Faith in the Son of God (Foreword by Robert W. Yarbrough) E-Book

Kevin McFadden

• Herausgeber: Crossway
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2021

Beschreibung

A Study of "Faith in Christ" in Pauline Theology Over the last fifty years, the apostle Paul's theology has come under immense critical examination. One important issue prompted by recent scholarship is the correct translation of the Greek phrase pistis Christou as "faith in Jesus Christ" (Galatians 2:16). Many English-speaking scholars now interpret this Greek phrase as the "faithfulness of Jesus Christ." This new translation is bound up with the theological argument that we are not justified by our own faith but by the faithfulness of Christ. Kevin McFadden argues that faith in Christ is a proximate cause of salvation that accords with grace. Not only is this treatment a helpful introduction to the pistis Christou debate, but it also demonstrates the central role of faith in salvation as the church brings the gospel to the world.

Leseprobe

Thank you for downloading this Crossway book.

Sign up for the Crossway Newsletter for updates on special offers, new resources, and exciting global ministry initiatives:

Crossway Newsletter

Or, if you prefer, we would love to connect with you online:

“A number of recent books have been written on the subject of faith in Paul’s letters, and so we might wonder if there is anything fresh and interesting to say about faith in Christ in Paul’s theology. McFadden’s book shows us that the answer is yes. I was struck repeatedly by McFadden’s careful and astute reading of the biblical text, a reading in which he dialogues with scholarly interlocutors. McFadden demonstrates that faith in Christ is constitutive of Paul’s theology and central to it as well. Those interested in Pauline theology, even those who disagree, will be provoked to consider anew the role of faith in Christ in Paul’s theology. We find here a remarkably close and insightful reading of the Pauline letters, one that repristinates the theology of the Reformers for our day.”

Thomas R. Schreiner, James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

“Kevin McFadden has written an important book on a central theme of the New Testament and of the theology of the apostle Paul more specifically. Interacting with a wide range of scholarship, he forcefully defends the traditional understanding of the phrase ‘faith in Christ’ as highlighting the necessity and the reality of faith in Jesus that saves sinners. At a time when it has become fashionable to diminish the significance of individuals in favor of corporate dimensions of the body of Christ, Faith in the Son of God describes with admirable exegetical sensitivity how Paul uses the language of faith when explaining what sinners do as God saves them on account of Jesus’s death on the cross. Thus, the book is as much about the gospel as it is about faith, and thus about the effective witness of the church in an increasingly secular world.”

Eckhard Schnabel, Mary French Rockefeller Distinguished Professor of New Testament, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; author, Jesus in Jerusalem

“McFadden presents a compelling case that Paul’s letters emphasize the importance of faith in Christ. His argument is that ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ describes Christ-oriented faith as the means (‘instrumental cause’) of salvation. This work is biblical theology at its finest. Not content to merely tread the path well worn by others, McFadden presents fresh arguments that I have not previously encountered. He writes as a scholar who is consistently fair and irenic in his treatment of differing views and as a humble student who is able to learn from those with whom he disagrees. More than anything else, he writes as a faithful exegete who seeks to formulate his theology from the biblical text rather than impose his preconceived theology on the text. I highly recommend this book to scholars, students, and pastors.”

Charles L. Quarles, Research Professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

Faith in the Son of God

Faith in the Son of God

The Place of Christ-Oriented Faith within Pauline Theology

Kevin W. McFadden

Foreword by Robert W. Yarbrough

Faith in the Son of God: The Place of Christ-Oriented Faith within Pauline Theology

Copyright © 2021 by Kevin W. McFadden

Published by Crossway1300 Crescent StreetWheaton, Illinois 60187

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher, except as provided for by USA copyright law. Crossway® is a registered trademark in the United States of America.

Cover design: Lindy Martin, Faceout Studios

Cover image: Jordan Singer

First printing 2021

Printed in the United States of America

Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations noted CEB are taken from the Common English Bible®, copyright © 2011. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked CSB have been taken from the Christian Standard Bible®, Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers.

Scripture quotations marked NASB are from The New American Standard Bible®. Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. www.Lockman.org.

Scripture quoted by permission. Quotations designated (NET) are from the NET Bible® copyright © 1996–2016 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. http://netbible.com. All rights reserved.

Quotations marked NETS are taken from A New English Translation of the Septuagint, ©2007 by the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Inc. Used by permission of Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com. The “NIV” and “New International Version” are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™

Scripture quotations marked NRSV are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

All emphases in Scripture quotations have been added by the author.

Trade paperback ISBN: 978-1-4335-7140-4 ePub ISBN: 978-1-4335-7143-5 PDF ISBN: 978-1-4335-7141-1 Mobipocket ISBN: 978-1-4335-7142-8

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: McFadden, Kevin W., 1980– author.

Title: Faith in the Son of God : the place of Christ-oriented faith within Pauline theology / Kevin W. McFadden.

Description: Wheaton, Illinois : Crossway, 2021. | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2020022105 (print) | LCCN 2020022106 (ebook) | ISBN 9781433571404 (trade paperback) | ISBN 9781433571411 (pdf) | ISBN 9781433571428 (mobi) | ISBN 9781433571435 (epub)

Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Epistles of Paul—Theology. | Jesus Christ—Spiritual life—Biblical teaching.

Classification: LCC BS2651 .M395 2020 (print) | LCC BS2651 (ebook) | DDC 227/.06—dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020022105

LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020022106

Crossway is a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.

2021-04-19 04:09:23 PM

To my beloved Colleen,

διὰ πίστεως γὰρ περιπατοῦμεν, οὐ διὰ εἴδους·

(2 Cor. 5:7)

