reshaping ‘justification by faith’
Mr. H. Joseph Lalfakmawia, BA, BD, MTh (NT)
Lecturer
Master’s College of Theology
Visakhapatnam
Introduction
The doctrine of justification by faith has long been a lively and controversial issue in the church. This paper attempts to reshape the doctrine from Romans 3:21, 22; 4:11-13 and 9:30, 31. According to Rom. 3:21, 22, the righteousness of God has been revealed dia. pi,stewj vIhsou Cristou//. The basic grammatical question is whether pi,stij followed by a proper noun in the genitive case should be understood to mean faith ‘of Christ’ (subjective genitive) or faith ‘in Christ’ (objective genitive) or Genitive of Fellowship or Mystical Genitive.[1] The correct grammatical definition as subjective or objective genitive determines correct interpretation of the theology of justification by faith and the role of faith in Christian life. Therefore, this paper deals with the debate between subjective genitive and objective genitive interpretation of the pi,stij vIhsou Cristou/ and the role of faith for justification.
The interpretations of pistis Ihsou Cristou
1) Subjective Genitive (Faith of Christ)
Johannes Haussleiter introduced this idea into modern New Testament scholarship in 1891. He saw Rom. 3:26 as a clear reference to Jesus’ own personal faith.[2] Kittel too supported this view.[3] Herbert and
Howard too followed this view because he found that the biblical and other literatures[6] always used it in this way.[7] Therefore, the normal meaning of pistis in ordinary Greek is not ‘faith’ or ‘trust’ but ‘reliability’ or ‘fidelity’ or ‘assurance’ or ‘pledge.’[8] So, he preferred the translation ‘faithfulness’ to ‘faith’ in this context. For Paul, then, the doctrine of justification by faith is the doctrine that by the faith of Christ God has united
Richard B. Hays, M. D. Hooker and de Boer are the most recent and thoroughgoing representatives in subjective genitive argument. Hays, though accepted the possibility of objective genitive construction after pi,stij, in spite of its rare usages, concluded that the balance of the grammatical evidence favors the view that pi,stij vIhsou Cristou/ means ‘faith of Jesus Christ and the use of ‘faith in Christ’ (objective genitive) is really very weak.[11]
If Abraham could be justified by trusting God, why should we need to believe in Christ to be justified? Why not simply put our trust in God, as Abraham did?[12] Hays is impressed by the representative Christology of Markus Barth who said that Jesus, in his faithfulness and relationship to God, is the true representative of all human beings. He, therefore, accepted the interpretation of pi,stij vIhsou Cristou/ as subjective genitive (‘the faith of Jesus Christ’), which is also biblically sound and theologically intelligible.[13] Besides this, Hays regards a “redundancy to add eivj pa,ntaj tou.j pisteu,ontaj in Rom. 3:22 if pi,stij vIhsou Cristou/ is truly ‘faith in Jesus Christ’” as one of the proofs of subjective genitive.[14] Regarding Rom. 3:22, Hays still wanted to translate the phrase pi,stij vIhsou Cristou/ as ‘the faithfulness of Jesus Christ,’ not simply ‘the faith of Christ.’[15]
M. D. Hooker, in her support of subjective interpretation, picked up the parallel between Christ and Adam and said, “If men and women are faithless, we may expect Christ to be faithful.”[16] She compared the faithlessness of Adam and the faithfulness of Christ and assumed that what Paul wanted to stress is but the faithfulness of Christ. She claimed seven passages[17] as her argument and concluded that all the passages contain a reference to Jesus, either in the phrase itself or in the context. These are spoken as the antithesis between the Law and faith, that this logical antithesis is not our faith but the faith of Christ.[18]
Boer too supported this view by saying that if it is to be translated as ‘faith in Jesus Christ’ (objective genitive), Paul would have used as expression such as pi,stij eivj Criston (as found in Col. 2:5, cf. Acts 20:21). Besides, he also quoted Rom. 4:16 of Abraham’s faith which is undoubtedly translated as ‘the faith of Abraham’ (subjective genitive).[19]
2) Objective Genitive (Faith in Christ)
W. H. P. Hatch, E. Wissmann and W. Mundle were the former proponents of an objective genitive interpretation.[20] There are many other scholars who support this view such as F. F. Bruce,[21] A. M. Hunter,[22] Charles Hodge,[23] Bultmann,[24] Barrett,[25] Käsemann,[26] G. Barth,[27] Hendriksen,[28] John Murray, Barr, Dunn etc. John Murray, James Barr and Dunn are the most outstanding scholars who severely attacked the subjective genitive interpretation.
