8/22/2019 Another Look at Pistis Christou
1/17
1
AnotherLookatpi/stiv Xristou=
MornaHooker,Cambridge
OnthelastoccasionthatItackledtheproblemofthemeaningofthephrasepi/stiv Xristou=,Iarguedthatthequestionofitstranslationcannotbesettledonthebasisofappealstogrammaticalconstructionalone.Thisissuecan
besettledonlybyexegesis.1InsupportofthisviewImightwellhaveappealed,
thoughIdidnot,toJ.H.Moulton,who,writinginhisfamousProlegomenaonthe
applicationofthelabelssubjectiveandobjectivetoanygenitive,commented
thatItisaswelltorememberthatinGreekthisquestionisentirelyoneof
exegesis,notofgrammar.2
Sincemyoriginallecturewasdelivered,agreatdealmorehasbeenwrittenaboutthegrammaticalcomplexitiessurroundingthephrase,butnot
surprisinglyweseemtobenonearertoanydeKiniteconclusion.Theappealto
grammarhas,ineffect,runintothesand.Meanwhile,itisclearthatthevery
differentinterpretationsgiventoPaulsuseofthephrasecontinuetobe
inKluencedbyexegetesverydifferentpresuppositions .Inthewordsofone
recentcontributortothediscussion:Itistheology,notgrammar,thatcontinues
todrivethedebate.3
Onethingiscertain:thisdebatecannotbeignored.Asrecentlyas1975,
CharlesCranKielddismissedthesuggestionthatpi/stiv Xristou=shouldbeunderstoodasasubjectivegenitiveinabrieffootnote,4butby1998hefelt
obligedtospelloutthereasonsastowhyhebelievedthattheproposalwas
unconvincing.5Oneofthereasonsthatthedebatehassparkedinterestand
continuestoexcitesomePaulinescholarsthoughmostofthem,ithastobe
said,arelocatedontheothersideoftheAtlanticis,indeed,itsrelevanceto
theology.Thepi/stiv Xristou=debate,ithasbeensaid,involvesaconKlictover
1
MornaD.Hooker,Pi/stiv Xristou=,NTS35,1989,pp.321-42,atp.321,reprintedinFromAdamtoChrist,Cambridge:CUP,1990,pp.165-86,atp.165.
2JamesHopeMoulton,AGrammarofNewTestamentGreek,Volume1:Prolegomena,Edinburgh:T.
&T.Clark,1908,p.72.
3DebbieHunn,DebatingtheFaithfulnessofJesusChristinTwentieth-CenturyScholarship,pp.
15-31,atp.26,inTheFaithofJesusChrist:Exegetical,Biblical,andTheologicalStudies,edd.
MichaelF.Bird&PrestonM.Sprinkle,Miltoneynes,U:Paternoster/Peabody,Mass.:
Hendrickson,2009.
4C.E.B.CranKield,TheEpistletotheRomans,VolumeI,ICCCommentary,Edinburgh:T.&T.Clark,
1975,p.203.
5C.E.B.CranKield,OnthePi/stiv Xristou=Question,pp.81-97inOnRomansandOtherNewTestamentEssays,Edinburgh:T.&T.Clark,1998.
8/22/2019 Another Look at Pistis Christou
2/17
2
thefundamentalshapeofPaulstheology.6ItisnoaccidentthatRichardHays,
whosebookTheFaithofJesusChrist7waslargelyresponsibleforbringingthe
wholequestiontoscholarsattentionattheendofthetwentiethcentury,entitled
apaperinwhichhedefendedhisviews,deliveredtoameetingoftheSBLin
Americain1991,Pi/stiv andPaulineChristology,:WhatIsatStake?8
Inanswertohisownquestion,helistedKiveissues:theseconcernedtherelationbetween
ChristologyandsoteriologyinPaulinetheology;thehumanityofJesus;the
tensionbetweenindividualreligiousexperienceandthecorporatenatureof
salvation;ethics;andthesigniKicanceofthephrasetherighteousnessofGod.
Itisclearthatthemeaningwegivetothephrasepi/stiv Xristou=inKluencesthewayweinterpretthePaulineepistles.Atthesametime,however,
ourunderstandingoftheepistlesdeterminesthewayweinterpretthephrasepi/
stiv Xristou=,sincethestancewetakeontheissuesthatHayslistsascrucialinKluencesourexegesisofthetexts.WearelockedKirmlyintotheso-called
hermeneuticalcircle.
Presuppositions
Itisrelativelyeasytoexposethepresuppositionsofothers,notalwaysso
easytoanalyseourown.TheGreekphrase pi/stiv Xristou=isambiguous,andcanbetranslatedeitherasChristsfaith;orasfaithinhimthoughtoEnglish
ears,atleast,ifweleaveotherconsiderationsaside,theformerseemsmore
natural.Theword pi/stivitselfisambiguous,sinceitcanmeannotonlyfaith,butfaithfulnessameaningwhichseemstobecommonintheLXX.Butfaith
canalsosignifywhatonebelieves,andthusmeansomethingclosertothe
Englishwordbelief,whichnormallyconveysthenotionofbeliefthat,rather
thanbeliefin.AndsinceEnglishtendstohavemanysynonyms,wecanalso
translatepi/stiv bytrustortrustworthinessandthewordtrustconveys
wellthenotionofutterrelianceonGodareliancethatis,ofcourse,foundedon
thebeliefthatheistrustworthy,andthathecanbereliedontosavehispeople.
Thisproblemoftranslationisnot,ofcourse,conKinedtoEnglish.
TheambiguityoftheGreekwascarriedoverintotheLatinandotherearly
versionsoftheNewTestament.Wasitperhapsbecausethereappearedtothe
6BenjaminMyters,FromFaithfulnesstoFaithintheTheologyofarlBarth,pp.291-308inBird
&Sprinkle,TheFaithofJesusChrist,atp.291.
7RichardB.Hays,TheFaithofJesusChrist:AnInvestigationoftheNarrativeSubstructureof
Galatians3:14:11,SBLDissertationSeries56,1983.
8
PublishedasanAppendixtoTheFaithofJesusChrist:AnInvestigationoftheNarrativeSubstructureofGalatians3:14:11,2ndedn.,GrandRapids,Mich./Cambridge,U:Eerdmans,
2002,pp.272-97.
