Justification by faith -> justification by Christ's faithfulness?

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

In another thread, the question was raised as to whether the following translation is correct (pertinent phrase in italics):

Ephesians 3:12 in whom we have boldness and confident access to God because of Christ's faithfulness. (NET translation)

Instead of this more usual translation:

Ephesians 3:12 In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence. (NIV; ESV, NAU, NLT are similar)

In which case, I wonder if similar readings should be made here:

Romans 3:25 ... whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through [his faithfulness].

Romans 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by [his faithfulness] apart from works of the law.

Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we are justified by [his faithfulness], we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Blessings,
Lee

[Xavier]

Lee, you might read some of the material connected with the "New Perspective of Paul". That translation is part of the on-going discussion between older (largely Luthern) perspectives and new post-liberal ones.

[lee_merrill]

Lee, you might read some of the material connected with the "New Perspective of Paul"...

Do you mean N.T. Wright? Yes, I agree that his conclusions lead to different interpretations of justification, and I also disagree with those conclusions, novice though I be.

Blessings,
Lee

[James Peter]

I would suggest that we are rectified by both our faithfulness to God and by Christ's faithfulness to God. It was Christ's act which made our faithfulness possible and, through being in him, our faithfulness is a reflection of his. In those particular passages:

Romans 3:25 "... whom God displayed publicly as a expitiation through His blood because of his faithfulness." ('through his blood' would be a euphemism by 'through his death/martyrdom)

Romans 3:28 "For we hold that one is rectified by his faithfulness apart from works of the law. (One is made righteous by Christ's faithful actions and not by keeping the Torah)

Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we are justified by [his faithfulness], we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. (This would be almost chiastic, emphasising that it is because of Christ's deeds that we are made right/given peace)

I'm not suggesting, and neither would John, that every single occurance of pistis carries the same weight but even in each of the cases you have presented an argument can be made for this reading of the phrase.

[John Reece]

I would suggest that we are rectified by both our faithfulness to God and by Christ's faithfulness to God. It was Christ's act which made our faithfulness possible and, through being in him, our faithfulness is a reflection of his. In those particular passages:

Romans 3:25 "... whom God displayed publicly as a expitiation through His blood because of his faithfulness." ('through his blood' would be a euphemism by 'through his death/martyrdom)

Romans 3:28 "For we hold that one is rectified by his faithfulness apart from works of the law. (One is made righteous by Christ's faithful actions and not by keeping the Torah)

Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we are justified by [his faithfulness], we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. (This would be almost chiastic, emphasising that it is because of Christ's deeds that we are made right/given peace)

I'm not suggesting, and neither would John, that every single occurance of pistis carries the same weight but even in each of the cases you have presented an argument can be made for this reading of the phrase.

[TheAnalogman]

I would suggest that we are rectified by both our faithfulness to God and by Christ's faithfulness to God. It was Christ's act which made our faithfulness possible and, through being in him, our faithfulness is a reflection of his. In those particular passages:

Romans 3:25 "... whom God displayed publicly as a expitiation through His blood because of his faithfulness." ('through his blood' would be a euphemism by 'through his death/martyrdom)

Romans 3:28 "For we hold that one is rectified by his faithfulness apart from works of the law. (One is made righteous by Christ's faithful actions and not by keeping the Torah)

Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we are justified by [his faithfulness], we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. (This would be almost chiastic, emphasising that it is because of Christ's deeds that we are made right/given peace)

I'm not suggesting, and neither would John, that every single occurance of pistis carries the same weight but even in each of the cases you have presented an argument can be made for this reading of the phrase.

[Xavier]

Do you mean N.T. Wright?

He would be one of them.

Yes, I agree that his conclusions lead to different interpretations of justification, and I also disagree with those conclusions, novice though I be.

Not entirely surprising. However, I do suggest reviewing his argumentation for his particular translations and seeing if that should affect your view of his conclusions...

A little less tounge in cheek, James Peter hits the nail on the head...

Yours,
Xavier

[John Reece]

To supplement James Peter’s brilliant initial response to the OP, this post will be devoted to the first of a series of excerpts from N. T. Wright’s comments in Volume X of The New Interpreters Bible (Abingdon Press, 2002).

Any discussion of Romans 3:25-28 should begin with Paul’s opening sentence in verses 21-22a.

Wright comments on the English rendering of the first two words of verse 21, “But now”. Then he says this (brackets and ellipsis added):

The paragraph thus begun […] continues with a summary statement of the revelation of God’s righteousness. The initial mention is flanked by carefully balanced statements about the Torah, and gives rise to the fuller proposition: God’s righteousness is revealed through the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah and is for the benefit of all who believe.