Jesus is explicitly referred to as the object of faith according to several scholars.[29] It is true that Jesus Christ is the object of faith in Rom. 3:21 and 22, and Paul did not talk about the faith which Jesus himself exemplified, or his own faith which he exercised. The faith that is brought into relation to justification is not a general faith in God, rather it is faith directed to Christ.[30]
James Barr decisively attacked Herbert and Torrance in their interpretation of the Hebrew term (as mentioned above) and accused them of as making a serious methodological error. Barr continued that the use of he’emin (to believe) with a human subject is quite normal (which, Herbert said, it does not properly describe a virtue or quality in human), while with God as subject it only occurs in rather unusual locutions like Job. 15:15. He accused of Herbert and
Regarding the translation of pisteu,w as faithfulness,[33] Barr asserted that this Hebrew word, he’emin does not mean and never did mean ‘be faithful, show faithfulness’; it means ‘trust, believe.’ He accused of Herbert and
Herbert is right to point out the Greek word pi,stij as equivalent to the Hebrew hnwm). However, it is debatable how far he is correct by saying that the Greek pi,stij carries the OT meaning ‘faithfulness.’ The Heb. hnwm) is mostly translated as pi,stij and it emphasizes one’s own inner attitude and the conduct it produces.[37] It means an active faith that goes forth to the object of faith. The OT term too stands for faith, instead of faithfulness.
James D. G. Dunn studied the genitive construction that speaks literally about Christ’s pi,stij[38] and confirmed them as objective genitive because of the absence of definite article in the phrase each time it occurs. He claimed that where a subjective genitive is intended the definite article can be expected so as to mean - ‘the faith which Christ exercised.’[39] He objected the understanding of ‘Christ’s faith’ as if Christ also ‘believes’ God as Abraham did.[40] Dunn extracted some biblical verses for his arguments such as Mk.11:22 (e;cete pi,stin qeou/) which simply means ‘have faith in God.’ In spite of its attractiveness of a literal sense no one tries to think it as the ‘faith of God.’ Similarly,
Dunn once again refuted Hooker in her parallel between Christ and Adam[42] by saying that Paul does not say this.[43] He then came into conclusion that for all those reasons, the subjective genitive reading of pi,stij Cristou/ in Romans is simply an example of mistaken exegesis.[44]
We can now conclude that the argument of objective genitive is the most appropriate and has the strongest grounds. It is also found that the righteousness of God has been manifested in Jesus Christ (not in the faithfulness of Jesus Christ), and that righteousness is actualized only though faith in Christ. Jesus Christ is the object of faith. This also implies that faith is oriented towards Jesus Christ, but not somewhere else. It, too, signifies that it is by faith in Jesus Christ that the manifested righteousness of God can be achieved for justification. Jesus as the representative of all human due to his faithfulness while Adam failed simply leads to recapitulation theory of atonement. The assumption that the faith of Christ is the means of relationship between God and human, and the faith of human in Christ is the purpose and response[45] trespasses the biblical witnesses we see especially in Pauline Epistles (see the above passages mentioned). Rather, we simply found that the righteousness of God is manifested in Jesus and this righteousness is achieved by human beings only through faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus as the representative of human is vividly seen in his salvific redemption through his death and resurrection.
From the studies of our selected text (Rom. 3:21, 22; 4:11-13 and 9:30, 31) we come to know that Paul introduced justification of the sinners in terms of God’s activity to save the sinners. Paul has intimated to his hearers that no one is saved by any ritual or ceremonial efforts, but saved only through faith. Human, through sin, had broken his/her relationship with God that he/she would be penalized. Meanwhile, God is holy and righteous ever. As God is inaccessible for the guilty human, God, out of love, has revealed/manifested His/Her righteousness in Jesus Christ so that human can receive justification. Paul used a controversial term and grammatical construction in order to proclaim this good news. What has been manifested? Where is this manifestation happened? How can one receive this manifested thing? For whom has this been manifested? Our answers to these questions are not difficult.
dikaiosunh tou qeou
One more problem occurs here too regarding the subjective genitive or objective genitive: the dikaiousu,nh is of God, or from God etc. God’s righteousness has been manifested. The subjective genitive construction seems to be the most appropriate interpretation in this regard. However, it is not God’s personal nature and distributive righteousness as Luther formerly understood. It says that God is righteous and human is guilty. In order to rebuild the lost relationship, which human cannot do, God takes initiative by manifesting His/Her righteousness. But this does not mean that this manifested righteousness is a justifying active power of God.[46] The righteousness should not be understood as an entity that has done something of its own. Because of this, Bultmann’s interpretation as genitive of author is also objected. Righteousness is not something that comes out from God and does something apart from God and Jesus Christ. Bultmann’s understanding as a gift diminishes God’s part. It should be understood as subjective genitive because it is of God. Meanwhile, it is not inaccessible because God has already manifested His/Her righteousness.
