LUBBOCK CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

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

SUBMITTED TO DR. MICHAEL MARTIN IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF BIB4360.01

BY BRYCE 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, Christs faithfulness or even better faithfulness of Christ. However in all actuality it comes down to reading Pauls 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 Christs faith(fullness) for Gods 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 Christs 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 Christs faithfulness displayed in non-Pauline writings, it is through this evidence that the subjective reading is the logical choice.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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 1

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

"!

#!

In order to properly address the issue at hand it is important that certain terms be properly understood. From here onward )*+,*- %.*+,/0 will stand as a synonym for )*+,12- "3+/0 %.*+,/0 (Gal 2:16; 3:22; Rom 3:22), )*+,12- "3+/0 (Rom 3:26) and obviously )*+,12- %.*+,/0 (Phil 3:9; Gal 2:16); certain variations of this phrase can be found together in a single verse or appear separately. Another important question that must be addressed is: what is meant by the terms: subjective genitive and objective genitive? And finally what exactly is a genitive? According to Daniel B. Wallace the genitive case is defined in two ways: 1) the genitive limits as to kind (e.g. kingdom of God, specifying whose kingdom it is; and 2) the genitive is usually related to a noun.3 Specifically the objective and subjective genitive4 is found within the verbal genitive category where the genitive is used with head nouns expressing a verbal idea.5 Wallace defines the subjective genitive as: The genitive substantive functions semantically as the subject of the verbal idea implicit in the head noun and the objective genitive as: [t]he genitive substantive functions semantically as the direct object of the verbal idea implicit in the head noun.6 A verbal genitive occurs when the head noun has an implicit verbal idea. Wallace explains that a subjective genitive occurs in more types of constructions than the objective genitive this is because a subject can take a transitive or intransitive verb, while an object can only be object of !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3 4

Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 76.

A third category is found here, that of the plenary genitive for reasons beyond this paper it should remain as an unreasonable response to the pistis Christou debate.
5 6

Ibid., 112. Ibid., 113, 116.

$! a transitive verb.7 It is equally important to understand the lexical semantic and syntactical meanings of )*+,*- and an overview of these arguments over the past several decades. Faith in Christ has been the traditional, objective genitive interpretation of )*+,*%.*+,/0 for several centuries; however, in 1891 Johannes Haussleiter suggested the proper interpretation should be the subjective genitive, faithfulness of Christ. According to Paul Pollard several of Haussleiters arguments remain the main arguments of current subjective genitive exponents.8 The first being that of Gods righteousness is manifested by the faith of Christ and not by mans faith in Christ, second, in Romans 3:22 tautology is found if )*+,*%.*+,/0 is taken objectively, this is also the case for Gal 3:22; the third argument Haussleiter references in support of the subjective genitive is 14 )*+,12- "3+/0 in Rom 3:26 is parallel to 14 )*+,12- 56.77 in 4:16, this issue will be addressed below.9 It appears that the arguments by Haussleiter were all but ignored for nearly half a century until Gabriel Herbert and T.F. Torrance took up the cause at two different times and affirmed Haussleiters argument.10 However according to Tonstad, Herbert and Torrance relied too heavily upon an etymological usage of )*+,*-, which then came under extensive fire by James Barr.11 After Barrs critique George Howard offered support for the subjective genitive on all three grounds: grammar, semantics and theological implications.12 Howard states the use of !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
7 8 9

Ibid., 113. Paul Pollard, The Faith of Christ in Current Discussion, Concordia Journal (1997): 213-28. Ibid., 214-15. n11. Ibid., 216. Tonstad, !*+,*- %.*+,/0, 41.

10 11 12

George Howard, The Faith of Christ, ExpTim 85.7 (1974): 212-14. On the Faith of Christ, HTR 60 (1967): 459-65.

%! )*+,*- 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. Hayss 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 Pauls thought. 17 Hays spends much of the introduction of the second edition criticizing Rudolf Bultmanns theory of de-narrativiz[ing] Pauls thought world and it seems !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
13 14 15 16

Howard, The Faith of Christ, 213. Ibid.. Ibid..

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 Howards 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 Matlocks findings but criticizes Matlock by saying that his exegetical procedure is basically nothing more sophisticated than to look up the word )*+,*- in various lexiconsto see how these lexicons classify the range of Pauls 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 19

Ibid., xxvi. 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 isalmost 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 )*-,*- 328, it must contain the article.23 However, Sam K. Williams picks up on this misconception and expresses that Hultgrens 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, etca 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- 56.77. Although up until now the majority of evidence !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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 22 23 24 20

Dunn, Once More, 64 n17. Arland J. Hultgren, The PISTIS CHRISTOU Formulation in Paul, NovT 22.3 (1980): 248-63. Hultgren, Formulation, 253. 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 Pauls theology allowing one to better understand the message that Paul !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
25 26

Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 149. 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] Gods 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 gospelthis is accomplished independently of the individuals faith, if this is the case then the eschatological disclosure of Gods saving power is conditional upon the believers 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 28

NA27.

Douglas A. Campbell, Romans 1:17A Crux Interpretum for the !"#$"# %&"#$'( Debate, JBL 113/2 (1994): 265-85.
29

Campbell, Romans 1:17A 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 Gods 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 A B C =*47*/+083 =1 <1/0 =*7 )*+,2- "3+/0 %.*+,/0 1*- )78,7- ,/0- )*+,10/8,7Romans 1:17 =*47*/+083 ?7. <1/0 14 )*+,121*- )*+,*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. 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 31

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 Pauls 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 Pauls 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 Pauls 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 LXXs addition of the personal pronoun, /0, signifies that 14 )*+,12- should be understood as Gods fidelity but Paul has omitted /0 specifically to shift attention to Jesus and a Christocentric interpretation and therefore concludes that the Hebrew translation unambiguouslydesignat[es] the persons 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.;/18/(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 nonPauline texts that use The Righteous One as a synonym for Jesus.37 Campbell translates Rom !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
33 34

Hays, Pauline Christology, 42. Don Garlington, Pauls Partisan 14 and the Question of Justification in Galatians, JBL 127.3 (2008), Garlington, Partisan 14, 583 n49. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 135. Acts 3:14, 7:52, 22:14, 1 Pet 3:18; 1 John 2:1.