8/22/2019 Another Look at Pistis Christou
3/17
3
translatorstobenoproblemincomprehendingPaulsmeaning?Butiftherewas
infactnoproblem,wasthatbecausethephrasewasobviouslyobjective,or
becauseitwasclearlysubjective?Orwasitperhapsbecausethedistinctionwas
meaningless,sincethephrasecouldconveybothmeaningssimultaneously?For
alltheirdeKinitions,thegrammarianswarnusagainstbeingoverprecise.Itisimportant,writesNigelTurner,nottosacriKicefullnessofinterpretationtoan
overpreciseanalysisofsyntax.Thereisnoreasonwhyagen.intheauthors
mindmaynothavebeenbothsubjectiveandobjective. 9
WemightexpectthecommentsoftheFatherstohelpusherebutalas!
theircommentsseemtobeasambiguousasPaulsownwritings,soitishardly
surprisingifmodernscholarsinterprettheirevidenceindiametricallyopposite
ways.10Infact,thereisremarkablylittleevidenceastohowtheyunderstoodthe
phrase:werethey,too,unawareofanyproblem?Didthephraseappeartothem
tobetransparentlyclear?Wheretheydoofferclearcomments,thesetendto
favourtheviewthattheyunderstoodPaultobethinkingoftheobjective
genitive.11ThusAthanasius,commentingonHeb.3:2,rejectstheArian
interpretationofthatversebyinsistingthatthewordpi/stovheremeansthat
Christwasonewhoshouldbebelieved,andthatitdoesnotmeanthathehimself
hadfaith.SincethisconcernstheinterpretationofHebrews,itdoesnot,of
course,precludethenotionthatPaulmighthavereferredtoChristsowntrustor
trustworthiness.Nevertheless,forAthanasiustherealdebateconcernedthe
humanityanddivinityofChrist,andthesuggestionthatChristhadfaithinGod
impliedthathewasmerelyhuman.TheauthorofHebrews,then,mustbe
speakingofChriststrustworthiness,andnotofhistrustinGod.12
Athanasiusdoctrinalassumptionsareclear,anddictatehisexegesisofthe
text.Later,weKindAugustine,commentingonRom.3:22,insistingthatPaul
cannotmeanthefaithwithwhichhehimselfbelieves,sincefaithisaqualityof
9JamesHopeMoulton:AGrammarofNewTestamentGreek,Volume3:Syntax,byNigelTurner,
Edinburgh:T.&T.Clark,1963,p.210.Cf.alsoF.BlassandA.Debrunner,AGreekGrammarofthe
NewTestamentandOtherEarlyChristianLiterature,trans.RobertW.Funk,Cambridge:CUP/
Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1961,163.
10IanG.Wallis,TheFaithofChristinEarlyChristianTraditions(SNTSMS84,Cambridge:CUP,
1995),KindsevidencethatseveraloftheFathersinterpretedPaulasteachingthatbelieversshare
thefaithofChrist.RoyA.HarrisvilleIII,PISTIS XRISTOU:WitnessoftheFathers,Nov.T.36(1994),pp.233-41,andMarkW.Elliott,Pi/stiv Xristou=intheChurchFathersandBeyond,pp.277-89inBird&Sprinkle,TheFaithofJesusChrist,botharguetheopposite.
11R.BarryMatlock,SavingFaith:TheRhetoricandSemanticsofpi/stiv inPaul,pp.73-89inBird
&Sprinkle,TheFaithofJesusChrist,atp.87.
12Athanasius,OrationescontraArianosII.6,9.
8/22/2019 Another Look at Pistis Christou
4/17
4
man,13andlaterstillweKindThomasAquinasarguing,onthebasisofHeb.11:1,
thatwheredivinerealityisnothiddenthereisnopointinfaith.Butfromthe
momentofconceptionChristhadthefullvisionoftheverybeingofGod.
Thereforehecouldnothavehadfaith.14ForAthanasius,Augustine,andAquinas,
then,theirexegesisofthetextisdrivenbytheirpresuppositionsregardingChristsdivinityandhumanity.Undoubtedlytheirbeliefswerebasedontheir
readingofthetext,butitisclearthatthosesamebeliefsinKluencedthewayin
whichtheyreadthetext.Theirassumptionsclashtotallywiththeconvictionsof
thosemodernscholarsforwhomChristsfaithisseennotsimplyasanecessary
partofhishumanity,butasthedistinctivemarkoftheonehumanbeingwhowas
trulywhatmanwasintendedbyGodtobe.
TheambiguityintheGreekphraseisreKlectedinErasmusliteralLatin
translation,andreappearsintheKirstEnglishtranslationsoftheNewTestament.
TheingJamesBible,followingTyndale,translateditliterallyasthefaithof
Christ.InEnglish,thiswouldmostnaturallymeanChristsfaith.Wasthathow
thetranslatorsunderstoodit?Itseemsmorelikelythatthisissimplyanexample
oftheirtendencytobeover-literalintheirtranslation.CertainlylaterEnglish
commentators,suchasJohnWesleyinhisNotesontheNewTestament,
understoodthephrasetorefertoourfaithinChrist.ButWesleywas,ofcourse,
likeotherEnglishexegetes,stronglyinKluencedbyMartinLuther,anditwas
LutherwhohadbeentheKirsttomaketheobjectivemeaningabundantlyclear
bytranslatingthephrasederGlaubeanJesumChristum.Luthersdoctrinal
assumptionsarehereplaintosee.Rightlyobservingthatinallthecontexts
wherethephraseisused,PaulistalkingaboutChristiansbeliefin/faithin/trust
inChrist,hereadthissamemeaningintothephrasepi/stiv Xristou=.Butwasherighttodoso?
LuthersunderstandingofthephrasedominatedProtestantexegesisfor
thenextfourcenturies:PaulsgospelwasunderstoodtobejustiKicationbyfaith,
andpi/stiv Xristou=wasinterpretedasmeaningfaithinChrist.GodhadofferedameansofreconciliationinthedeathofhisSon,andallthatwasrequiredofmen
andwomenwasfaith.WhenPaulusesthephrase e0k/dia_ pi/stewv Xristou=,therefore,itistoemphasizethecontrastbetweentherighteousnessimputedto
menandwomenonthebasisoffaithwiththepseudo-righteousnesswhichrelies
ontheworksofthelaw.Catholiccommentators,too,seemtohaveinterpreted
thephraseinasimilarway,thoughtheirmotivesarelessobvious;probablythey
werefollowingtradition,orthought,likeAquinas,thatitwasinappropriateto
attributefaithtoChrist.
13Augustine,Despirituetlittera9(CSEL60,167);StAugustine:OntheSpiritandtheLetter,trans.
W.J.SparrowSimpson,London:SPC,1925,15.
14Aquinas,SummaTheologiae3a,q.7,a.3.