Throughout several paragraphs he discusses how Paul relates the revelation of God’s righteousness to the witness of the Torah and the Prophets. Then this (brackets and ellipses added):

This righteousness, this world-righting covenant faithfulness, has been revealed “through the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah.” Though the phrase could mean “through faith in Jesus the Messiah,” the entire argument of the section strongly suggests that it is Jesus’ own [greek]pistiV[/greek] (pistis) that is spoken of and that the word here means “faithfulness,” not “faith” […]. […] The point here is that Jesus has offered to God, at last, the faithfulness Israel had denied (3:2-3).

A further reason why [greek]pistiV Ihsou Cristou[/greek] (pistis Iēsou Christou) here is likely to refer to Jesus’ own faithfulness is that, if taken instead to refer to the faith Christians have “in” Jesus the next phrase (“for all who believe”) becomes almost entirely redundant, adding only the (admittedly important) “all.” The train of thought is clearer if we read it as “through the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah, for the benefit of all who believe.” This then corresponds closely to the reading suggested above for 1:17: from God’s faithfulness to answering human faith. (It is also close to Gal 3:22, where similar discussions have taken place.)

[Tercel]

Lee,
there has been a lot of discussion over this among scholars in the last 20 years.

I don't think it's precisely true to say that it is a New Perspective issue. The most ardent defender of the traditional reading is James Dunn - a major New Perspective advocate.

I am quite familiar with the arguments involved. What all the arguments have suceeded in showing is basically nothing - or rather that the Greek literally reads "faithfulness of Christ", but that the meaning of such a phrase is highly ambiguous and totally depends on context.

For example, in Mark 11:22 Jesus says to "have faith of God". Does he mean "faith in God", "faith like God's", "godly faith", or "faith from God"? In the same way when Paul talks about "faith of Christ", does he mean "Christ-like faith", "faith in Christ", "following Christ", "Christian faith", "faith from Christ" or "Christ's own faith"?

I think in a few people's minds a false dichotomy has been created - they take the view that occurances have to be either meaning precisely "faith in Christ" or "Christ's own faith". But consider if I was to talk about the "knowledge of Mozart" in English. I could talk about how I wanted to become an expert at music and equal or surpass the musical "knowledge of Mozart". I could study history and gain "knowledge of Mozart". I could speak of how musical "knowledge of Mozart" allowed him to compose such great music.

James Peter wrote "It was Christ's act which made our faithfulness possible and, through being in him, our faithfulness is a reflection of his." That is the opinion that I myself would also take. Thus the "faith of Christ" is read as "us having faithfulness like Christ's in imitation of his own faithfulness" or "Christ-like faith" or "following Christ". Thus we are perfectly happy to say that yes "faith of Christ" is a reference to the faithfulness that Christ himself had. We are also happy to say that "faith of Christ" is a reference to the faith we ourselves have.

However people like N.T. Wright would deny this. He would deny the second point and argue for the former one alone. He wants to read pistis Christos as meaning soley "the faith which Christ himself had, Jesus' own faithfulness to God". He wants to rule out the idea that Paul is thinking of a quality that we can have by imitation (rather his point is a rather calvinistic one - Christ had a level of faith which we couldn't have and thereby succeeded in providing the necessary faith to reconcile man to God), and the idea that our faith is targeted at Christ. He pulls this idea into his (rather weird) theory of the atonement, and claims that Paul thinks it is Christ (the Messiah's) own faithfulness which creates atonement. Thus, ultimately, his line of argument in supporting the "subjective genitive" reading of pistis christou is so that he can say Paul doesn't have our faith in mind at all.

In my opinion the debate is misleading. What many of the subjective genitive advocates (eg Wright and Hays) WANT to say is that "faith of Christ" totally excludes any thought of a reference to our own faith. However their arguments don't get them there. What they have actually demonstrated is simply that "faith in Christ" is a questionable translation which should only be given if the context warrents it and that "faith of Christ" is a more neutral translation. The debate has also succeeded in showing that faith of Christ is a very vague idea which needs to be determined by context, and thus that Wright et al are wrong when they try to rule out by definition the idea that we have a part in "faith of Christ".

Dunn, for example, thinks it is rather obvious in the context of some of Paul's "faith of Christ" usages that WE are the ones with "faith of Christ", and also thinks Wright's atonement views are as bizarre as I do...