Contents

Analytic Outline

Foreword

    Robert W. Yarbrough

Preface

Abbreviations

Introduction: The Πίστις Χριστοῦ Debate and Pauline Theology

1  Paul’s Understanding of Christ-Oriented Faith in Historical Context

2  Direct Statements of Christ-Oriented Faith in Paul’s Letters

3  Conceptual Parallels to Christ-Oriented Faith in Paul’s Letters

4  ’Εκ Πίστεως Χριστοῦ as a Pauline Idiom for Christ-Oriented Faith

5  Theological Synthesis: Christ-Oriented Faith within Pauline Theology

Bibliography

General Index

Scripture Index

Analytic Outline

Introduction: The Πίστις Χριστοῦ Debate and Pauline Theology

The Theological Argument of the “Faithfulness of Christ” View

The Influence of the Theological Argument

Evaluation and Prospect

1  Paul’s Understanding of Christ-Oriented Faith in Historical Context

The Meaning(s) of Πίστις

Faith as a Concept

Faith’s Subject and Object

Faith and Salvation

Conclusion

2  Direct Statements of Christ-Oriented Faith in Paul’s Letters

Faith in Christ

Faith in the God Who Raised Christ from the Dead

Faith in the Gospel

Conclusion

3  Conceptual Parallels to Christ-Oriented Faith in Paul’s Letters

Obedience to the Gospel

Calling on the Name of the Lord

Hoping in Christ

Seeing the Lord’s Glory

Conclusion

4  ’Εκ Πίστεως Χριστοῦ as a Pauline Idiom for Christ-Oriented Faith

A History of Translation and Interpretation

Evaluation of Hays’s Christological View of Πίστις

“By Faith” as a Consistent Pauline Idiom

Conclusion

5  Theological Synthesis: Christ-Oriented Faith within Pauline Theology

Faith and Christology in Paul

Faith and Anthropology in Paul

Faith and Soteriology in Paul

Faith and Eschatology in Paul

Conclusion

Foreword

This is a book with a clear and striking central contention: “Paul significantly emphasizes Christ-oriented faith in his theology.” This is a bombshell in an interpretive world in which “the faith/faithfulness of Christ” (hereafter FOC) has for many largely supplanted the older notion that “faith in Christ” was the key to salvation.

I confess that I never thought the FOC view (as a wholesale replacement for “faith in Christ”) was convincing. So the exegesis and arguments of this book ring true to me.

But what will other readers think? Kevin W. McFadden certainly has his work cut out for him in this book.

For the FOC understanding has become a ruling paradigm for many, and no substantial correction is sought or allowed. After all, the FOC view1 (sometimes in concert with the celebrated New Perspective on Paul) has the great virtue of calling into question not only the Reformation reading of Scripture but (more importantly) common evangelical preaching in the Reformation vein that calls the lost to personal and saving faith in Jesus. The mainstream “we” who eschew such preaching know how trite and wrong this preaching is!

Therefore, the FOC view functions for some as a bulwark against affirming the legitimacy of preaching that calls for saving faith in Christ all around the world. That’s a pretty strong commendation if it upholds your status as a herald of the “gospel” that salvation is not by personal faith in Christ and never was—all you need is faith in a gracious “God” or participation in a community that celebrates Jesus (whoever he was) in ways analogous to how Paul and others in the early church framed and articulated their God consciousness. Or maybe it’s that, additionally, you should affirm staunch “allegiance” to a regal Jesus.2 Construals vary; what is constant is a rejection of the Reformation’s sola fide conviction (salvation is through faith alone).

There is in too many cases an even more fundamental assumption at work in all this: no one needs to be “saved” in the New Testament and evangelical sense. Michael McClymond has shown how pervasive the doctrine of universal salvation has become—no one, in the end, will suffer eternal condemnation.3 Humans have already been put right with God as a function of the goodness of God’s creation or God’s loving nature or God’s covenant faithfulness or the total loyalty of God’s saving agent Jesus Christ.4But isn’t this, in the end, just a recapitulation, in key ways, of what H. Richard Niebuhr summed up as liberal theology’s essence: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross”?5

This is not to say that all who support the FOC interpretation answer to “liberal” in Niebuhr’s exact sense. But many tend in that direction. And there is no question about which way mainstream academic readings of Paul tend toward at present along the divide between a liberal understanding of human nature and religious “salvation,” on the one hand, and an evangelical conviction of human sinfulness and proclamation of salvation through faith in the crucified and risen Christ, on the other.

Yet change is in the air. Leading lights in Pauline interpretation like E. P. Sanders are passing from the scene, and their arguments and outlook have come to seem, in the end, unconvincing and unhelpful to many. So perhaps this book will be a guiding voice in a move away from Hays’s FOC (and, where indicated, the New Perspective) and toward a fresh regard for the tried-and-true reading that McFadden seeks to rehabilitate.

Faith in the Son of God will certainly be a valuable resource and foundational for rereading Paul by a new generation of PhD students, seminarians, and intellectually active pastors who may be willing to admit that the FOC interpretation seems a bit thin and out of sync with too many New Testament passages, as McFadden shows. Some are bound to be asking, What’s the alternative?

This book is an apt reply for those with an appetite for interpretation tethered to the whole of Scripture’s witness. McFadden recovers a Pauline message true to historic gospel proclamation in the Reformation heritage that, while always subject to refinement, never deserved the dismissal it received in North American mainline circles. May gospel recovery among at least a few in those circles, and many elsewhere around the world, be among the outcomes of this understated but quietly brilliant book.

Robert W. Yarbrough

Professor of New Testament

Covenant Theological Seminary

1  The FOC view is the central concern of this book, particularly as epitomized in Richard B. Hays’s now-classic work The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002).

2  See, e.g., Matthew W. Bates, Gospel Allegiance: What Faith in Jesus Misses for Salvation in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2019).

3  Michael J. McClymond, The Devil's Redemption: A New History and Interpretation of Christian Universalism, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018).

4  Repetition of “God” and avoidance of a masculine pronoun referring to God are intentional in this sentence, in keeping with the linguistic scruples that often attend these theological convictions.

5  H. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America (New York: Harper & Row, 1937), 193.

Preface

Perhaps nothing is more axiomatic in the church than the idea that we believe in Christ. But as Martin Luther warned us, the doctrine of faith “is indeed easy to talk about, but it is hard to grasp; and it is easily obscured and lost.”1 While faith in Christ may seem axiomatic in the church, it has been highly debated in the academy, especially among those who study Paul’s letters. Many have argued that Paul did not actually teach that we are justified by our faith in Christ but rather taught that we are justified by Christ’s own faith or faithfulness. Others suggest that we have mistranslated the Greek word for “faith” in Paul’s letters and thus misunderstood the concept. Add this to our broader cultural context in which unbelief has strangely taken the place of faith in our catalog of virtues, and it seems like plenty of reason to go back and examine carefully what exactly Paul’s letters say about faith in Christ.