8/22/2019 Another Look at Pistis Christou
5/17
5
ChallengestotheTradition
Aninterestingexceptiontothecommonviewwasexpressedbythe
EnglishpoetSamuelTaylorColeridge,atthebeginningoftheeighteenthcentury.InarecentarticleJ.GeraldJanzenhasdrawnattentiontoColeridgesannotation
onChristianwriters,inwhichhereferstoChristsfaith.15Janzendescribeshim
asasolidBritishantecedent16tomyownviews,sinceincommentingonsaving
faithColeridgewritesthateventhisFaith(seeGal.2:20)isnotoursbuttheFaith
oftheSonofGodinus.17PerhapsbecauseColeridgewascommentingonlater
ChristiantextsratherthanthePaulineepistlesthemselves,however,Ihavenot
seenhisinterpretationreferredtoelsewhere.
ItseemstohavebeenJohannesHaussleiterwhosetinmotionthemodern
movementthathaschallengedthetraditionalview.In1891,hearguedthat
whenPaulwroteaboutpi/stiv I0hsou=,hewasreferringtothefaithwhichJesushimselfmaintainedinGod,eveninthefaceofcruciKixion.18Haussleiterwas
followed,amongothers,byGerhardittel,19butanalternativesolutionwas
suggestedbyAdolfDeissmann,whoproposedthatthephraserepresenteda
specialtypeofgenitive,whichmightbecalledthegenitiveoffellowship,orthe
mysticalgenitive,becauseitindicatesmysticalfellowshipwithChrist. 20We
mayperhapsbeconcernedbyDeissmannsappealheretoaspecialtypeof
genitivealthoughgrammariansdosuggestfarmoreoptionsthanthesimple
objectiveandsubjectivegenitives.Whatisworthyofnote,however,isKirstly,
thatDeissmannisthinkingintermsoffellowshipwiththespiritualChrist,and
notofthefaithoftheearthlyJesus;21secondly,thatheapproachestheproblem
withtheconvictionthatforPaul,faithisfaithinChrist,thatistosay,faithis
somethingwhichisaccomplishedinunionoflifewiththespiritualChrist.22Itis
15J.GeraldJanzen,ColeridgeandPistisChristou,Exp.Tim.107(1996),pp.265-8.
16Ibid.p.268
17Ibid.p.266.
18J.Haussleiter,DerGlaubeJesuChristiundderchristlicheGlaube:EinBeitragzurEklrungdes
Rmerbriefes,Erlangen:Deichert,1891.
19G.ittel,Pi/stiv I0hsou= Xristou=beiPaulus,TSK79(1906),pp.419-36.NZK2(1891).(Ihavebeenunabletoviewthispersonally.)
20AdolfDeissmann,Paul:AStudyinSocialandReligiousHistory,London:Hodder&Stoughton,
1926(ETof2nd.Germanedn.),pp.162f.
21Contrastittel,op.cit.p.426.
22Op.cit.p.262.
8/22/2019 Another Look at Pistis Christou
6/17
6
thisconvictionthatdetermineshisexegesis,anditisanideathatwillbetakenup
bylatercommentators.
Thenotionthatpi/stiv Xristou=shouldbeunderstoodasasubjective
genitivere-emergedintheEnglish-speakingworldinthe1950s.A.G.Hebert23
andThomasTorrance24bothappealedtotheequivalencebetweentheHebrew
hnwm andtheGreekpi/stiv,andsointerpretedpi/stiv Xristou=asthe
faithfulnessofGodmanifestedinChristshumanfaithfulness.Torrances
interpretationwasbuiltonthatofarlBarth,whohadunderstooddia_ pi/stewv
I0hsou= Xristou=tomeanthroughGodsfaithfulnessinJesusChrist. 25ButHebertsandTorrancesargumentsweredemolishedbyJamesBarr, 26who
attackedtheirassumptionthatpi/stiv wouldconveyafundamentallyHebrew
meaning.Othersrejectedtheirinterpretationfordifferentreasons.Professor
CharlieMoule,mypredecessoratCambridge,e.g.,protestedthatitreducedPaulsemphasisonhumanresponsetoGodsactioninChrist.27Butonemightwith
morejustiKicationprotestthattounderstandpi/stiv Xristou=asourfaithin
ChristreducesemphasisontheactionofGoditself!If,e.g.,wetranslateGal.2:16
asweknowthatapersonisjustiKied,notbytheworksofthelawbutbyfaithin
JesusChrist;andwehavecometobelieveinChristJesus,sothatwemightbe
justiKiedbyfaithinChrist,wehavenofewerthanthreereferencestoourfaithin
Christ,andnoneatalltowhatGodhasdone!IsMoulesobjectionnotacaseof
thetailwaggingthedogthedoctrineofjustiKicationbyfaithdeterminingthe
exegesisofthetext?
OnescholarwhodidadvocatethemeaningthefaithofChristatlength
wasPierreVallotton,whosebookLeFoideChrist28seemstohavemadelittle
impactonthescholarlyworld.Iwasinterestedtodiscoverthatthecopyofhis
bookwhichIconsultedintheCambridgeUniversityLibraryhadclearlyonce
belongedtoCharlieMoule,sincethemarginsarefullofindignantcommentsand
protestsinCharliesownunmistakeablehand.
23FaithfulnessandFaith,Theology58(1955),pp.373-9.
24OneAspectoftheBiblicalConceptionofFaith,ExpTim68(1957),pp.111-14.
25arlBarth,TheEpistletotheRomans,ETE.C.Hoskyns,Oxford:OUP,inloc.
26JamesBarr,TheSemanticsofBiblicalLanguage,Oxford:OUP1961,pp.161-205.
27TheBiblicalConceptionofFaith,Exp.Tim68(1957),p.157.
28P.Valloton,LeChristetlafoi:Etudedethologiebiblique,Geneva:Labor&Fides,1961.
8/22/2019 Another Look at Pistis Christou
7/17
7
Attheendofthetwentiethcentury,thecentreofdiscussionmovedtothe
UnitedStates,withscholarssuchasGeorgeHoward29andLukeTimothy
Johnson30arguingforthesubjectivegenitive,butitwasRichardHayswho
arguedthecasemostforciblyinhisdoctoraldissertation,31andwhohasbeenits
championeverysince.HisthesisasawholedealtwithTheNarrativeSubstructureofGalatians3:14:11,anddemonstratedtheimportanceof
interpretingthephraseinthecontextofPaulsargument,notinisolation.Hays
bookledtoaKlurryofarticles,andtothedebateatthe1991SBLmeeting,at
whichHaysconfrontedJ.Dunn,astaunchsupporterofthetraditionalLutheran
view.Butthatdebatebynomeanssettledthematter,andproponentsofboth
viewscontinuetoarguetheircaseswithvigour.Thepublicationofacollectionof
17newessaysentitledTheFaithofJesusChrist:Exegetical,Biblical,and
TheologicalStudies32twoyearsagodemonstratesthecontinuinginterestinthe
topic.