[James Peter]

Its interesting that Dunn takes that position, I'd have expected him to take a position closer to mine (not that I'd influence him, merely that we'd have a similar position). I'm only really familiar with his work on Galatians (and the Law obviously) as well as Colossians in which the phrase is much less important than in, say, Romans. I will agree that a lot of what NT Wright says is quite strange though. He is a very curious guy.

[Tercel]

Its interesting that Dunn takes that position,

Dunn's position strikes me as slightly odd too. I've read a lot of his writings on the subject, and he strongly supports a translation of "faith in Christ". Yet it seems to me that in order to preserve that idea you don't need to translate it that way. All he really needs to do is argue that Wright et al go too far in saying that pistis Christou has no thought of our own faith implicit in it. Whereas he seems to go too far in the opposite direction and say that it is 100% about our own faith and has no thought of Christ's own faith implicit in it.

The debate to me seems characterised by extremes, with both sides unwilling to admit what seems to be obvious - that both ideas are implicit in what is an ambiguous phrase. It seems to me Paul makes good use of this ambiguous phrase precisely because he is happy with all its meanings. Dunn insists that context shows we are the ones with "pistis Christou", and Wright insists that context shows that God is the target of "pistis Christou", but it doesn't seem to have occurred to either of them that their observations are not mutually exclusive and that a reading of it as "us being faithful to God like Christ was" reconciles them both. Christ's own example of faithfulness to God inspires us and leads us to be faithful to God in imitation of him as we faithfully follow his teachings - Because of Christ's own faith, and our faith in him, we come to have faith like his.

In Dunn's case, I think his understanding is further flawed by a failure to challenge the traditional protestant understanding of "faith". He seems happy to read it as "belief" and "trust" rather than putting more of the "faithfulness", "commitment" and "obedience" meanings into it that others (eg Wright) correctly (IMO) make a point of doing.

I will agree that a lot of what NT Wright says is quite strange though. He is a very curious guy.

It is greatly worsened by the fact that he is really bad at being clear, and he writes far too much! I have read hundreds of pages of his works and barely scratched the surface. I think he's trying to become history's most prolific theologian. I think what we need is a small volume entitled "What NT Wright Really Said"...

Personally, I am inclined at the moment to think his views on the atonement, the righteousness of God, justification, exile, and pistis christou are just totally wrong, but agree with him on everything else! It often find when reading him that I will be sitting there nodding along and then he'll say something bizarre and I'll slap my head and say "whatever could have possessed you to even imagine that that was the case?!" He has a really strange mixture of good solid scholarship (ie stuff I agree with ) combined with some quite wacko ideas.

[John Reece]

The purpose of this post is to go back even further in Romans 3 as a background to the texts cited in the OP.

The focus is on Romans 3:3.

From pages 23-24 of J. Christiaan Beker’s The Triumph of God: The Essence of Paul’s Thought:

The theocentric character of Paul’s thought is further confirmed by the “faithful” clauses in his letters: “He who calls you is faithful [pistis], and he will do it” (1 Thess. 5:24); “God, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his son, Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful [pistis] (1 Cor. 1:9; 2 Cor. 1:18). This is the reason the “faithlessness” of Israel cannot “nullify the faithfulness of God” (Rom. 3:3), that is, God’s self-vindication: “By no means! Let God be true though every man be false” (Romans 3:4a). […]

The faith of the Christian community is anchored in God’s overarching plan of redemption. It is God who alone will execute this plan and who alone determined the “fullness of time” (Gal. 4:4), in which his Son appeared to inaugurate the liberation of the created order. This is why the church responds with an “Amen” to the Yes (= Amen) of God’s act in Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 1:20). Faith (pistis) can be characterized simply as a “Yes” to the faithfulness of God (pistis), which in Romans 3:3 is strikingly formulated in a negative way: “Does their [Israel’s] faithfulness [apistia] nullify the faithfulness [pistis ] of God?” In fact, God’s trustworthiness forms the basis of the confidence and trust of the church: “I am confident that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion on the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6).

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

I would suggest that we are rectified by both our faithfulness to God and by Christ's faithfulness to God.

So then unbelievers can be faithful, and this saves them? I don’t think that will do, though this may not be what you meant. But now we are certainly not saying faith (as in trust and believing and relying on) saves a person, and that is off the track now, I would say.

Romans 3:28 "For we hold that one is rectified by his faithfulness apart from works of the law. (One is made righteous by Christ's faithful actions and not by keeping the Torah)

Yes, in a sense (as Tercel points out, more is involved in conversion than a response of faith, Christ’s faithfulness is bound up in this). But is the focus here on Christ’s faithfulness?