This book has taken a lot of time and work to write, and I have many to thank for their help along the way. First, I am grateful to the Lord for answered prayer, strength, and understanding. Thanks also go to my friends and family for praying for me and encouraging me. My former provost, Brian Toews, and my colleagues at Cairn University granted me a reduced class load for the 2016–2017 school year that enabled me to get my mind around this topic. Jonathan Master, my former dean, has supported me since then with a schedule that enabled continual chipping away at it. Stephanie Kaceli, Melvin Hartwick, Caleb Daubenspeck, and the staff at the Masland Library helped me secure needed resources. Thanks are also due to the staff at the Princeton Theological Seminary Library for their hospitality and the use of their resources. Several students, friends, and colleagues read drafts of the work and aided me in clarifying and sharpening my argument, including John Biegel, James Dolezal, John Hughes, Gary Schnittjer, Tom Schreiner, Claude Soriano, and Mike Stanislawski. Courtney Schlect helped me compile the bibliography. And my wife, Colleen, read a draft of the whole book and significantly improved it with her eagle eyes and perceptive feedback. Any remaining faults in the work, of course, remain my own. I also want to thank Crossway for accepting the book for publication, Justin Taylor for his valuable direction throughout the publication process, the Crossway team for their excellent work in publishing the book, Bob Yarbrough for taking time to write a foreword that sets this study in a broader context and thereby shows its importance, and David Barshinger for his exceptionally skillful work in editing the manuscript.

This book is dedicated to my beloved Colleen. All the Christian life until the resurrection is, as Paul says, an exercise in walking by faith and not by sight. Sometimes we feel this more acutely and sometimes less. But I am so grateful to be able to share this light and momentary journey with a fellow traveler like you.

1Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1963), 26:114. Luther concludes, “Therefore let us with all diligence and humility devote ourselves to the study of Sacred Scripture and to serious prayer, lest we lose the truth of the Gospel.” Luther’s Works, 26:114.

Abbreviations

AB

Anchor Bible

AGJU

Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums

BCOTWP

Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms

BDAG

Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

BDB

Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1906.

BDF

Blass, Friedrich, Albert Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.

BECNT

Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

BNTC

Black’s New Testament Commentaries

BZNW

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

CBQ

Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CBR

Currents in Biblical Research

COQG

Christian Origins and the Question of God

EBC

Expositor’s Bible Commentary

ETL

Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses

ExpTim

Expository Times

GKC

Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by Emil Kautzsch. Translated by Arthur E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910.

HALOT

Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of Mervyn E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–1999.

ICC

International Critical Commentary

Int

Interpretation

JBL

Journal of Biblical Literature

JETS

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JSNT

Journal for the Study of the New Testament

JTS

Journal of Theological Studies

LCL

Loeb Classical Library

LNTS

Library of New Testament Studies

LS

Louvain Studies

LSJ

Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996.

LXX

Septuagint

n.b.

nota bene (“note well”)

NICNT

New International Commentary on the New Testament

NICOT

New International Commentary on the Old Testament

NIGTC

New International Greek Testament Commentary

NKZ

Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift

NovT

Novum Testamentum

NSBT

New Studies in Biblical Theology

NTL

New Testament Library

NTMon

New Testament Monographs

NTS

New Testament Studies

OECS

Oxford Early Christian Studies

OTL

Old Testament Library

PNTC

Pillar New Testament Commentary

SJT

Scottish Journal of Theology

SNTSMS

Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

TDNT

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–1976.

TNTC

Tyndale New Testament Commentaries

TSK

Theologische Studien und Kritiken

TynBul

Tyndale Bulletin

VTSup

Supplements to Vetus Testamentum

WBC

Word Biblical Commentary

WUNT

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

ZECNT

Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

Introduction

The Πίστις Χριστοῦ Debate and Pauline Theology

Belief is so important.

Blaise Pascal, Pensées

On a flight several years ago, I was reading a book titled Paul and His Recent Interpreters when the person in the seat next to me said, “Oh, people are writing about Saint Paul these days?” Yes, I assured her, they were, and if I had said what I was thinking, it would have been that I wish they would write a little less! The pens of Pauline scholars have not been idle. So many aspects of the apostle’s theology have been questioned, reappraised, and debated in the last fifty years. These debates can become a “weariness of the flesh” to those trying to keep up and make sense of the various perspectives on Paul. But they can also force scholars and Christians from every perspective to reexamine Paul’s letters more carefully and with new questions. This is what the πίστις Χριστοῦ debate has done for me. It has forced me to reconsider what Paul’s letters actually say about faith, and this book is the fruit of that study.

For readers unfamiliar with this debate, it is a debate over the meaning of a Greek phrase that occurs eight times in Paul’s letters: πίστις Χριστοῦ.1While this phrase has historically been understood as a reference to Christ as the object of our faith (the “faith in Christ” view), many English-speaking scholars now understand it as a reference to Christ’s own faith or faithfulness (the “faithfulness of Christ” view).2 So much ink has been spilled over this debate in the last few decades that one might legitimately ask, Why does it really matter? At the level of grammar, these phrases can really be translated either way. And at the level of theology, both our faith and Christ’s faithfulness are important, so the question may be simply which truth these eight phrases speak of.

But I have come to believe that this debate is significant because of the relationship of these eight phrases to Paul’s entire theology and especially his view of justification and salvation (and thus, by implication, our view of salvation). Six of the phrases occur in the apostle’s most important passages about justification: Romans 3:21–26 (2x); Galatians 2:15–21 (3x); and Philippians 3:2–11 (1x). Moreover, the grammar of the phrases in these passages indicates the role that πίστις plays in justification. This fact is obscured by the debate’s unfortunate label. Technically, the words πίστις Χριστοῦ never occur in Paul’s letters, because these words are always found within a prepositional phrase that indicates the means by which one attains salvific benefits (e.g., ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ in Gal. 2:16).3 That is, these eight phrases are part of Paul’s common idiom “by faith,” which he often sets in contrast with the attainment of salvific benefits “by works of the law” or “by the law” or “by works” (e.g., Rom. 3:28). All this means that the debate is not simply about the meaning of a few phrases; rather, as Karl Ulrichs rightly concludes, the debate “is about the basic principles of soteriology.”4