AWayForward?
Isthereawayforward?IfbythatwemeanWilleveryonecometoa
commonmindonthismatter?theanswermustclearlybeNo!Nevertheless,
fashionsinNewTestamentinterpretation,asineverythingelse,dochange,andit
iscertainlytruethatthereismoresympathywiththeso-calledsubjective
explanationthantherewas50yearsago,whenCharlieMoulewasmakinghis
indignantannotationstoVallottonsbook.Why?Isitsimplyduetothebrilliance
ofargumentsbroughtforwardinitssupportargumentsthathavepersuaded
manyofitstruth?Butequallybrilliantargumentshavebeenmadeonthe
oppositeside.Orisitperhapsbecauseotherchangeshavetakenplace?Itseems
tomethatitismorelikelytobeduetothelatter,andinparticulartofour
changingemphases:(1)thestressonrighteousnessasbelongingtoGod;
(2)therealizationthatmuchofPaulsargumentconcernsGodsdealingswith
IsraelandtheGentilesratherthanthesalvationofindividuals;(3)thegrowing
recognitionoftheimportanceforPauloftheideaofparticipationinChrist;
(4)therecognitionthatforPaulthehumanityofChristisessentialbothtohis
Christologyandtohissoteriology.
Insearchingforawayforward,weshouldperhapsbeginbyanalysing
whatwemeanorratherwhatPaulmeantbythewordpi/stiv.Accordingto
29GeorgeF.Howard,TheFaithofChrist,ExpTim,85,1973,pp.212-15;FaithofChrist,ADB2,
pp.758-60.
30Romans3:21-26andtheFaithofJesus, CBQ44(1982),pp.77-90.
31Seen.7.
32Seen.3.
8/22/2019 Another Look at Pistis Christou
8/17
8
LiddellandScott,theprimarymeaningofthenounistrustinothersorfaith,
andsotrustworthiness,thesecondthatwhichgivesconKidence,hence
assuranceorproof.Arndt-Gingrich,ontheotherhand,listKirstthatwhich
causestrustandfaithi.e.faithfulness,orproofandthentheactivesenseof
trust,conKidence,faithin,thereasonbeing,nodoubt,thatitisGodsfaithfulnessthatisseenasbeingofprimaryimportance.WhenPaulusesthewordpi/stivofGod,thenitclearlyindicatesGodstrustworthinessorfaithfulness.Ifweaskto
whatishefaithful?thentheanswermustbetohimselfi.e.,tohisownnature.
ButwhenthewordisusedofChristians,thentheprimarymeaningofthewordis
faithortrust.Inthissense,thewordindicatesarelationship:Christianshave
faithinGodorinChrist.TheLexicasdifferentdeKinitionsreKlectwhatisinfacta
hen-and-eggsituation.Ourtrust/faithisfoundedinthetrustworthiness/
faithfulnessofGod,butthosewhotrustinhimbecomelikehim,trustworthyin
theirturn.Paulmakesuseofthisideain2Cor.1:15-22,whereheappealstothe
faithfulnessofGodinordertodefendhimselffromaccusationsthathehimselfis
untrustworthy.33BothasamemberofGodsholypeoplenolongerbecausehe
isaJew,butbecause,liketheCorinthians,heisinChristandasanapostle(2
Cor.1:1f.),PauliscalledtobeholyasGodisholy(Lev.11:45).Itisnowonder,
then,thathereKlectsthefaithfulnessofGodhimself.
Thephrasepi/stiv Xristou=isthusdoublyambiguous.Notonlyareweconfrontedbyachoicebetweenthesubjectiveandtheobjectivegenitiveor
whateverotherkindoflabelwedecidetousebut,ifwechoosethesubjective
genitive,weagainhavetwopossibletranslations.MightPaulbespeakingofthe
faithofChristorofhisfaithfulness?Theformeremphasizeshishumanitysince
asman,hetrustedinGodwhilethelattercanbeunderstoodasasharinginthe
natureofGod.Butonceagain,thismaybeafalsedichotomy,sincethechoice
whichconfrontsusmayhavebeenforcedonusbecauseoftheproblemof
translatingfromonelanguagetoanother.CouldPaulperhapsbereferringboth
toChristsfaith/trustinGodandtohisfaithfulness/trustworthiness?IfChrist
wasasPaulclaimstheonewhowasallthatAdamwasnot,thenwewould
expecthimnotonlytotrustcompletelyinGod,butalsotoreKlectGods
trustworthiness.Forif,asPaulclaims,ChristwasthetrueAdam,thenthiswasbecausehewastheimageofGod,asheexpressesitin2Cor.4:4,andreKlected
theglorythenatureofGod.
PaulsArgumentinRomans
Theprecisemeaningofaphrasecanbeunderstood,however,onlywhen
welookatthecontextinwhichitisfound.RichardHayssub-titledhisbookThe
33
MornaD.Hooker,Pi/stiv Xristou=,NTS35,1989,pp.321-42,atpp.334f.,reprintedinFromAdamtoChrist,Cambridge:CUP,1990,pp.165-86,atpp.117f.
8/22/2019 Another Look at Pistis Christou
9/17
9
NarrativeSubstructureofGalatians3:14:11.Romans,too,hasanarrative
substructure,buttheepistleisprimarilyanargument,andweneedtotraceitif
wearetounderstandourphrase.Thebooksthemeisthegospel(orgood
news)ofGod,goodnewswhichwasannouncedbeforehandinthescriptures,
andwhichconcernsGodsSon,whowasthephysicaldescendantofDavid,butwhowasproclaimedSonofGodinpowerbytheresurrectionofthedead(1:1-4).
InwhatfollowsPaulsetsouthisunderstandingofthisgospel,andhowitisthat
itisintendedforGentilesaswellasJews,andintherestofthispaperIwilllook
athowthatargumentmaythrowlightonourproblem.
