another look at pistis christou

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


8/17

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


17/17

17

possibleonlybecauseitisasharinginhis.InChrist,andthroughhim,weare

abletosharehistrustandobedience,andsobecomewhatGodcalledhispeople

tobe.

another look at pistis christou

Documents