This fact has been recognized by the advocates of the “faithfulness of Christ” view but has not been adequately addressed by scholars who hold the “faith in Christ” view. It is sometimes forgotten that the influential dissertation of Richard Hays, which convinced many scholars of the “faithfulness of Christ” translation, was concerned not primarily with the grammar of these phrases but with the shape of Paul’s theology as a whole. In response, Barry Matlock, one of the most articulate advocates of the “faith in Christ” view, argued that we need to “detheologize” the debate, setting aside theology so that we can concentrate on the meaning of the word πίστις.5 I agree with Matlock’s view in this debate. I also agree with him that the theological concerns of the “faithfulness of Christ” view have tended to cloud the debate through a lack of precision in defining the word πίστις in Paul.6 Nevertheless, I think that Hays and others are correct that we cannot set aside theology in this debate, and I understand why he has faulted Matlock for failing to engage the argument “in the terms that [he has] tried to pose it.”7

The goal of this book is to engage the theological argument of Hays and others and then to “retheologize” the debate by examining Paul’s larger theology of Christ-oriented faith. The first step is to carefully articulate the theological argument of the “faithfulness of Christ” view, which can be summarized as follows: Paul does not teach that we are justified by our own faith in Christ but rather teaches that we are justified by Christ’s faith or faithfulness. This theological argument then propels us to reconsider what the apostle says about faith and Christ in the rest of the book. In contrast with those who have de-emphasized the importance of our faith in Paul’s letters, I argue that Paul significantly emphasizes Christ-oriented faith in his theology.

The Theological Argument of the “Faithfulness of Christ” View

Rarely does a dissertation have as much influence as Richard Hays’s The Faith of Jesus Christ, originally published in 1983 and then published in a second edition in 2002. Before Hays, many scholars had suggested the “faithfulness of Christ” translation in Paul,8 most notably Karl Barth in his early commentary on Romans.9 But it was Hays’s careful argument that convinced many scholars in the English-speaking world to adopt this new translation, which has now had an effect even on some English Bible translations.10 Because the “faithfulness of Christ” translation has become the enduring legacy of Hays’s work, many may be surprised to learn that the primary concern of his dissertation was not about the phrase πίστις Χριστοῦ but about the story of Jesus that underlies the apostle’s theology. In what follows I outline the theological argument of Hays and its continuing trajectory in the “apocalyptic” school of Pauline theology. Not everyone who adopts the “faithfulness of Christ” translation accepts this theological argument in its entirety, but I aim to demonstrate that it was an important part of Hays’s dissertation and is tightly bound up with the new translation.

Christology versus Anthropology

Those who hold to the “faithfulness of Christ” translation often label their position the Christological or Christocentric view, as opposed to the anthropological or anthropocentric view.11 Framing the debate in these terms has led to some protest from the other side. Francis Watson, for example, comments that “it is disingenuous to play off a (virtuous) ‘christocentric’ reading against a (bad, protestant) ‘anthropocentric’ one. It is simply a matter of exegesis.”12 While I agree with Watson, I think that these labels can help us understand the argument of the “faithfulness of Christ” view—namely, that its advocates think of it not simply as a matter of exegesis but also as a matter of theology, something that has been true since the influential dissertation of Hays.

Reflecting on his work twenty years later, Hays recalls that his central thesis was that “a story about Jesus Christ is presupposed by Paul’s argument in Galatians, and his theological reflection attempts to articulate the meaning of that story.”13Elsewhere he labels this approach “narrative theology” or the “narrative substructure” of Paul’s theology. Hays observes that “the book’s subtitle [The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11] is a better guide to its content than the main title [The Faith of Jesus Christ].”14 His argument about πίστις Χριστοῦ is an important but secondary thesis. And even this thesis is not simply about the translation of the phrase but more broadly about the meaning and function of the word πίστις in the argument of Galatians 3. Hays argues that Paul uses the phrase πίστις Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, and the word πίστις, as a way to refer by metonymy to the story about Jesus Christ—specifically, “to suggest and evoke that focal moment of the narrative,” the cross. The cross was the place in which Jesus demonstrated his human “faithfulness” to God and in which God demonstrated his divine “faithfulness” to humanity. Thus, πίστις Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ is an expression referring to the climactic event of Christ’s gracious, self-sacrificial death.15

Hays’s primary thesis about the “narrative substructure” of Paul’s theology and his secondary thesis about πίστις, however, are closely intertwined. This is because his argument is that the “faith of Jesus Christ” is a reference to the “narrative substructure” that underlies Paul’s theology in Galatians. Moreover, these two theses are both responding to the work of a German scholar whom Hays later refers to as the “great adversary whose shadow looms over The Faith of Jesus Christ”—Rudolf Bultmann.16 Reflecting twenty years later, Hays says,

In brief, it seemed to me that Bultmann had made two interrelated and fatefully mistaken hermeneutical decisions in his reading of Paul: he sought to “de-narrativize” Paul’s thought world, and he understood the gospel principally as a message about human decision, human self-understanding. The theological burden of my argument is to show that Bultmann was wrong on both counts.17

We should observe how Bultmann’s “two interrelated and fatefully mistaken hermeneutical decisions” are countered by Hays’s two interrelated theses. Bultmann’s famous project of demythologizing Paul’s gospel (which Hays thinks is better termed “de-narrativizing”) is countered by Hays’s thesis that Paul rested his theology on a story about Jesus Christ. And Bultmann’s understanding of faith as an act of decision, a new understanding of oneself, is countered by Hays’s thesis that Paul’s language about faith actually refers to Christ and not the human individual. This means that in order to understand Hays’s two theses, we must understand Bultmann’s two hermeneutical mistakes.

First, Bultmann refuses to allow faith to rest on the contingent facts of history: “Faith, being personal decision, cannot be dependent upon a historian’s labor.”18 He strikingly admits that he disagrees with Paul on this point: in 1 Corinthians 15:1–11, Paul thinks he can “guarantee the resurrection of Christ as an objective fact by listing the witnesses who had seen him risen.”19 But Bultmann asks, “Is such a proof convincing?”20 He clearly does not think so: “The resurrection cannot—in spite of I Cor. 15:3–8—be demonstrated or made plausible as an objectively ascertainable fact on the basis of which one could believe.”21 Faith cannot rest on the facts of the past but only on the proclamation of the present: “Insofar as it [the resurrection] or the risen Christ is present in the proclaiming word, it can be believed—and only so can it be believed.”22Even to believe in the cross of Christ is not to believe on an objective historical event. “Rather,” he says, “to believe on the cross means the cross of Christ as it overtakes the individual; it means to be crucified with Christ.”23 This is the kind of demythologizing or abstracting of the gospel from the story of Jesus that Hays is responding to in arguing for a “narrative substructure” to Paul’s gospel.