PaulKirstsetsouthisownmission:itistobringabouttheobedienceof
faithamongalltheGentiles.Onceagain,wehaveaphrasethatcanbetranslated
inmanyways,andithasbeensuggestedthatthewordsfaithandobedience
aresynonymous.34CertainlyitseemsthatthereisforPaulacloselinkbetween
thetwo,andthiscorrespondswiththeJewishconvictionthatGodhadcalled
Israeltotrust/havefaithinhimastheironlyGod,andtoobeyhislawinother
words,whatE.P.Sandersfamouslydescribedascovenantalnomism.Pauls
expressionobedienceoffaithneatlysumsupthisidea,buthintsalsoata
contrastbetweenanobediencethatisgroundedinfaith,andonethatisdeKined
bytheLaw.Attheendoftheletter,Paulagainspeaksofhisworkinwinning
obediencefromtheGentiles,35thusframingtheepistlewithstatements
regardinghismission.PaulsmissionincludestheChristiansinRome,sincethey,
too,areapparentlyGentiles (1:6)Gentileswhohavebeencalledtobelongto
JesusChrist,andthereforecalledalsotobesaints(v.7).Thismeansthat,like
Israelofold,theyhavebeencalledtobeholyasGodisholy,membersofGods
peopleallthisbyvirtueofthefactthattheybelongtoJesusChrist.
Inv.9Paulrefersonceagaintothefactthatthegospelhepreachesis
aboutGodsSon.ThisisthethirdtimethatPaulhasspokenofChristasGods
Son,suggestingthatitisakeyterminhisargument.
Vv.16-17bringusanotherdeKinitionofthegospel.Itis,wenowlearn,the
powerofGodtosalvationforallwhobelievefortheJewsKirst,andthenGreekssinceinit,therighteousnessofGodisrevealed.Othershavepointedoutthat
PaulslanguagehereechoesthatofPsalm98,whichspeaksofGodmaking
knownhissalvationinthesightofthenationsandrevealinghisrighteousnessto
34See,e.g.,C.E.B.CranKield,Romans,I,pp.66f.
35Rom.15:18.Seealso16:26,whichusesthephrasetheobedienceoffaith,thoughtheKinal
threeversesmaybealateradditiontotheletter.
8/22/2019 Another Look at Pistis Christou
10/17
10
thehouseofIsrael36thoughaccordingtoPaulsgospel,salvationisnolonger
conKinedtothehouseofIsrael.ThereseemtobeclearechoesoftheLXXinthe
wordsswthri/a,dikaiosu/nh,and a0pokalu/ptetai.Whathasnotbeenpointedout,however,isthatthePsalmistgoesontosaythatGodhasrememberedhis
steadfastloveandhisfaithfulnesstoIsrael;theLXXtranslatesthesetermswithe1leov anda0lhqei/a, mercyandtruth,buttheHebrewusesdsx and hnwm .Is
PaulrememberingtheHebrewhere?Ifso,thiscouldperhapsexplainwhyhe
goesontosaythatGodsrighteousnessisrevealede0k pi/stewv,sogivinghima
linktoHab.2:4.Godhasrememberedhisfaithfulness,andtherevelationofhis
dikaiosu/nh springsfromhis pi/stiv. AswereadonthroughRomans,weKindthatGodsfaithfulnessisoneofPaulsthemes:thegospelisthedemonstrationof
Godsfaithfulnesstohispromises(1:2).
Itwouldseem,then,thatthephrase e0k pi/stewv inRom.1:17areferstoGodsfaithfulness.Butwhoisitwhomakestheansweringresponseoffaith
referredtointhephraseei0v pi/stin?IsitChrist,orChristianbelievers?Orisitperhapsboth?PaulhelpfullyexplainshismeaningbyquotingHab.2:4,but
succeedsonlyinleavingthecommentatorsmoreconfused.BecauseGodreveals
hisdikaiosu/nh,springingfromhisownfaithfulness,tothosewhohavefaith,theonewhoisrighteous,onthebasisoffaith,willlive.Butwhoisthisrighteous
one?Onceagain,itcouldbeeitherChristortheChristian.Andtowhosefaith(or
faithfulness)doesthisuseofthephrasee0k pi/stewvrefer?SincetheHabakkuk
quotationpicksupthephrasethatPaulhasjustused,wewouldexpecthimtobeinterpretingitastheLXXcertainlydoestomeanGodsfaithfulness.Ifso,then
therighteousonelivesbecauseofGodsfaithfulness.OrdoesPaulunderstandit
torefertothefaith/trustwhichtherighteousonehasinGod?Ifso,thenPaul
couldbethinkingeitherofChristortheChristian.ButwehavenotyetKinished
withthepossiblepermutations,sincethephrasee0k pi/stewvcanbetakeneither
witho9 di/kaiovorwithzh/setai.IsPaulinterpretingHabakkuktomeanthattheonewhoisrighteousbyfaithwilllive?Orthattheonewhoisrighteouswilllive
byfaith?
Onceagain,onewonderswhetherthevarietyofmeaningsisnotaclueto
theanswertoourproblem.Dowehavetochoosebetweenthem?First,doese0kpi/stewvbelongtoo9 di/kaiovortozh/setai?Lateron,Paulspellsoutthefactthat
righteousnessleadstolife(Rom.5:17,21).Indeed,socloseistherelationship
betweenthemthatinv.18heusestheexpression dikai/wsiv zwh=v.Theunusualworddikai/wsivoccurselsewhereonlyin4:25,whereChristsresurrection
36MostrecentlyDouglasA.Campbell,AnEchoofScriptureinPaulanditsImplications,pp.
367-91inTheWordLeapstheGap:EssaysonScriptureandTheologyinHonorofRichardB.Hays,
edd.J.RossWagner,C.avinRowe,andA.atherineGrieb,GrandRapids,Mich./Cambridge,U:Eerdmans,2008.TheechoisnotedalreadybyNA 26.
8/22/2019 Another Look at Pistis Christou
11/17
11
meansthatwearemaderighteous.FaithintheonewhoraisedJesustolifeleads
toourbeing-made-righteous(4:25),andnow(5:18),ourbeingmaderighteous
leadstolifealifewhich,asPaulexplainsinGal.2:20,islivedbyfaithinChrist,
i.e.byunionwithhim.Iftherelationshipbetweenrighteousness,faith,andlifeis
soclose,isitpossiblethatPaulisheredeliberatelyleavingbothpossibilitiesopen,andthatthephrasee0k pi/stewvcanrefereithertoo9 di/kaiovortozh/setai?