567-89.
35 36 37

""! 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 Pauls 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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Douglas A. Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 613.
39 40 41 42 38

Ibid.. Also 3:1-9; 4:7-16; 5:1, 15. Ibid., 614. 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 Christs faithfulness thus Campbells 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 Gods 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 Adams sin. Supporting a Christocentric interpretation of Rom 3:22 M. D. Hooker states, [m]ans 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 Christs 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 44 45

Ibid., 613. Morna D. Hooker, !"#$"# %&"#$'(, NTS 35 (1989): 321-42. 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 Pauls repeated use of everyone who clearly argues here that Gods saving purpose has broken out from Israel in Christ and now encompasses pagans as well.47 This sentiment is also further supported by Pauls 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 Christs fidelity then certainly 1*- )*+,*8 is a reference to human fidelity, therefore Campbell states the apostles use of the participle of )*+,102 in 3:22inclines fairly strongly toward the presence of God as the participles 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 Pauls 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 /0 =*47*/0,7* 78B.2)/1D 1.?28 8//0 14 )*+,12(compare) =*7 )*+,12- "C (compare) =*7 )*+,12- "C

=*47*/+083 ?7. <1/0 (compare) =*47*/+083 =1 <1/0 (contrast)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
46 47 48

Dunn, Once More, 75. Campbell, Deliverance of God, 616. Ibid., 620.

"%! 1*- )*+,*8 (compare) 1*- )78,7- ,/0- )*+,10/8,7- (compare) 1*- %.*+,/8 "3+/08 1)*+,10+718 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 humans. 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 Godand 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//0 in the Gal 2:16 passage: /0 . . . ED E.?28 8F/0 E4 )H+,12- %.H+,/0 EG8 3 =*7 )H+,12- I3+/J %.H+,/0 /K4 ED E.?28 8F/0.50

Remember that the objective genitive supporters view Pauls 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 50

Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, xlvi.

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 Gods 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 +)1.7 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 helduntil the coming of [Christ] would be revealedthe 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 persons 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 B C D B2 14 <1/0 =*47/+0838 47* 10.1B2 18 70,N 3 1;28 138 =*47*/+083 ,38 7AA7 =*7 )*+,12- %.*+,/0 1)* ,O )*+,1*52 14 8//0

In B the 3 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//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//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.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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 54 52

Robert R. Melick, Jr. Philippians, Colossians, Philemon (NAC 32; Nashville: Broadman, 1991), 133. Hooker, !"#$"# %&"#$'(, 339.

"(! Most supporters of the subjective genitive reading of )*+,*- %.*+,/0 have started to realize that if Christs 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 Christs faithfulness in the widerNT 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 Christs faithfulness (NET). Our access to God is characterized by confidence and boldness because it fully depend[s] on Christs faithfulness because his faithfulness unto death led to his resurrection and

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Paul Foster, The First Contributions to the )*+,*- %.*+,/0 Debate: A Study of Ephesians 3.12, JSNT 85 (2002): 79.
56 57 55

Dunn, Once More, 66. 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 Eph 3:12a /,* =* 70,/0 18 P 1;/18 ,38 1;/18 ,38 )./+7?2?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 Christs 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 Christs 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 59 60

Charles H. Talbert, Ephesians and Colossians, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 100. Foster, First Contributions, 89. 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 Patristics.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 62 63

Kenneth Schenck, 2 Corinthians and the !*+,*- %.*+,/0 Debate, CBQ 70 (2008): 528. Ibid., 537.

Michael F. Bird and Michael B. Whitenton, The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Hippolytuss 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 Pauls !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
66 67 68 69

Ibid., 559. Ibid., 560. See: ESV, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, TNIV, NASB. 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 Pauls )*+,*- %.*+,/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. Elizabeth Johnson and David M. Hay. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. 82-92. Bird, Michael F. and Michael B. Whitenton. The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Hippolytuss 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 Rom 1:17: 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 1:17A 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 by M.F. Bird and P. M. Sprinkle. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2009. Campbell, Douglas A. The Meaning of !"#$"# and L'M'# in Paul: A Linguistic and Structural Perspective. Journal of Biblical Literature 111.1 (1992): 91-103. Dodd, Brian. Romans 1:17--A Crux Interpretum for the Pistis Christou Debate?. Journal of Biblical Literature Dunnill, John. Saved by Whose Faith? The Function of )*+,*- ;.*+,/0 in Pauline Theology. Colloquium 30.1 (1998): 3-25. Dunn, James D. G. Once More, !"#$"# %&"#$'(. 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. Pauls Partisan 14 and the Question of Justification in Galatians. Journal of Biblical Literature 127.3 (2008): 567-89.

##!

#$! Hays, Richard B. The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:14:11. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Hays, Richard B. "!"#$"# 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. Novum Testamentum 22.3 (1980): 248-63. Lee, Jae Hyun. Against Richard B. Hayss Faith of Jesus Christ. Journal for GrecoRoman 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 Remarks from 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. Andrews University 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 Biblical Quarterly 70 (2008): 524-37. Still, Todd D. Christos as Pistos: The Faith(fulness) of Jesus in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 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. New Testament 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. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (): 17-23. Williams, Sam K. Again Pistis Christou. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (1987): 43147.