Second, Bultmann’s existential view of faith is very focused on the human self, or anthropology. As Hays observes, “Bultmann’s exposition of Paul, in the effort to free God’s action from mythological ‘objectification,’ inevitably tends to shift the weight of the emphasis away from God’s action and onto the human faith decision.”24 Another way to put this is that Bultmann allows faith to rest on no external object other than the present proclamation (the kerygma). In so doing, he shifts the emphasis away from God’s action in Christ and toward our faith itself. Bultmann also defines faith in existential terms, focusing on the individual self and the new self-understanding that one must submit to in light of the kerygma.25 He argues that saving faith is not merely a belief that certain things are true about Jesus Christ but a “faith which is self-surrender to the grace of God and which signifies the utter reversal of a man’s previous understanding of himself.”26 Thus, faith is not merely agreeing with the kerygma but is embracing “that genuine obedience to it which includes a new understanding of one’s self.”27This is the self-focused view of faith that Hays responds to by shifting the meaning of πίστις from our faith to Christ’s faith.

Hays, however, does not exclude our faith from Paul’s thought entirely, a criticism he wisely anticipates at the beginning and ending of his influential argument about πίστις Χριστοῦ. He opens it by conceding that “Gal 2:16 speaks clearly and unambiguously of faith in Christ.”28 And he closes it by noting that “this interpretation should not be understood to abolish or preclude human faith directed toward Christ, which is also an important component of Paul’s thought.”29 But it is important to observe that in neither of these concessions does Hays concede that our faith in Christ is a means by which we obtain salvific benefits according to Paul. In fact, he explicitly rejects this role for our faith in Galatians 3:1–4:11: “The positive thesis toward which this investigation leads may be summarized briefly as follows: Christians are justified/redeemed not by virtue of their own faith but because they participate in Jesus Christ, who enacted the obedience of faith on their behalf.”30 In his later debate with James Dunn, Hays argues again that “the central emphasis of the christological interpretation of πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is precisely that we are saved by Jesus’ faithfulness, not by our own cognitive disposition or confessional orthodoxy.”31And Luke Timothy Johnson’s foreword to the second edition of Hays’s dissertation makes the same point: “Paul does believe that humans are put into right relationship with God through faith. It is not through their own faith, however, but through the faith of Jesus. This book’s argument, then, cuts to the very heart of Pauline theology.”32

In sum, the influential dissertation of Richard Hays makes an argument not simply about Paul’s grammar but about his theology. Bultmann took an anthropological approach to explaining Pauline theology: “Paul’s theology can best be treated as his doctrine of man: first, of man prior to the revelation of faith, and second, of man under faith.”33Hays countered with a Christological approach, emphasizing the story of Jesus Christ as foundational to Paul’s gospel and reinterpreting the salvific role of faith in Paul’s letters as a reference to the cross of Christ rather than an act of human decision. In Hays’s view, Paul does not teach that we are justified by our faith in Christ but rather teaches that we are justified by Christ’s own faith or faithfulness. This theological argument has now been picked up by other scholars and has gained rhetorical force, like a hurricane passing over the warm Atlantic, from its association with the school of Pauline theology known as “apocalyptic.”

Divine Action versus Human Action

People sometimes ask if the “faithfulness of Christ” translation is a part of the New Perspective on Paul. On the one hand, it is closely related to the New Perspective, because it is a response to the “Lutheran view” of Paul and its emphasis on justification by faith alone.34 Many scholars who hold to the “faithfulness of Christ” translation also hold to the New Perspective on Paul.35On the other hand, this new translation is not technically a part of the New Perspective because, unlike the New Perspective, it is not built on the new view of Judaism proposed by E. P. Sanders. In fact, one of the more vocal critics of the “faithfulness of Christ” translation has been one of the most important advocates of the New Perspective, James D. G. Dunn.36

The “faithfulness of Christ” translation has been more closely linked with the “apocalyptic” school of Pauline theology. For our purposes the apocalyptic approach to Paul may be defined as a school of Pauline interpretation that emphasizes divine eschatological invasion in Paul’s soteriology.37 It emphasizes God’s action in bringing about a new world order through Christ over against any human action.38 If the New Perspective can be understood as a critique of the Lutheran view of Paul, then the apocalyptic school can be understood as a radicalizing of the Lutheran view. The Protestant tradition emphasizes the Pauline dichotomy between works of the law and faith in Jesus Christ, excluding moral works as a cause of justification in favor of justification by faith alone. The apocalyptic school radicalizes this faith-works dichotomy into a dichotomy between divine action and any kind of human action, including faith. Thus it is a kind of “hyper-Lutheran” or “hyper-Protestant” view of Paul’s soteriology.39

This radicalizing of the Protestant tradition can be seen already in Hays’s dissertation. He introduces his argument about πίστις by presenting it as a solution to the risk that the Lutheran doctrine of justification turns “faith into another kind of work, a human achievement.”40But the dichotomy between divine action and human action gained force through the later work of J. Louis Martyn, the father of the apocalyptic school. Although Pauline scholars had long appealed to Jewish apocalyptic as a background to explain the apostle’s theology, Martyn gave scholars a new set of lenses by showing that apocalyptic themes are found not only in those letters that speak of God’s invasion in the future but also in letters like Galatians that herald God’s invasion of the world already in the cross of Jesus Christ (e.g., Gal. 1:4).41

Martyn explains this approach further in his powerful and compelling commentary on Paul’s letter to the Galatians. In it he adopts the “faithfulness of Christ” translation, arguing that the phrase refers to “Christ’s atoning faithfulness, as, on the cross, he died faithfully for human beings while looking faithfully to God.”42 Moreover, he sees this interpretation as an important link in his understanding of Paul’s soteriology:

The result of this interpretation of pistis Christou is crucial to an understanding not only of Galatians but also of the whole of Paul’s theology. God has set things right without laying down a prior condition of any sort. God’s rectifying act, that is to say, is no more God’s response to human faith in Christ than it is God’s response to human observance to the Law. God’s rectification is not God’s response at all. It is the first move; it is God’s initiative, carried out by him in Christ’s faithful death.43

Here we see Martyn’s conviction that justification is unconditional in Paul’s theology, in the sense that it is not conditioned on any human action, including our faith in Christ. A similar argument about conditionality can be seen in Douglas Campbell’s “apocalyptic rereading of justification in Paul.” Campbell is concerned with the idea that faith is a human action that secures salvation in a kind of “generous contract.”44 Against this view he argues that πίστις is fundamentally Christological in Paul. Human beings respond in faith not as “a condition of participation in Christ but a marker that such participation is taking place.”45