Distinction between REdemption and Justification
There has been no time when human beings could not be saved or when human beings could not gain access to God even since the Fall of Eden. God provided salvation to human beings, irrespective of all races and nations by revealing Him/Herself at least through something: sometimes through angels, dreams (Nebuchadnezzar etc.), miracles or wonder workings (Daniel and friends in Babylon etc.) seers (such as prophets in the Old Testament), judges (to the Israelites), war etc. The most important of all is the Law. God gave Law so as to live a godly life. In fact, God opened a way for human beings even before the appearance of Jesus. However, they were too hard that the bulk of the people from all nations could not achieve salvation or justification.
Knowing this, God has now revealed His/Her righteousness so that it can be utilised by human beings in order to be justified. It is manifested only in Jesus Christ. This manifestation has been found not in Jesus in his inactive character, but in Jesus in his active redemptive life, death and resurrection. It also means that the redemptive act of Jesus, his obedience to God throughout his life on earth, his redemptive death and resurrection are not only to save human beings, but also to manifest the faithfulness of God towards human beings and the intensity of His/Her love of human beings. This shows God compromising Him/Herself to the extent of allowing His/Her only son to die. God’s plan and openness have been totally manifested and demonstrated now, in Jesus Christ. Jesus has now redeemed human beings. All, irrespective of races, nations, religions, sex etc. are free to be justified (Rom. 5:18). God has provided redemption now. This incident should be called as REDEMPTION.
God puts human beings into right relationship now. This has come not because of human efforts but because God has made it. The righteous God, out of His/Her righteousness and due to the redemptive work of Jesus, declares the sinful human righteous. The sinners who ought to be punished are pardoned now. This salvation process is purely from God’s side. Human has no involvement in this process. It is a pure free GIFT from God. However, God has made a condition for this. This condition is FAITH. Only those who receive this gift or righteousness through or by faith will be saved by the GIVER. We can call this as JUSTIFICATION. It has both present and future aspects.
The justified persons who believe or have faith in Jesus Christ in whom God has manifested His/Her righteousness will be saved once and for all. In other words, redemption without faith is incomplete and inactive for it should be two-way traffic. This also entails that after human is being redeemed, another step, that is, faith in the One who justifies is still following. One who keeps up faith till the end will be justified at the end to the final victory.
The traditional understanding, that is, the priority of the grace of God that saves or the overstatement of God’s salvation of human beings has to be re-examined now. This does not mean that God’s or the Giver’s priority is to be seized. Rather, it is an undoubted fact that God always comes first. Unless there has been God’s manifestation and openness, there can never be right relationship between the helpless human and the sinless God. However, this should be kept as implicit and therefore, the less importance of human’s responsibility should now be increased. Human’s responsibility should nearly be equalised with God’s intervention. Without God, human will not achieve both redemption and justification. Almost similarly, without the consent or faith of human, God will not justify human, even though God has already redeemed. This paradox has to be contemplated very keenly. God, through the redemption of Jesus, freely[47] saves human beings, not because they deserve (Rom. 3:24). Still then, God demands response, that is, faith. Only those who have faith in Jesus Christ will be justified. In other words, only those who believe will be saved or justified (Mk. 16:16 etc.).
faith for Justification
Justification of human beings has long been a debate and a bone of contention between the Catholic and the Protestant, especially concerning faith and grace. Alan Richardson mingled grace and faith for justification. According to him, justification by faith must mean justification by the gracious and saving righteousness of God through baptism and incorporation into Jesus Christ, because ‘faith’ is not a subjective emotion on our part, but an active decision concerning Christ.[48] Frankly speaking, he complicated the paradox instead of simplifying. Some Catholic scholars argued the coexistence of ‘justification by faith and judgment by works’ and accused that only the Protestants, especially Lutherans have a problem in this regard because of their unequalled emphasis on justification and their unequalled mistrust of works.[49] The Protestant scholar, Hodge strongly promoted faith as the condition of justification. That is, so far as adults are concerned, God does not impute the righteousness of Christ to the sinner, until and unless, they receive and rest on Christ alone for their salvation.[50] But a Joint Declaration of Lutheran Church and the Catholic Church on justification by faith gave unanimity to some extent. Both Lutherans and Catholics agree that good works by Christian believers are the result of their faith and the working of divine grace in them, not their personal contribution to their own salvation.[51] For this consensus, the Joint Declaration affirms
“Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.”[52]
Almost all the scholars agree with the significance of faith for justification in one way or the other. From the Anglican view, R. H. Fuller affirmed that the message of justification by the grace of God, is made available through the saving act of God in Christ, and it is received by faith.[53] Fitzmyer’s comment that justification comes about ‘by grace and through faith’[54] is no doubt a fact. We do not say that faith supersedes grace, but grace without faith is incomplete and meaningless.