Secondly,ifrighteousnessisrevealedfromfaithtofaith,asPaulclaimsin
v.17a,thentherighteousonewillcertainlylivebecauseof Godsfaithfulness.But
Paulisgoingtogoontoshowhow, truetohispromises,Godrightwisesthose
whohavefaith.Sotheirfaith,too,isimportant!IfweweretoaskPaul,then,to
whosefaithfulness/faithdoesthee0k pi/stewvofHab.2:4referthatofGodorofthebelieverhemighthavewellrepliedboth!AndwhatofChrist?Dowenot
expect,inthissummaryoftheGospel,somereferencetohim?AsweshallKind
whenweturnto3:21-6,GodsrighteousnesswasmadeplainthroughChrist.In
1:17b,then,isPaulperhapsthinkingofChristsfaith/faithfulness?Andifso,ishe
theninterpretingHab.2:4asamessianictext,assomehaveclaimed?37Itisnot
modernexegetesalonewhoreadtextsinthelightoftheirbeliefs!Paulcertainly
didso,andhemaywellhaveinterpretedtheRighteousOneasamessianic
title.38ChristisreferredtoastheRighteousOnebyLuke,39andPaulhimself
wouldcertainlyhavethoughtofChristasrighteous,sinceheisthesourceof
righteousnessforothersanideaexpressedvividlyin1Cor.1:30,whereheis
describedasrighteousness,andin2Cor.5:23,wherePaultellstheCorinthians
thatinChristwebecometherighteousnessofGod.InRom.3:10,Paulconcludes
hislengthyindictmentofJewsandGentileswiththestatementthatthereisnone
righteousnonotone,andinthesubsequentcontrastbetweenAdamandChrist,
itisthroughAdamsdisobediencethatmanyarecondemned,throughChrists
obediencethatthemanyaremaderighteous(5:19)andsoKindlife(v.21).
Christisthesourceofrighteousnessforthemany.
Howisthisachieved?TheanswerliesinPaulsimportantopeningsalvo
tohisargumentinchapter6:Doyounotknowthatyouhavebeenbaptizedinto
Christsdeath?HisquestionispromptedbytheludicrousnotionthatChristiansshouldsininordertoallowGodtoshowthemevenmoregrace.ForPaul,the
ideaisabsurd,becauseChristianshavediedtoonewayoflifeandbeenraisedto
anotherinChrist.BecausehediedtosinandlivestoGod,theytooshouldbe
deadtosinandalivetoGod(vv.10ff.),sincebydyingandrisingwithChristthey
37See,e.g.,AnthonyTyrrellHanson, StudiesinPaulsTechniqueandTheology,London:SPC,
1974,pp.40-45;DouglasA.Campbell,Romans1:17ACruxInterpretumforthePISTISXRISTOUDebate,JBL113,1994,pp.265-85.
381Enoch38:2;53:6.Thedateofthissectionof1EnochisnotoriouslydifKiculttoestablish.
39Acts3:14;7:52;22:14.SeealsoJames5:16.
8/22/2019 Another Look at Pistis Christou
12/17
12
arenolongerinAdambutinChrist.Theymustthereforenowpresent
themselvestoGodasinstrumentsofrighteousness.Whatthismeansis
explainedinv.16:Dontyouknowthatifyoupresentyourselvestosomeoneas
slavestoobeyhim,youareslavesoftheonewhomyouobey?Thequestion
seemstautologous,butitisclearlydesignedtoemphasizethepoint.Paulnowexplainsthatonecaneitherbeaslaveofsinwhichleadstodeathorof
obediencewhichleadstorighteousness.Thisthirduseofobey/obedienceis
extraordinary.ThechoiceweexpectPaultooffertheRomansisbetweenbeing
slavesofsinorofrighteousnessleadingtolife.Instead,theoppositeofsinis
notrighteousness,butobedience!Why?Onceagain,Paulspurposemaybeto
emphasizehispoint,whichishammeredhomeinthenextverse:You,whowere
onceslavesofsin,havebecomeobedientfromthehearttotheformofteaching
deliveredtoyou;havingbeenfreedfromsin,youhavebecomeslavesof
righteousness.Thefollowingversesthendrawthecontrastweexpect.Sinleads
todeath,butrighteousnesstolife.
Fourreferencestoobedienceintwoversescanhardlybeaccidental.They
appeartobepickingupwhatPaulsaidin5:19aboutChristsobediencethe
obediencethatmademanyrighteous.NowwerealizethatChristianssharenot
onlyChristsrighteousnessbuthisobedienceorshoulddo!Thosewhodieand
risewithhimmustpresentthemselvestoGodasslavesofrighteousnessinstead
ofsinandthatmeansbeingobedienttoobedience.TobeinChristmeans
beingobedientashewasobedient.Wenoticethatthesamelinkoccursin
Philippians2,wherethefamousChrist-passageinvv.6-11,inwhichPaul
remindshisreadershowChristwasobedienttodeath,isfollowedinv.12bythe
words:Therefore,mybeloved,asyouhavealwaysobeyedmeworkoutyour
ownsalvationwithfearandtrembling,foritisGodwhoisatworkinyou.In
obeyingPaul,theyareofcourseobeyingChrist,sinceinPaultheyhavean
exampleofwhatitmeanstoliveinconformitytothecrossofChrist(3:17f.).
PaulsargumentinRomans56usestheideaofobedienceratherthan
faith,butitisclearthatthelanguageofobedienceandfaithoverlap:both
wordsexpressourrelationshiptoGod,andbothleadtorighteousness.Paulsemphasisonobedienceherealsopicksupwhathesaidintheopeningversesof
theepistle,wherehedeKinedhismissionasbeingtobringabouttheobedience
offaithamongallthenations.ThisobedienceoffaithwaspreciselywhatGod
hadrequiredofIsrael,whomhehadoriginallycalledtobehisholypeople,and
whatthatentailedhadbeensetoutintheLaw.Now,however,itisthosewhoare
inChristwhoareobedientasChristwasobedient,andwhopresentthemselves
torighteousnessforsanctiKicationasGodsholypeople.Godsrighteousnesshas
beenmademanifestapartfromlaw,tothosewhohavebeenbaptizedintoChrist
andwhobelongtohim.Itistimetoturnto3:21-6,wherethecrucialphrasepi/stiv Xristou=occurs.