For Martyn it is important that justification is the “first move” by God and that human faith is a secondary response to justification. Paul certainly speaks about faith in Christ but only “in the second instance.”46 From this point about order, Martyn draws a further conclusion about how works and faith are opposed in Pauline theology:

The antinomy of Gal 2:16, then—erga nomou versus pistis Christou—is like all of the antinomies of the new creation: It does not set over against one another two human alternatives, to observe the Law or to have faith in Christ. The opposites, as one sees from Gal 1:1 onward, are an act of God, Christ’s faithful death, and an act of the human being, observance of the law.47

This interpretation of Galatians seems to be a radicalizing of the Lutheran view of Paul. The dichotomy for Martyn is no longer between faith and works but between divine action and human action: “Paul draws contrasts not between two human alternatives, such as works and faith, but rather between acts done by human beings and acts carried out by God (1:1; 6:15).”48 One can understand, then, why he viewed the πίστις Χριστοῦ debate as “what Paul would call a matter of life and death!”49

Hays wrote his dissertation before Martyn’s influential work, but he later accepted Martyn’s work on apocalyptic.50 And this view seems to have influenced his subsequent debate with Dunn. For example, in his explanation of Romans 3:21–26, he asks,

What would it mean to say that God’s justice has been made manifest through our act of believing in Jesus Christ? This, if it means anything at all, verges on blasphemous absorption in our own religious subjectivity. God’s eschatological justice can only have been shown forth by an act of God: Paul’s claim is that the death of Jesus is just such an apocalyptic event.51

Here the content of his explanation is not substantively different from what he originally said in his dissertation about Romans 3:21–26. And yet his argument seems to have gained force as the “faithfulness of Christ” view has been linked with the apocalyptic view of Paul’s theology.

In conclusion, we should observe that Hays himself views his theological argument as essentially the same as Martyn’s when he faults Matlock for failing to engage it: “He [Matlock] does not engage at all the arguments made by Martyn and by me that the whole point of the sentence [in Gal. 2:16] is to juxtapose futile human activity to gracious divine initiative.”52In the view of Hays and Martyn, Paul teaches that justification is not by human action but by divine action. This means that not even our faith can be the means by which we are justified. It does not mean, however, that our faith is excluded entirely from Paul’s theology. Rather, faith is rehabilitated via the category of participation.

Participation in the Faith of Jesus Christ

“Faithfulness of Christ” advocates often emphasize the centrality of participation with Christ in Paul’s soteriology.53 But the category of participation, or even an emphasis on its centrality over justification by faith, is not really a contribution of this new translation. Participation or union with Christ has a strong pedigree in both Lutheran and Reformed theology. And several Pauline scholars over the years have attempted to argue that participation is more central in Paul than justification by faith.54Instead, the real contribution of the “faithfulness of Christ” translation is the idea that Christians participate not only in Christ’s death and resurrection but also in his very faith or faithfulness. This contribution again goes back to Hays’s dissertation.55

As I have observed, Hays rejects the idea that faith is the means by which we are justified but not the importance of our faith altogether. After rejecting its role in justification, he then rehabilitates the role of human faith in Paul’s soteriology via the category of participation with Christ, or representative Christology. One can see this rejection and rehabilitation in his conclusion about the contours of Pauline theology:

Because justification hinges upon this action of Jesus Christ, upon an event extra nos, it is a terrible and ironic blunder to read Paul as though his gospel made redemption contingent upon our act of deciding to dispose ourselves toward God in a particular way. . . .

Does this mean that the human faith-response to God’s action in Christ is insignificant for Paul? By no means! It does mean, however, that “faith” is not the precondition for receiving God’s blessing; instead it is the appropriate mode of response to a blessing already given in Christ. As such, it is also the mode of participation in the pattern definitively enacted in Jesus Christ: as we respond in faith, we participate in an ongoing reenactment of Christ’s faithfulness.56

The order is very important for Hays, as it is for Martyn. Christ is the one who lives by faith, and then we participate with him as we also live by faith.57

Other scholars make similar arguments. Ian Wallis rejects the idea that our faith can bring about salvation in Paul: “If Paul maintains that salvation is mediated by a Christian’s faith, faith is in danger of becoming yet another meritorious ‘work.’” Then Wallis senses the problem of undermining the believer’s faith: “However, if salvation is wrought by the faith of Christ, where is the place for human response?” Finally, he solves this dilemma by rehabilitating faith via the category of participation: “Reflection upon the corporate and inclusive nature of Christ’s humanity in Paul suggests that, although all faith ultimately originates in Christ, at the point of conversion believers participate in that faith and, in some sense, make it their own.”58Douglas Campbell similarly rejects the “contractual” model of justification by faith in favor of a “christocentric” paradigm. In this paradigm Christ himself possesses belief, trust, and fidelity, and then “the Spirit enables them [Christians] to participate in Christ’s [n.b.] prior and definitive ‘possession’ of these actions and characteristics.”59N. T. Wright is an exception to the scholars we are discussing because he does not reject a role for our faith in justification. Still, we see a similar pattern in his adoption of the “faithfulness of Christ” translation and rehabilitation of our faith by means of the category of participation. After arguing for the “faithfulness of Christ” translation in Romans 3:22, he then anticipates that this view may seem to downplay our faith but does not actually downplay it at all. Rather, just as faithfulness (πίστις) marks out Jesus as the true Israelite, so faith (πίστις) becomes the badge that marks out his followers.60

Finally, we should consider the category of participation in Morna Hooker’s presidential address to the Society for New Testament Studies, which argued that πίστις Χριστοῦ should be translated “faithfulness of Christ.” Hooker never categorically rejects the idea that our faith is a means of justification in Paul. But she does prioritize the faith or faithfulness of Jesus over the role of human faith. It is important for her that Christ’s faith comes first and that believers then share in his faith:

What about the belief that leads to righteousness? Is it a case of believing in him, and so entering into Christ? Or is it rather that, because we are in him, we share in his faith? The former interpretation, which understands the phrase πίστις Χριστοῦ as an objective genitive [“faith in Christ”], throws all the emphasis on the believer’s faith. The second interpretation throws the emphasis on the role of Christ: it is his obedience and trust in God which are crucial, though of course the response of the believer is necessary; the faith which leads to righteousness is a shared faith.61

