their arguments. The first such case for Christ’s faithfulness in the wider-

NT is still within the Pauline letters: Ephesians 3:12. Paul Foster affirms the common belief that

about 80% of scholars reject Pauline authenticity of this epistle on the grounds of non-Pauline

thought patterns and other issues with grammar therefore Eph is deutero-Pauline and a

discussion of authorship is beyond the scope of this paper.55

Since Dunn supports the objective

gentitive one would expect him to automatically dismiss Eph 3:12 as a candidate for the debate,

he does exactly that concluding that “[t]he deutero-Pauline usage therefore gives us no assistance

in resolving the force of the genitive construction of Paul.”56

However the author promotes

Pauline theology and has thus adopted the tradition of Paul.57 A quick examination of the Greek

will reveal that the construction in Eph 3:12 (=*7 ,3- )*+,12- 70,/0) reflects similar construction

in Rom 3:22 (=*7), 26 (14 ); Gal 2:16 (=*7); 3:22 (14 ); Phil 3:9 (=*7). In English 3:12 says that “in

whom [Christ] we have boldness and confident access to God because of Christ’s faithfulness”

(NET). Our access to God is characterized by confidence and boldness because it fully

“depend[s] on Christ’s faithfulness because his faithfulness unto death led to his resurrection and

55 Paul Foster, “The First Contributions to the )*+,*- %.*+,/0 Debate: A Study of Ephesians 3.12,” JSNT

85 (2002): 79.

56 Dunn, “Once More,” 66.

57 Foster, “First Contributions,” 79.



")

subsequent gift of the Spirit.”58

Foster illustrates that the relationship between Eph 2:18 and 3:12

is striking:

Eph 2:18a /,* =*’ 70,/0 1;/µ18 ,38 )./+7?2?38

Eph 3:12a 18 P 1;/µ18 ,38 )7..3+*78 47* )./+7?2?3859

The pronoun in 2:18 clearly could be substituted with “Christ” and so the parallel structure

should emphasizes that “it is in Christ that we have boldness and confidence…” Since this

phrase clearly is understood as a reference to Christ’s faith and the fact that the majority agree

that Paul did not write this it means that first generation Christians understood that the )*+,*-

%.*+,/0 language referred specifically to Christ’s own faithfulness.

Douglas A. Campbell has addressed another verse that does not contain the )*+,*-

%.*+,/0 construction but nevertheless is of extreme importance to the debate, especially for the

subjective genitive side. Campbell believes that 2 Corinthians 4:13 is important because it “may

offer clear evidence not merely of Jesus acting faithfully, but of his doing so as the subject of the

verb.”60

The common complaint of the objective genitive opponents is that Christ is never

explicitly portrayed as the subject of )*+,12- so it is significant if Campbell can prove that this is

the case here. In 4:7-18 it is clear that Paul has in view the suffering that comes along with being

in Christ but commends the believers by saying that “we have the same spirit of faith” and then

quotes Psalm 115:1 from the LXX and “sees Jesus having faith that God would raise him from

the dead,” Paul has this same faith in the resurrection and believes that, he too along with the

58 Charles H. Talbert, Ephesians and Colossians, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 100.

59 Foster, “First Contributions,” 89.

60 Douglas A. Campbell, “2 Corinthians 4:13: Evidence in Paul That Christ Believes,” JBL 128.2 (2009):

338.



"*

“dead in Christ,” will be raised just as Jesus was.61

The words of Ps 115:1 LXX become

prophetic “if we suppose that [Paul] was reading Psalms 114 and 115 LXX christologically,” and

so 2 Cor 4:13 and the surrounding context becomes a passage of Scripture that certainly speaks

of participating with Christ, both in suffering and in believing.62

Finally, thanks to the scholarship of Michael F. Bird and Michael B. Whitenton, an

example of “the faithfulness of Christ” has been revealed in the Patristic’s.63

If sufficient

evidence can be found that supports the idea that the Apostolic fathers understood the )*+,*-

%.*+,/0 construction to refer to “the faithfulness of Christ” then this deals a considerable blow

to the objective genitive proponents although even this evidence would not end the debate.

