pistis christou: the "faithfulness of christ"

There are several places in Paul's letters where he uses the word pistis modified by a genitive Christou and/or Iesou (Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16; 3:22; Phil 3:9). Traditionally this phrase has been translated as "faith in Jesus Christ," indicating the faith of the believer in Jesus Christ, with Christ as the object of the "faith." However, in recent years this traditional rendering has been challenged. Various scholars have followed the lead of Richard Hays in saying that a better translation is "faithfulness of Jesus Christ," indicating Christ's own faithfulness, with Christ as the subject of the "faithfulness." This is not an insignificant phrase: it occurs in some of the most theologically important passages in Paul's writings, expressing a crucial element of Paul's soteriology. There is a significant difference, for example, between saying "a person is not justified by works of the Law but through faith in Jesus Christ" and saying "a person is not justified by works of the Law but through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ" (Gal 2:16).

Over the past few years I have become tentatively convinced of the correctness of the subjective genitive rendering of pistis Christou (i.e. "the faithfulness of Christ"). The phrase "tentatively convinced" is somewhat oxymoronic, I know, but that best expresses my thoughts on a matter that demands a solution but for which a solution is not at all clearcut. Here are the key reasons why I have become "tentatively convinced" of this view, moving from basic lexical and grammatical factors through to more advanced exegetical ones.

• The word pistis can mean either "faith" or "faithfulness." No one would dispute this. Both renderings are found in the standard lexicons and are reflected in the relevant primary sources. Modern English in its Western intellectual heritage tends to separate these ideas in its word usage. "Faith" typically emphasizes an inner disposition toward something or someone, whether as acknowledgment of the truth of an idea (cf. "belief") or as reliance upon a person in some way (cf. "trust"). "Faithfulness" typically emphasizes a personal quality expressed in a characteristic set of outward actions (cf. "fidelity," "reliability," "trustworthiness"). While "faith" can have outward manifestations, the focus is on the inner disposition; while "faithfulness" speaks of an inner quality, this is only as expressed in characteristic outward actions. But the Greek word pistis can mean either of these - or perhaps even both simultaneously.
  


• A genitive noun modifying a verbal head noun can be either objective (semantically the object of the action implicit in the head noun) or subjective (semantically the subject of the action implicit in the head noun). Once again, no one would dispute this. The standard Greek grammars all acknowledge such objective and subjective genitives, and pistis is certainly such a "verbal noun," a noun that is related to a verb (pisteuō) and carries the verbal idea within it even as it functions as a noun. Thus, in light of this and the previous point, it is perfectly possible for pistis Christou to be rendered either "faith in Christ" (objective genitive) or "faithfulness of Christ" (subjective genitive). General usage and specific context - not basic lexical meaning or grammar - must decide between these options in each instance.
  


• The broader usage of pistis modified by a personal genitive noun in early Christian literature is somewhat mixed, but in my view slightly favours the subjective genitive view ("faithfulness of Christ"). Sometimes such constructions are clearly subjective genitives (e.g. "faithfulness of God" in Rom 3:3); sometimes such constructions are clearly objective genitives (e.g. "faith in God" in Mark 11:22). For me, what tips the balance in favour of the subjective genitive view is its usage by Paul: several clear, undisputed uses of this sort of construction in Paul's writings are subjective genitives, even appearing in the surrounding contexts of the disputed pistis Christou uses (e.g. "God's faithfulness" in Rom 3:3; "Abraham's faith" in Rom 4:12, 16). Furthermore, in terms of broader usage it's worth noting that Paul often uses other sorts of constructions to refer to believers' faith, especially the verb pisteuō, occasionally with an epi phrase to indicate the object of faith (e.g. Rom 4:5, 24).
  


• The specific contexts of each of Paul's pistis Christou phrases include ideas which could support either the subjective or objective genitive view, but in my view these contexts slightly favour the subjective genitive view ("faithfulness of Christ"). Let's take Romans 3 as an example. In apparent support of the objective genitive view ("faith in Christ"), Romans 3:22 describes the righteousness of God as for all "believers" (tous pisteuontas), indicating the faith which characterizes all who receive this divine righteousness, and the explanatory expansion of Romans 4 highlights Abraham's faith in God as in some sense paradigmatic for believers' faith. However, in apparent support of the subjective genitive view ("faithfulness of Christ"), the death of Christ is immediately referenced in 3:24-25, and the death and resurrection of Christ is the focus of Paul's concluding summary statement in 4:24-25. Thus, both Christ's faithfulness expressed in his suffering and death and the believer's faith in God who raised Christ from the dead are important features of the broader context, and thus both have a prima facie case for being the referent of pistis Iesou Christou in 3:22.
  