Hooker makes it clear that the “faithfulness of Christ” translation does not mean that our faith is undermined or downplayed.62 And yet her emphasis on Christ’s faithfulness does initially deemphasize our faith and then quickly rehabilitates it via the category of participation in Christ’s faith, a category she appeals to repeatedly: “To believe is to share in the faith of Christ himself.”63 And again: “Believing faith depends on the faith/faithfulness of Christ: it is the response to Christ’s faith, and claims it as one’s own.”64

This emphasis on participation with Christ is one of the reasons that advocates of the “faithfulness of Christ” view often argue that πίστις has both a double meaning and a double referent in Paul.65 It has a double meaning in that it can be defined as both “faithfulness” and “faith” at the same time. Thus, it is often translated with glosses like “faith(fulness)” or “faith/faithfulness.” And it has a double referent in that it can refer to both Christ’s faith(fulness) and to our faith at the same time. For example, Hays suggests,

Because the Christian’s life is a reenactment of the pattern of faithfulness revealed in Jesus, it is futile to ask, in a formulation such as ἵνα ἐκ πίστεως δικαιωθῶμεν ([Gal.] 3:24), whose faith is meant. It is of course “the faith of Jesus Christ,” but it is also the faith of the Christian.66

And Hooker concludes that “it may well be that the answer to the question ‘Does this phrase [πίστις Χριστοῦ] refer to Christ’s faith or ours?’ may be ‘Both.’”67 Wright’s view is much more nuanced but similar at points. He typically distinguishes between the meaning “faith” and “faithfulness” and between a reference to Jesus’s faithfulness and our faith. For example, in Romans 3:22, he says that πίστις means Jesus’s “faithfulness” and not his “faith.”68 Further, the phrase “faithfulness of Jesus Christ” refers to Jesus’s faithfulness, whereas the next phrase, “for all who believe,” refers to our faith.69 Still, in at least one verse, Romans 3:26, he does suggest a double meaning and referent for πίστις:

Perhaps the point of the final dense clause, ton ek pisteōs Iēsou, literally, “the one out of the faith[fulness] of/in Jesus,” is precisely to run together the elements of 3.22, namely Jesus’ own faithfulness as the act whereby redemption is achieved and the faith of the believer which becomes the badge of members in the Messiah’s people. If this is correct, we could perhaps paraphrase as “everyone who shares in the faithfulness of Jesus.”70

This idea that we participate in Christ’s faithfulness through our own faith is perhaps one reason Wright typically chooses to transliterate the word πίστις rather than define it.

Summary

In this section, I have attempted to articulate the theological argument of the “faithfulness of Christ” translation: Paul does not teach that we are justified by our faith in Christ but rather teaches that we are justified by Christ’s faith(fulness). Richard Hays responded to Rudolf Bultmann’s anthropological view of faith with a strong Christological view. The phrase πίστις Χριστοῦ, and often the word πίστις, refers not to our faith but to Christ’s own faith or faithfulness as the means by which we are justified. This view has gained more rhetorical force through its association with the apocalyptic school of Pauline theology. Paul teaches that we are saved not by our action, whether our works or even our faith, but by God’s action in the faithful death of Christ. This does not mean, however, that our faith is excluded entirely from Paul’s theology, for as we subsequently believe, we ourselves participate in Christ’s faith(fulness). This theological argument has not been adopted (or fully adopted) by everyone who holds to the “faithfulness of Christ” view.71 Nevertheless, I have attempted to show that the theological argument is closely bound up with the new translation.72

The Influence of the Theological Argument

This theological argument is probably one of the reasons that the “faithfulness of Christ” translation of πίστις Χριστοῦ has taken hold now in a way it has not in previous generations. It is important to observe that the theological argument is not only a conclusion from the new translation but is often given as a reason for this new translation. The best example is Wallis’s study of the faith of Christ in early Christian traditions. Again and again he appeals to the theological argument as the basis of his exegesis. For example, he argues that the most important reason we should interpret “the righteous shall live by faith” in Romans 1:17 as a reference to Jesus’s faith is that Paul’s soteriology prioritizes grace and God’s faithfulness over against our righteousness. Thus, to take this clause as a reference to our faith would be a “meritorious understanding of faith.”73Hung-Sik Choi also uses this reason to argue that even the phrase “faith working through love” in Galatians 5:6 refers to Christ’s faithfulness: “It seems unlikely that human faith has soteriological power in Pauline theology. It is probable, therefore, that Christ’s faithfulness is an eschatological and apocalyptic power.”74 And Preston Sprinkle views the priority of divine agency over human agency in salvation as the main reason he does not adopt the “faith in Christ” translation:

Is a person’s faith the means through which God’s saving power is apocalyptically revealed? Does faith in Jesus manifest God’s saving power, here at the turn of the ages (νυνὶ δὲ, Rom. 3:21)? While some of course say “yes,” I thought (and still think) that this puts a tremendous amount of stress on the human agent in the event of God’s cosmic act of redemption.75

This same line of reasoning is also found in some of the commentaries that support the “faithfulness of Christ” view:

I conclude, not least because of where the emphasis lies in Paul’s thought when he discusses justification (namely on the Godward side of things, not on the side of the human response), that the phrase “faith of Christ” is a shorthand allusion to the story of the faithful one who was obedient even unto death on the cross, and so wrought human salvation.76

Within Pauline theology, moreover, the instrumental use of “faith of Christ” . . . is most appropriately read as a divine rather than a human action: human faith is not itself the means of bringing about the righteousness “derived from God,” but merely the mode of its reception. It is certainly only the work of Christ which is in any theologically significant sense instrumental to the righteousness of God.77

And I should not pass up an opportunity to quote Matlock’s parody of this line of thought:

“How,” comes the urgent protest, “could Paul place such weight on human faith (and all just to score his point)?” How could the divine power of justification—how the very revelation of the righteousness of God!—lie in doffing the mental cap in the appropriate direction, in cultivating the proper spiritual disposition?78

There is, however, a genuine pastoral concern bound up with this debate. Markus Barth has asked, “If Christ’s own faith counted nothing, and if men were totally delivered to the sincerity, depth, certainty of their own faith—how could any man ever be saved?”79 Hays observes that

the issues pursued here are of serious significance for the church. I have grown increasingly convinced that the struggles of the church in our time are a result of its losing touch with its own gospel story. We have gotten “off message” and therefore lost our way in a culture that tells us many other stories about who we are and where our hope lies. In both the evangelical and the liberal wings of Protestantism, there is too much emphasis on individual faith-experience and not enough grounding of our theological discourse in the story of Jesus Christ.80

And Wright suggests that we as evangelicals “have tended to stand closer to Bultmann than we like to realize, with his emphasis on faith as experience unconnected with history” and “his existentialist call for decision.”81 Wright observes that many now look for assurance of their salvation in their feelings and lose assurance the second God seems remote.82 The solution to this pastoral problem for many scholars is to see that our salvation rests not in our own faith but in the faithfulness of God and Christ, in our participation with Christ, and in this apocalyptic revelation of God’s saving action. But is this what the apostle really taught?