8/22/2019 Another Look at Pistis Christou
13/17
13
Romans3:21-6
TheKirstthingtonoteisthat3:21picksupthestatementin1:17thatthe
gospelconcernstherevelationofGods dikaiosu/nh.Theinterveningverseshavespeltoutthefailureofall,JewandGreekalike,toworshipandobeyGod.Israelhasprovedunfaithful,butGodhimselfhasremainedfaithful(3:2),andmans
unrighteousnesshasservedtodemonstrateGodsrighteousness.Nooneis
righteous(3:10),andthelawhasservedonlytomakethisplain.ButnowGods
dikaiosu/nhhasbeenmadeknownapartfromlaw,thoughbothlawandprophetsbearwitnesstoitasPaulindeedafKirmedinthelettersopeningsentence.It
hasbeenmadeknown,Paulnowexplains,dia_ pi/stewv I0hsou= Xristou= ei0v pa/
ntav tou_v pisteu/ontav.ThelastfewwordsclearlyrefertoChristians:itistheywhotrust/believe;butwhatdoesPaulmeanbythephrase dia_ pi/stewv I0hsou=
Xristou=?WeexpectPaultotellushere howGodsrighteousnessisrevealed,andthisphraseseemstoprovidetheexplanation.Fromthesummaryofthegospelin
1:2-4,andthosestilltocomein4:24f.,and5:6-11,theanswerisplain:hehas
actedinChrist.ThissuggeststhatPaulisreferringheretoChristsownpi/stiv,
ratherthanthatofbelievers.GodsrighteousnessisrevealedthroughChrist
himself,notinourresponsetohim.PistisChristou,suggestsLouMartyn,arises
inPaulsvocabularyashiswayofreKlectingthetraditionsreferencetoChrists
deedofrectiKication.40Andifweaskwhyheshouldusethephraseinthis
particularcontext,theanswermustbebecausehere,asinGalatians23and
Philippians3,hisconcernistoshowhowGodsrighteousnessisrevealedapart
fromthelaw,inChrist.Thecontrastbetweenarighteousnessbasedontheworks
ofthelawandonebasedonfaithrequiresareferencetowhat Godhasdone.And
whatthelawwasunabletodohasbeenachievedthroughGodsendinghisSon
(8:3).Wearesaved,notbyfaith,butbygrace throughfaith.Thatfaithbelongs
primarilytoChrist,butitcanbesharedbythosewhoareinhim.Thatiswhythe
righteousnessgiventothosewhoareinChrist(8:1)depends,asHab.2:4and
Gen15:6(quotedin4:3)makeclear,onfaith.
SoifPaulisreferringin3:21-6toChristspi/stiv,isittohisfaithinGodortohisfaithfulness?LetusturnbackoncemoretoRom.5:12-21.HerePauldoes
notsimplycompareAdamandChrist,butcontraststhem,sincethecontest
betweenAdamandChristisnotanequalone.Inv.15heafKirmsthatwhattook
placeinChristwasnotlikewhathappenedinAdam,becauseinChristweseethe
graceofGodandthegiftingraceoftheonemanJesusChrist.Inv.16herepeats
this:thegiftcannotbecomparedwithwhathappenedthroughAdam,because
theactofgraceledtoacquittal.Andinv.17hesaysvirtuallythesamething!
Paulssyntaxisconfused,buthismeaningisplain:theresultofonemans
40J.LouisMartyn,Galatians,AnchorBible,NewYork:Doubleday,1997,pp.270f.
8/22/2019 Another Look at Pistis Christou
14/17
14
trespasswasthatdeathruledbecauseofthatoneman;howmuchmore
momentous,then,arethegraceandthegiftofrighteousnesswhichleadtolifefor
thosewhoreceivethemthroughtheonemanJesusChrist.Threetimesover,Paul
emphasizesthatwhathashappenedconcernstheactionofGod,inandthrough
Christ.
InRom.5:15-17,then,theonemanChristispitchedagainsttheoneman
Adam,anditisessentialforPaulsargumentthatChristisfullyhuman.Butat
thesametime,hemakesitabundantlyclearthat,tousethelanguageof2Cor.
5:19,GodwasatworkinChrist,reconcilingtheworldtohimself.Inbeing
obedient,Christwasallthatmanshouldbe,butatthesametimeGodhimselfwas
clearlyatwork.ItisnoaccidentthatimmediatelybeforetheAdam/Christ
passageinRom.5:12-21,PaulremindshisreadersthatGodslovetousisseenin
thefactthatChristdiedforus.HavingbeenjustiKiedbyhisdeath,wecanbe
conKidentthatwewillbesavedthroughChristfromwrath;havingbeen
reconciledtoGodthroughthedeathofhisSon,wecanbeconKidentthatwewill
besavedbyhislife.Thelanguagepointsforward,ofcourse,tothatofchapter6.
Itisnotsimplybyhisdeathandresurrectionthatwearereconciledandsaved
butinthem,bysharinginhisdeathandresurrection.
SoisChristspi/stiv in3:22hisfaithinGodorasharinginthefaithful-
nessofGod?Romans5suggeststhattheanswermaybeboth.Thelogicof3:22
requiresustosupposethathere,too,PaulisthinkingofGodsactioninChrist,
andinv.24hespellsoutwhatthisactionis.GodsetforthChristJesusasa
i9lasth/rionamercyseatthroughfaith/faithfulness,byhisdeath.Thephrase
byhisdeathe0n tw?= au0tou= ai3mati willbepickedupin5:9.Butwhatdoesthephrasedia_ pi/stewj heremean?Thistime,thereisnoreferencetoeitherChrist
ortothebeliever,butIaminclinedtoagreewiththosewhohavearguedthatthe
strangeorderofwordssuggeststhatPaulmustbethinkingonceagainofthepi/stivofChrist.41OurredemptionwasachievedboththroughtheactionofGod
andthroughChriststrustinhim.Theparagraphisroundedoffwithyetanother
useofthephrase,butthistimeitreferstothefaithofJesusratherthanthatof
Christ,42whichsuggeststhatPaulisreferringheretohisfaithratherthanours.43
AnotherechoofpreviouschaptersisthereferenceinRom.5:10toJesus
asGodsSon.Pauldoesnotusethistermoften,butwhenhedoes,itseemstobe
important.WehavenotedalreadythatitoccursthreetimesintheKirst9verses
oftheepistle.ItwillrecuragainKivetimesinchapter8.Andhere,in5:10,we
41E.gTimothyLukeJohnson,op.cit.,atpp.79f.
42
AfewmssandversionsreadI0hsou= Xristou=,buttheevidenceforthisreadingisveryweak.
43Cf.TimothyLukeJohnson,op.cit.,atp80.
8/22/2019 Another Look at Pistis Christou
15/17
15
Kinditinwhatisessentiallyasummaryofthegospelasummarythatreminds
usofwhyChristwasuniquelyqualiKiedtobetheonewhodealtwiththe
aftermathofAdamssin.Todescribesomeoneasthesonofso-and-sowasto
arguethathehadthecharacteristicsofso-and-so.Tobeatruesonmeantnot
onlytobeobedienttoonesfather,buttobefullyinaccordwithonesfatherswillandpurposes.Suchasonwouldtrusthisfatherandprovetrustworthy.