Hippolytus was a Greek-speaking Roman presbyter, a bishop in Rome and ultimately a martyr.64

The text in question comes from Demostratio de Christo et Antichrsto, where Hippolytus is

apparently writing concerning the coming of the Antichrist and this is written to Theophilus and

apparently “the Antichrist is a Jewish ruler ho mirrors the ministries of Jesus Christ in manifold

ways and wages war against the church after subjugating northern Africa and the Palestinian

coastland.”65

Bird and Whitenton translation reads:

…the tyrant is to reign and persecute the Church, which flees from city to city, and seeks

concealment in the wilderness among the mountains, possessed of no other defence (sic)

than the two wings of the great eagle, that is to say, the faith of Jesus Christ [Gk.: "3+/0

%.*+,/0 )*+,*8], who, in stretching forth His holy hands on the holy tree, unfolded two

61 Kenneth Schenck, “2 Corinthians and the !*+,*- %.*+,/0 Debate,” CBQ 70 (2008): 528.

62 Ibid., 537.

63 Michael F. Bird and Michael B. Whitenton, “The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Hippolytus’s De Christo

et Antichristo: Overlooked Evidence in the !*+,*- %.*+,/0 Debate,” NTS 55 (2009): 552-62.64 Ibid., 558.65 Ibid..



#+

wings, the right and the left and called to Him all who believed [Gk.: )78,7- ,/0- 1*-

70,/8 )*+,10/8,7-], and covered them as a hen her chickens. For by the mouth of

Malachi also He speaks thus: ‘And unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of

righteousness arise with healing in His wings (italics added).66

So it is obvious that “the faithfulness of Christ and faith in Christ are both necessary components

in the redemptive story assumed by Hippolytus.”67

It is significant that a subjective genitive

("3+/0 %.*+,/0 )*+,*8) denoting the faithfulness of Christ is then followed by a participle

construction ()78,7- ,/0- 1*- 70,/8 )*+,10/8,7-) that states the faith of the believer in Christ;

this clearly follows the same type of construction in Paul.

The question that must now be asked is: if we take )*+,*- %.*+,/0 as a subjective

genitive where do we go from here? Certainly, an anthropocentric reading of Paul does not do

this construction justice but yet it seems that the majority of Biblical translation still agree on the

objective genitive. Take for example Romans 3:22 the most common and popular translations

take =*7 )*+,12- "3+/0 %.*+,/0 as an objective genitive68

and in some of the more literal

translations the subjective genitive option has been relegated to a mere footnote.69

There are two

translations that reflect what now most scholars believe to be a subjective genitive construction;

the International Standard Version (ISV) and the New English Translation (NET) translate the

debated )*+,*- %.*+,/0 constructions as subjective genitives. The introduction to the NET states

“Certainly faith in Christ is a Pauline concept, but Bible scholars have begun to see that in Paul’s

66 Ibid., 559.

67 Ibid., 560.

68 See: ESV, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, TNIV, NASB.

69 See: NRSV.



#"

theological thought there is also an emphasis on Christ as one who is faithful and therefore

worthy of our faith.” So it is the hope that this paper has convincingly argued for the subjective

genitive translation that people begin to question and examine what has seen to be true

traditionally and read Scripture for what it is worth. It seems that whenever one aspect of

Scripture is examined other aspects open up leading to more questions, so I acknowledge that in

some ways this paper has failed to address every single issue. Hopefully as the subjective

genitive, Christocentric reading of Paul’s )*+,*- %.*+,/0 construction gains popularity believers

will begin to understand that we have a =*47/+083 not of our own by brought about =*7 )*+,12-

"3+/0 %.*+,/0. For it is in Christ that we share in His life, his suffering, his glory and we

participate with Him in baptism and one day experience the same resurrection as He did so long

ago.



##

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Achtemeier, Paul J. “Apropos the Faith of/in Christ: A Response to Hays and Dunn.” In,Pauline Theology Vol. 4: Looking Back, Pressing On. Edited by E. ElizabethJohnson and David M. Hay. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. 82-92.

Bird, Michael F. and Michael B. Whitenton. “The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ inHippolytus’s De Christo et Antichristo: Overlooked Evidence in the !*+,*- %.*+,/0 Debate.” New Testament Studies 55 (2009): 552-62.

Calhoun, Robert Matthew. “John Chrysostom on EK !"#$QR# Q"# !"#$"L in Rom1:17: A Reply to Charles L. Quarles.” Novum Testamentum 48 (2006): 131-146.

Campbell, Douglas A. “2 Corinthians 4:13: Evidence in Paul That Christ Believes.”

Journal of Biblical Literature 128.2 (2009): 337-56.

Campbell, Douglas A. “Romans 1:17—A Crux Interpretum for the !"#$"# %&"#$'( Debate.” Journal of Biblical Literature 113.2 (1994): 265-85.