Evaluation and Prospect

Most readers will have guessed that my answer to this question is no, but I want to stress that it is a qualified no. There are many points on which Hays and others are correct but on which they have taken their reasoning a step too far and obscured what the apostle actually teaches. The primary thesis of Hays’s dissertation, that Paul’s arguments build on the story (or better, history) of Jesus Christ, is correct.83 The apocalyptic school’s emphasis on the priority of God’s gracious action in Christ surely resonates with the apostle who so closely associates Christ with God’s grace (e.g., Gal. 1:6; 2:21; 5:4). Participation with Christ is one of the most important topics in Paul’s letters.84 And the apostle does speak about the faithfulness of both God (Rom. 3:3) and Christ (2 Tim. 2:13). The goal of this book is not to deny any place for apocalyptic, participation, or the faithfulness of God and Christ in the theology of Paul. I think, however, that advocates of the “faithfulness of Christ” view have overreached with their theological argument and significantly de-emphasized the role of Christ-oriented faith within Pauline theology.85

First, advocates of the “faithfulness of Christ” view have significantly de-emphasized Christ’s role as the object of our faith in Paul’s theology. In this view of Paul’s most important explanations of justification (Rom. 3:21–26; Gal. 2:15–21; Phil. 3:2–11), the apostle does not use πίστις Χριστοῦ to speak of Christ as the object of our faith. Further, it is often said that Paul rarely speaks about Christ as the object of our faith outside these debated phrases.86This role of Christ has not been rehabilitated in the idea that we participate in the faith(fulness) of Christ because Jesus continues to be the subject rather than the object of faith in this theological construct. Thus, one goal of this study is to ask whether and how the apostle speaks about Christ as the object of our faith.

Second, advocates of the “faithfulness of Christ” view have set in opposition two things that seem to be closely associated for the apostle—grace and faith (e.g., Rom. 4:16). It is fascinating that Hays’s dissertation considered whether the solution to faith being a work might be that it is a gift from God. He observes that sensitive exegetes who have seen this difficulty typically answer that “faith is not a product of human will but of divine agency, that it is a gift planted in the human heart by God.”87 But he dismisses this solution as not found in the text of Galatians.88 In contrast, Douglas Campbell affirms that faith is a gift in Paul’s theology.89 But in Campbell’s understanding of “grace,” salvation must be entirely unconditional so that justification by our faith would not actually be grace at all.90 But is this Paul’s understanding of grace?91 As Moisés Silva has observed, if “faith in Christ” is compatible with gracious divine initiative, then “the main (theological) motivation for arguing that πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ refers to Christ’s own faith(fulness) turns out to be a phantom.”92 Thus, another goal of this study is to adjudicate the relationship between faith, grace, and Christ in Paul’s theology.

Finally, advocates of the “faithfulness of Christ” view have rejected the very idea that we are justified by (our) faith according to Paul’s theology.93 It is not by means of our faith in Christ but by means of Christ’s own faith(fulness). While Hays was right to criticize Bultmann’s anthropological view of faith, he overcorrected by shifting the focus of πίστις entirely to Christology. Must we throw out the baby of our faith with the bathwater of existentialism?94 A final goal of this study is to reexamine the role our faith plays in justification and salvation in Paul’s letters.

The positive thesis for which this book is arguing is that Paul significantly emphasizes Christ-oriented faith in his theology. In the opening of this chapter, I observed that Paul’s eight πίστις Χριστοῦ phrases have important implications for his entire understanding of salvation. But the apostle also has so much to say about Christ-oriented faith outside these phrases. In fact, most of this book focuses on texts outside the debate. The first chapter explores the historical context of Paul’s understanding of Christ-oriented faith. The second chapter considers direct statements of Christ-oriented faith in Paul’s letters. And the third chapter examines conceptual parallels to Christ-oriented faith in Paul’s letters. The fourth chapter then addresses the translational debate head-on, interacting deeply with Hays’s influential argument. And the final chapter of the book provides a theological synthesis of Christ-oriented faith within Pauline theology.

1  In canonical order, the phrase occurs in Rom. 3:22, 26; Gal. 2:16 [2x], 20; 3:22; Phil. 3:9; Eph. 3:12. Scholars who dispute Paul’s authorship of Ephesians would say the phrase occurs seven times in Paul’s letters. Note also that πίστις Χριστοῦ is shorthand for phrases that have more variation in their actual wording—e.g., πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ and πίστεως Χριστοῦ in Gal. 2:16, then πίστει . . . τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεου in Gal. 2:20.

2  These two positions are typically labeled the “objective-genitive view” and “subjective-genitive view,” respectively, because the question is whether “Christ” is the object of πίστις (“faith in Christ”) or its subject (“faithfulness of Christ”). Note that the “faithfulness of Christ,” or subjective-genitive, view has had much less influence in German-speaking scholarship.

3  For this observation I am indebted to Karl Friedrich Ulrichs, Christusglaube: Studien zum Syntagma πίστις Χριστοῦ und zum paulinischen Verständnis von Glaube und Rechtfertigung, WUNT, 2nd ser., vol. 227 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 6. For a list of the eight prepositional phrases, see chap. 4.

4  Ulrichs, Christusglaube, 8 (my trans.).

5  R. Barry Matlock, “Detheologizing the Πιστις Χριστου Debate: Cautionary Remarks from a Lexical Semantic Perspective,” NovT 42, no. 1 (2000): 1–23.

6  See Kevin W. McFadden, “Does Πιστις Mean ‘Faith(fulness)’ in Paul?,” TynBul 66, no. 2 (2015): 251–70.

7  Richard B. Hays,