Romans 3:31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

This seems to indicate clearly a response of faith, and not Christ’s faithfulness. If Christ’s faithfulness was in view here, “he upholds the law” would be appropriate.

I do suggest reviewing his argumentation for his particular translations and seeing if that should affect your view of his conclusions...

I have actually read some N.T. Wright. And discussed his views, Tercel may remember one “Wright is wrong?” thread (I believe that was the name of the thread).

Though the phrase could mean “through faith in Jesus the Messiah,” the entire argument of the section strongly suggests that it is Jesus’ own [pistis] that is spoken of and that the word here means “faithfulness,” not “faith”

This seems not to be the case, though, isn’t the focus here, in regard to Christ, a focus on his atonement? Now if we read “faithfulness” for most of the appearances of “pistis”, why then we have Wright’s conclusion. But that would seem to be circular argumentation.

… if taken instead to refer to the faith Christians have “in” Jesus the next phrase (“for all who believe”) becomes almost entirely redundant, adding only the (admittedly important) “all.”

I would expect he is referring to this verse:

Romans 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

But this is not redundant, because we believe, our faith is the cause that brings righteousness. Also here we don’t have redundancy:

2 Corinthians 4:13 It is written: "I believed; therefore I have spoken." With that same spirit of faith we also believe and therefore speak.

Or here:

Galatians 3:22 But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

I mean, I think I understand this as translated, and think it is not a puzzling repetition.

The train of thought is clearer if we read it as “through the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah, for the benefit of all who believe.” This then corresponds closely to the reading suggested above for 1:17: from God’s faithfulness to answering human faith.

Romans 1:17 For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

Certainly I agree that Jesus’ faithfulness is a critical requirement here, but is the Lord’s faithfulness in view?

Romans 1:18-19 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them…

Well, no, I think people not believing what God revealed to them puts the focus on “righteousness by faith” as the alternative to wicked unbelief, the contrast is explanatory, I would say...

… or rather that the Greek literally reads "faithfulness of Christ", but that the meaning of such a phrase is highly ambiguous and totally depends on context.

I’m not so sure that’s the literal reading, though, with all the (above) NET Bible references to subjective genitive with this expression. But I agree that there is a good deal of ambiguity in various instances.

For example, in Mark 11:22 Jesus says to "have faith of God". Does he mean "faith in God", "faith like God's", "godly faith", or "faith from God"?

He might have meant both? As in when Jesus asked “where is your faith?” he might have meant them to look to him as the source and example!

In the same way when Paul talks about "faith of Christ", does he mean "Christ-like faith", "faith in Christ", "following Christ", "Christian faith", "faith from Christ" or "Christ's own faith"?

That is the question…

Thus the "faith of Christ" is read as "us having faithfulness like Christ's in imitation of his own faithfulness"…

But that would not be saving faith? That is what I consider a critical point.

Thus we are perfectly happy to say that yes "faith of Christ" is a reference to the faithfulness that Christ himself had. We are also happy to say that "faith of Christ" is a reference to the faith we ourselves have.

Yes, I agree.

… and [Wright] claims that Paul thinks it is Christ (the Messiah's) own faithfulness which creates atonement. Thus, ultimately, his line of argument in supporting the "subjective genitive" reading of pistis christou is so that he can say Paul doesn't have our faith in mind at all.

I agree that this is going too far. This is a critical juncture.

If this is the case, then all are now saved?

What they have actually demonstrated is simply that "faith in Christ" is a questionable translation which should only be given if the context warrents it and that "faith of Christ" is a more neutral translation.

Well, we don’t really have a good preposition that will do both jobs. One of the difficulties faced by the translators, I suppose…

The debate to me seems characterised by extremes, with both sides unwilling to admit what seems to be obvious - that both ideas are implicit in what is an ambiguous phrase.

Good point. Have some pearlies.

Christ's own example of faithfulness to God inspires us and leads us to be faithful to God in imitation of him as we faithfully follow his teachings - Because of Christ's own faith, and our faith in him, we come to have faith like his.

My, my…

Faith (pistis) can be characterized simply as a “Yes” to the faithfulness of God (pistis), which in Romans 3:3 is strikingly formulated in a negative way: “Does their [Israel’s] faithfulness [apistia] nullify the faithfulness [pistis ] of God?” In fact, God’s trustworthiness forms the basis of the confidence and trust of the church: “I am confident that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion on the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6).

Yes, I agree…

Blessings,
Lee <- And I didn’t misspell your name even once, John! Or so I think…