Kertelge sees soteriological concern in the concept of righteousness in Paul than the subject of ethics. It stands as the antithesis between faith and law on each side. Righteousness by faith means that God creates righteousness from the new possibility of faith which he defined as belief in Jesus Christ.[55]
The main focus in the justification of human by/through faith becomes anthropocentric and individualistic to some extent. Schrenk too has this view. According to Rom 10:3, the revelation of pardoning dikaiosu,nh is the ruling power of God to which one must submit. Rom. 3:21 says that dikaiosu,nh is for all who believe. This verse says that faith is the only way to the disclosure of the one revealed object of faith.[56]
Barrett is right by construing the objective genitive of pi,stij vIhsou Cristou/ that ‘Faith in Jesus Christ’ is trust in Jesus as the creative means of reconciliation provided by God. He commented that only those who have faith are restored to a true relationship with God.[57] Hendriksen strongly affirms that ‘righteousness from[58] God’ is a blessing of justification bestowed on those who exercise faith, on no one else, the genuine believers.[59] The reason of the failure of the Jews who strictly followed the Law was because they did not have faith.[60]
The holders of subjective genitive of pi,stij Cristou/ also do not fail to see the significance of faith. Even
Even if Bultmann went too far to say that Paul understands faith primarily as obedience,[64] or ‘faith’ equals ‘obedience’[65] Whiteley’s comment that ‘Paul’s justification-faith situation included trust, intellectual acceptance, and obedience’[66] explains the role and nature of faith for justification. Besides, Bultmann is also not far away from the fact because obedience cannot be separated from faith. Faith without obedience is contrasting and irrational although faith precedes obedience.
In the Old Testament thought, faith is not an intellectual act or ethereal, but real, concrete and earthly.[67] Faith is, therefore, a description and relationship between humankind and God. Fidelity (justice, loving kindness and humility, (Mic. 6:8), obedience (Deut. 30:1-2), faithful seeking of God (Jer. 29:10-14), fearing God (Ps. 102:17, 18) etc. are the theme of the Old Testament faith.
Good work is not only important in the believers’ life, but also a part of the process of justification. As Bultmann has already mentioned, obedience is the counterpart of faith; and obedience without good work is unlikely. Hooker’s implication of 2 Cor. 5:21 as ‘we becoming the righteousness of God’ is also another example for this. She argued that if Christ is the source of ‘righteousness and sanctification (1 Cor. 1:30), then those who, in him, become what he is. So, being righteousness implies living righteously.[68] This is nothing, but living an obedient life. Premasagar, having anthropological outlook, also supported our ongoing interpretation by commenting Rom. 3:21-26 that righteousness is expressed in a personal life of faith and obedience to God, and of right relationship with fellow human.[69]
It is wise to incorporate Dunn’s view in the relationship between justification and the daily Christian life. Thus, the principle of justification through faith applied not simply to the acceptance of the gospel in conversion, but also to the whole of the believer’s life. Dunn also found this support in Gal. 2:16. According to him, Paul did not mean ‘being justified’ as distinctively initiatory act of God. God’s justification is not God’s act in first making His/Her covenant with
E. P. Sanders’ comment, “Salvation is by grace but judgment is according to works; works are the condition of remaining ‘in,’ but they do not earn salvation…”[72] truly provokes the intellectual mind. According to this theory, one remains in justification as long as one does good deeds. The righteousness which Yahweh attributes to human can be lost; it can be forfeited through conduct or actions which run counter to community with Yahweh.[73] However, we should not be led to the meritorious justification because Paul regards good works as evidential, rather than instrumental.[74]
summary
One of the most significant findings of this research is the classification of redemption and justification. The initiatory act of God in terms of the manifestation of His/Her righteousness and the salvific acts of Jesus Christ is called redemption. The next step of the redeemed human beings, that is, the response of God’s grace by faith is justification. This says that the only means of justification is faith. Those who receive the gift of the righteousness of God by faith are justified. This is neither because one deserved nor does good works. It is neither earned by means of following the Mosaic Law painstakingly, nor by circumcision, nor observing Sabbath, nor through baptism, nor any form of religious rites and rituals. Rather, justification happens just because of faith in Christ. Although this is not a meritorious justification, yet it is carried out by human beings. Therefore, the research tends to maximise the responsibility of human beings in response to God by faith. The main emphasis of the research is the role of faith for justification.