ForPaul,thegospelorgoodnewsconcernsGodsSon,whowasSonof
DavidaccordingtotheKlesh,andwasdeclaredtobeSonofGodaccordingtothe
Spiritofholinessbytheresurrectionfromthedead,1:3f.In5:10,hespellsout
whatthisgoodnewsmeansforus:ifwewerereconciledtoGodthroughthe
deathofhisSonwhenwewereenemies,howmuchmore,havingbeen
reconciled,shallwebesavedbyhislife.Andin8:3f.,heexplainsitssigniKicance
inrelationtothelaw:whatthelawcouldnotdo,becauseoftheweaknessofthe
Klesh,Godhasdone;sendinghisownSoninthelikenessofsinfulKlesh,andto
dealwithsin,hehascondemnedsinintheKlesh,inorderthattherequirementof
thelawmightbefulKilledinus,wholiveaccordingtothespirit,andnotaccording
totheKlesh.AsJanLambrechthasargued,Paulsdeclarationthatthe
requirementofthelawisfulKilledinuspicksuphisindignantdenialin3:31of
thesuggestionthatinmaintainingthatGodsrighteousnesshasbeenrevealed
apartfromlaw,dia_ pi/stewv Xristou=,hewasoverthrowingthelaw.Professor
Lambrechthassuggestedfurtherthatin8:4Pauldelicatelybalancedtwoaspects
ofobedience,i.e.,humanbehavioranddivinegrace. 44Thisdelicatebalance
betweenhumanbehaviouranddivinegraceispreciselywhat,wehaveargued,is
presentinwhatPaulsaysaboutChrist,bothinRomans5:12-21,andinthe
phrasepi/stiv Xristou=,whichconveysdivinefaithfulnessaswellasfaith.Butin
8:4,insteadofbeingseeninChrist,thisbalanceisreKlectedinthosewhoarein
Christ.GodsenthisSoninourlikeness,sharingourKlesh;buthedefeatedsin,
andenabledustoliveaccordingtotheSpirittheSpiritthatraisedhimfromthe
dead.Andso,asPaulgoesontoexplain,webecomechildrenofGod,usingthe
verynameforGodusedbyJesushimself(vv.14-17).Wearepredestinedtobe
conformedtotheimageofGodsSon,sharinghisglory(vv.29,21),becauseGod
gaveuphisownSonforus(v.32).Thosewhoareconformedtohisimagewillcertainlysharehisobedienceandhisfaith.Itisnoaccidentthatevery
occurrenceofthephrasepi/stiv Xristouisfoundinacontextwhichspeaksof
thefaithofChristians,forthroughdeathandresurrectionhisfaithbecomes
theirs.
GodhasrevealedhisrighteousnessinChrist,whobecamewhatweare
yetwithoutsinandsoenabledustobecomewhatheis.Thisthemepermeates
44JanLambrechtandRichardW.Thompson,JustiicationbyFaith:TheImplicationsofRomans
3:27-31,Wilmington,Del.:MichaelGlazier(ZacchaeusStudies:NewTestament),1989,p.70.
8/22/2019 Another Look at Pistis Christou
16/17
16
Paulsletters,andilluminesthepassageswherethephrasepi/stiv Xristou=is
used.InGal.4.4f.,hetellsusthatGodsenthisSon,bornofawoman,underthe
law,inorderthatwemightbesetfreefromthelawandbecomeGodssons.For
Paul,thismeansthathehimselfhasdiedtothelaw,andthatChristnowlivesin
him,sincehelivesbecauseofthepi/stiv Xristou=(2:20);itisnotthroughthelaw,butthroughthefaithofChrist,inwhomwehaveputourtrust,thatweare
setrightwithGod(2:16).ThepromisegivenonthebasisoffaithisfulKilledfor
thosewhoareinChristandsoAbrahamsseed(3:6-18).
InPhil.2:8,PaultellsusthatChristtookourhumanformandwas
obedienteventodeath(Phil.2:8)andhissubsequentvindicationand
exaltationmeanthatthosewholiveinhimliveinhopeofsharinghis
resurrectionandbeingconformedtohisglory(Phil.3:11,21).Why?Because
thosewhoareinChristsharetherighteousnessthatcomesthroughhispi/stiv
(Phil.3:9).ThecloselinksbetweenPhil.2:6-11andchapter3suggestthatPaul
isthinkinghereofJesusobedienttrustinGod.45InRomans,theobedienceof
GodsSonleadshimtoshareourdeath,andhissubsequentvindicationmeans
thatthosewhoareinhimsharehisresurrectionandlife(Rom.4:25;5:12-21).
Inhim,theyarecalledtoobedience,andtheirdestinyistobeconformedtothe
likenessofGodsSon,andsotobecomeGodschildren(8:29),fortheyhavebeen
calledtobelongtoJesusChristcalledtobesaints,calledtoofferthe
obedienceoffaith(Rom.1:5-7).AndallthishappensbecauseGodhasrevealed
hisrighteousnessthroughChristspi/stiv(3:21-6).
InthispaperIhavehadtimeonlytobegintheexplorationoftherelevance
ofthenotionofChristspi/stiv toPaulsargumentinRomans.NeverthelessI
have,Ihope,succeededinshowingwhyinterpretingthephrasetorefer
primarilytoChriststrustinGodKitssowellintoPaulsconvictionthatintheone
manJesusChrist,menandwomenareenabledtobecomewhatheis.But,of
course,thisinevitablydemonstrateshowaparticularinterpretationofPauls
thoughtgovernsourexegesisofthetext.
SowereLutherandhisfollowerswrong?Theywerecertainlynotwrongtoemphasizetheroleoffaith.Andaswiththeanswerstoourquestionsabout
theotherphraseswehavebrieKlyconsidered,itmaywellbethattheanswerto
thequestionDoesthisphraserefertoChristsfaithorours'?maybeBoth.
Nevertheless,thatfaith/faithfulnessisprimarilythatofChrist,andweshareinit
onlybecauseweareinhim.Althoughallthepassageswherethephrasepi/stivXristou=isusedrefertoourfaithinChrist,itwouldseemthatthisfaithis
45IexploredtheselinksinPhilippians2.611,pp.151-64inJesusundPaulus:FestschriftfrW.G.
Kmmel,edd.E.EarleEllisundErichGrsser,Gttingen1975,reprintedinMornaD.Hooker,FromAdamtoChrist,Cambridge:CUP,1990,pp.88-100.
8/22/2019 Another Look at Pistis Christou
17/17
17
possibleonlybecauseitisasharinginhis.InChrist,andthroughhim,weare
abletosharehistrustandobedience,andsobecomewhatGodcalledhispeople
tobe.