  But two points push me toward the subjective genitive view. First, apart from these disputed phrases the only clear object of believers' faith in this broader context is not Christ, but God the Father who raised Jesus from the dead. Second, the foundational statement of 3:21-22, which declares that this now-revealed "righteousness of God" is through pistis Iesou Christou, is then apparently expanded in 3:24-26, which states that Christ's atoning sacrifice in his public, bloody death is the demonstration of God's righteousness. In other words, the idea of Christ's faithfulness expressed in his suffering and death is not only present in the passage, but could be understood as a parallel expansion of the compact phrase pistis Iesou Christou. In general terms, the same sorts of factors are also at play in the Galatians and Philippians passages (cf. Gal 2:20-21; Phil 3:10-11); thus, either the subjective or objective genitive view can make good sense in each of these passages, but I see the subjective genitive view as the more compelling.
  
  One further thought on these uses in their contexts, for what it may be worth: It seems to me that this subjective genitive view removes some apparent redundancies in some of these passages. Perhaps the most noticeable is in Galatians 3:22 (but cf. also Rom 3:22 and Gal 2:16). If the phrase pistis Iesou Christou means that the promise is "by faith in Jesus Christ," it would seem to make superfluous the additional phrase "given to those who believe." If, however, the phrase means "the faithfulness of Jesus Christ," there is no apparent redundancy: the Abrahamic promise is both "by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ" and "given to those who believe."

It is for these sorts of reasons that I am "tentatively convinced" of the subjective genitive understanding of these phrases, that they refer to the "faithfulness of Jesus Christ." The matter is certainly not clearcut, but I think a better case can be made for this view than for the objective genitive view.

This issue clearly has some significant theological implications, and so it has inevitably caused quite a stir in many quarters. In some discussions there have been accusations (implicit if not explicit) of the other side placing the theological cart before the exegetical horse, when it seems to me to be just as obvious that the accuser has not seen the log in his own eye. In the midst of all this, it must be emphasized that this issue is first and foremost a historical-exegetical issue before it is a theological issue; that is, it is a matter of determining what Paul meant before it is a matter of determining the significance for Christian theology today. (The very same point can and must be made for another hot dispute today not unrelated to this one, that of the "new perspective on Paul.")

What are the theological implications of this issue? It strikes me that the implications are both as profound in some respects as some have made them out to be, yet not as profound in other respects as they are often thought. Some discussion gives the impression that we are dealing with a stark "either/or": either Paul is saying we are justified by our faith, or Paul is saying we are justified by Christ's faithfulness. But this dichotomy is a false one. Even the cursory discussion above has highlighted the reality that both elements are present in the "mechanics" of justification according to Paul, regardless of the specific referent of the phrase pistis Christou. No subjective genitive proponent could rightly claim that Paul did not expect a human response of faith in God, anymore than any objective genitive proponent would assert that Christ's faithfulness in his suffering and death is irrelevant to justification.

However, the difference between these views in the understanding of these specific verses is profound, and has some potentially profound implications for the exegesis of larger sections and other passages in Paul's writings. For example, take the contrast between "works (of the Law)" and "faith (in Christ)/faithfulness (of Christ)." If the objective genitive view ("faith in Christ") is correct, then the primary contrast Paul is making could be between human actions prescribed by the Torah ("works of the Law") and the human response of faith in Christ ("faith in Christ"). However, if the subjective genitive view ("faithfulness of Christ") is correct, then the primary contrast Paul is making could be between human actions prescribed by the Torah ("works of the Law") and the divine action of God in Christ ("faithfulness of Christ"). Granted, in either view the contrast is likely more complex than this, but this still illustrates my point: while one's position on this issue won't necessarily radically change one's soteriology - both Christ's faithfulness and our faith are still vital elements - it may well change the relative emphases one gives to these elements, and it will likely affect one's interpretation of broader sections and specific motifs in Paul's writings.

Final note: If you're anywhere near San Diego on November 16, be sure to head over to the Convention Center to hear the SBL session on this issue. That session is one major reason why I'm grieving the fact I can't be there this year...