I was tempted to give this post a title something like “Nevertheless Even So Yet Again At Least Once More Pistis Christou”. But then I thought I might need that title for this post’s sequel.
Since there are many readers of this blog whose background is not in Biblical studies, I should say by way of introduction that there is a debate among scholars about whether a phrase used in Paul’s letters, usually rendered in English translations as “faith in Christ”, might not be better translated as “the faithfulness of Christ” or “the faith of Christ” or something along those lines. The phrase in Greek, πιστις Χριστου (pistis christou), is the two words “faith(fulness)” and “Christ” with the latter in the genitive. It is grammatically possible for the phrase to mean either “faith(fulness) of Christ” or “faith in Christ”, and it is partly because grammatical considerations along cannot settle the matter that discussions of the topic have been at once so interesting and so inconclusive.
There have been recent posts on the subject by NT Wrong, Ken Schenck, Mike Aubrey, Doug Chaplin, Loren Rosson, J. K. Gayle and David Ker.
Rather than try to engage the various arguments found in these other blog posts, and most likely do justice to none of them, let me simply present the best short case I can for why I think an understanding of pistis Christou as “the faithfulness of Christ” is not implausible. I am still uncertain as to whether I think it is the best rendering of the phrase.
First, there is a lot of repetition and redundancy if one renders both the expression with the preposition and the expression in the genitive as “faith in Christ”. This argument cuts both ways, since the context regularly features “faith in Christ” explicitly, and this context could be appealed to as evidence that the phrase in the genitive is merely a stylistic variation.
Let’s consider the classic example in Romans 3:21-26:
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (NIV)
It is interesting to note the interpretative decision the New International Version (quoted above) makes regarding another potentially ambiguous genitive in the passage. In good Protestant fashion, the “righteousness of God” is said to explicitly to be “a righteousness from (i.e. imputed to humans by) God” rather than God’s own justice/righteousness as a divine attribute. If one thinks the latter might be what Paul had in mind, however, then one can certainly envision Paul talking about God’s righteousness being revealed through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. If it is revealed “through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe”, there is a redundancy that could have been eliminated by merely having written “the righteousness of God revealed to all who believe in Jesus Christ” using a preposition rather than a genitive.
Earlier in Romans, in 1:17 (which the NIV translates, not unsurprisingly, as “righteousness that is by faith from first to last”), Paul uses a phrase that might be more literally rendered “from faith to faith”, and given the range of meanings of pistis the phrase could equally be translated “from (God’s/Christ’s) faithfulness to (human beings’) faith(fulness)”.
We are well before the time of Chalcedon and its formulation about Christ’s two natures. But is it possible that might have regarded Jesus as the expression of two fidelities: God’s faithfulness expressed in sending and not sparing his only Son, and human faithfulness in obedience where Adam had once disobeyed? This would tie in nicely with themes found elsewhere in Paul’s writings, such as Philippians 2:6-11 and Romans 5.
There is no doubt that Paul talks about faith in Christ. The question is whether Paul also speaks about the faith(fulness) of Christ. He certainly talks about the significance of Jesus’ obedience, so here too there is no doubt that this theme was of some importance to Paul.
Why, then, should this question of translation matter? Ultimately, the one real contribution that it might potentially make is to tell us whether Paul is really as repetitive and redundant in the way he expresses himself as some who are not fans of his writings believe, or whether perhaps, translated differently, some who are not big fans might find themselves appreciating his letters in new ways. Here’s how the NIV of the passage quoted above (from Romans 3) might be translated differently:
But now, apart from Torah, God’s justice has been made known, a justice to which the Torah and the Prophets testify. God’s justice, through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, [comes] to all who believe. For there is no distinction: all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him, through his faithfulness, as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished. He did so to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be [both] just and the justifier of those who are of Christ’s faithfulness.
It is perhaps the influence of a particular Protestant understanding of the atonement that makes the translation “faithfulness of Christ” seem implausible. Yet although some today emphasize that “Christ did it all” and “All you need to do is believe”, Paul’s own outlook is very different. He emphasized being in Christ and dying with Christ. Christ’s faithfulness, for Paul, wasn’t something that merely brought about an objective change in an external state of affairs. As Paul puts it, “one died for all, with the result that all died” (2 Corinthians 5:14). One was faithful so as to bring about the fidelity of many. The notion that Jesus died (or was faithful) instead of us is hard to reconcile with Paul’s own statements.
I’m not calling this post “Part 1” but I have a funny feeling there may need to be a “Part 2” at some point in the future…
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In