Campbell, Douglas A. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of

Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

Campbell, Douglas A. “The Faithfulness of Jesus in Romans 3:22.” Pages 51-71 in The

Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical and Theological Studies. Edited byM.F. Bird and P. M. Sprinkle. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2009.

Campbell, Douglas A. “The Meaning of !"#$"# and L'M'# in Paul: A Linguistic andStructural Perspective.” Journal of Biblical Literature 111.1 (1992): 91-103.

Dodd, Brian. “Romans 1:17--A Crux Interpretum for the Pistis Christou Debate?.”Journal of Biblical Literature

Dunnill, John. “Saved by Whose Faith? – The Function of )*+,*- ;.*+,/0 in PaulineTheology.” Colloquium 30.1 (1998): 3-25.

Dunn, James D. G. “Once More, !"#$"# %&"#$'(.“ Pages 61-81 in Pauline Theology

Volume IV: Looking Back, Pressing On. Edited by D. M. Hay and E. Johnson.Atlanta: Scholars, 1997.

Foster, Paul. “The First Contributions to the )*+,*- %.*+,/0 Debate: A Study of

Ephesians 3.12.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 85 (2002): 75-96.

Garlington, Don. “Paul’s ‘Partisan 14 ’ and the Question of Justification in Galatians.”

Journal of Biblical Literature 127.3 (2008): 567-89.



#$

Hays, Richard B. The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

Hays, Richard B. "!"#$"# and Pauline Christology: What Is at Stake?.” Pages 35-60 in Pauline Theology Volume IV: Looking Back, Pressing On. Edited by D. M. Hay

and E. Johnson. Atlanta: Scholars, 1997.

Hooker, Morna D. “!"#$"# %&"#$'(.” New Testament Studies 35 (1989): 321-42.

Howard, George. “On the ‘Faith of Christ’.” Harvard Theological Review 60 (1967):459-65.

Howard, George. “The ‘Faith of Christ’.” Expository Times 85.7 (1974): 212-214.

Hultgren, Arland J. “The PISTIS CHRISTOU Formulation in Paul.” NovumTestamentum 22.3 (1980): 248-63.

Lee, Jae Hyun. “Against Richard B. Hays’s Faith of Jesus Christ.” Journal for Greco-

Roman Christianity and Judaism. 5 (2008): 51-80.

Longenecker, Bruce W. “)*+,*- in Romans 3:25: The Neglected Evidence for the

‘Faithfulness of Christ.’” New Testament Studies. 39 (1993): 478-480.

Matlock, R. Barry. “Detheologizing the Pistis Christou Debate: Cautionary Remarksfrom a Lexical Semantic Perspective.” Novum Testamentum 42.1 (2000): 1-23.

Matlock, R. Barry. “‘Even the Demons Believe’: Paul and Pistis Christou.” The Catholic

Biblical Quarterly 64 (2002): 300-318.

Matlock, R. Barry. “The Rhetoric of Pistis in Paul: Galatians 2.16, 3.22, Romans 3.22,

and Philippians 3.9.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30.2 (2007):173-203.

Melick, Jr. Robert R. Philippians, Colossians, Philemon. The New American

Commentary 32, Nashbille: Broadman, 1991.

Tonstad, Sigve. “!*+,*- %.*+,/0: Reading Paul in a New Paradigm.” AndrewsUniversity Seminary Studies 40.1 (2002): 37-59.

Pollard, Paul. “The ‘Faith of Christ’ in Current Discussion.” Concordia Journal (1997):213-28.

Schenck, Kenneth. “2 Corinthians and the !*+,*- %.*+,/0 Debate.” Catholic BiblicalQuarterly 70 (2008): 524-37.

Still, Todd D. “Christos as Pistos: The Faith(fulness) of Jesus in the Epistle to theHebrews.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 69 (2007): 746-755.

Talbert, Charles H. Ephesians and Colossians. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007.



#%

Talbert, Charles H. Romans. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary 24. Georgia: Smyth &Helwys, 2002.

Taylor, John W. “From Faith to Faith: Romans 1.17 in the Light of Greek Idiom.” NewTestament Studies. 50:3 (2004): 337-48.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1996.

Wallis, Wilber B. “The Translation of Romans 1:17--A Basic Motif in Paulism.” Journalof the Evangelical Theological Society (): 17-23.

Williams, Sam K. “Again Pistis Christou.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (1987): 431-47.

Documents

Tracking the Pistis Christou Debate Paper