So, the holders of the eternal security of salvation are refuted as having no strong grounds and are still in the beginning stage or the initiatory stage in which God is the sole actor and does everything. The research calls for the next step, the step where faith is the key issue for justification. Salvation, then, is by grace and justification is by faith. Those who believe that believers cannot be lost or the saved cannot be lost do not understand the nature and function of faith for justification. God saves the sinners by grace. But the true justification comes into force only when one submits oneself to Christ in faith. God’s salvation remains ineffective for the individual as long as one keeps oneself away from Christ. Contrary to this, one is justified as soon as one submits oneself to Christ in faith. No faith, no justification. On the one hand, those who give up or abandon faith will be perished even if they once received justification (or regeneration). On the other hand, the keepers of faith till the end will be justified at the end.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
General Books
Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. London: SCM Press Ltd., [1983], 1987.
Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1957.
Barth, G. “pi,stij.” Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 3. Edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [1993], 1994, 91-97.
Barth, Karl. A Shorter Commentary on Romans. London: SCM Press Ltd., [1959], 1963.
Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2nd ed. Translated into English by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich. Revised and augmented by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker from Walter Bauer’s fifth edition, 1958. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1979.
Bruce, F. F. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, London: The Tyndale Press, [1963], 1969.
Bultmann, Rudolf. “pisteu,w ktl.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 6. Edited by Gerard Friedrich. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968, 174-228.
Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (The International Critical Commentary. Vol. I. Edinburgh: T & T Clark Limited, 1975.
Deissmann, Adolph . Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1926. Ridderbos, Herman. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. London: SPCK, 1977.
Dunn, James D. G. “Once More, pistis Cristou.” In Richard B. Hays. The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002, 251-254.
Dunn, James D. G. Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. London: SPCK, 1990.
Dunn, James D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.
Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Theology. Secundarabad: OM Books, 2003.
Hays, Richard B. The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002.
Healey, Joseph. “Faith: Old Testament.” The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. Vol. 2. New York: Doubleday, 1992, 744-749.
Hendricksen, William. Romans. Vol. I. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1980.
Hodge, Charles. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [1947], 1980.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Vol. III. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981.
Howard, George. “Faith of Christ.” The Anchor Biblical Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. Vol. 2. New York: Doubleday, 1992, 758-760.
Hunter, A. M. The Epistle to the Romans: Introduction and Commentary. London: SCM Press Ltd., [1955], 1957.
Jeppen. “Nm).” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Vol. I edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company [1974], 1990, 317.
Jeremias, Joachim. New Testament Theology. Part One. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1971.
Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. London: SCM Press Ltd., [1973], 1980.
Kertelge, K. “dikaiosu,nh.” Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [1990], 1994, 325-330.
McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001.
Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans: The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [1959], 1982.
Rad, Gerhard Von. Old Testament Theology. Vol. I. Edinburg: Oliver and Boyd, [1962], 1968.
Richardson, Alan. An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1958.
Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1977.
Schrenk, G. “dikh, di,kaioj, dikaiousu,nh ktl.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. II. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [1964], 1991, 178-225.
Soards, Marion L. The Apostle Paul: An Introduction to His Writings and Teaching. New York: Paulist Press, 1987.
Whiteley, D. E. H. The Theology of Saint Paul. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964.
Journal and magazines
‘Faithfulness of Christ’?” New Testament Studies 39/03 (1993), 478-480.
Boer, Martinus C. De. “Paul’s Use and Interpretation of a Justification Tradition in Galatians 2:15-21.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28/2 (2005), 189-216.
Cosgrove, Charles H. “Justification in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Reflection.” Journal of Biblical Literature 106/4 (1987), 653-670.
Fuliga, Jose B. “The Joint Declaration On The Doctrine of Justification By Faith.” Asia Journal of Theology 15/1 (April, 2001), 92-104.
Hooker, M. D. “pistis Cristou.” New Testament Studies 35 (1989), 321-342.
Hooker, M. D. “On Becoming the Righteousness of God: Another Look at 2 Cor. 5:21.” Novum Testamentum 50 (2008), 358-375.
Howard, George. “The ‘Faith of Christ.’” The Expository Times 85/7 (April 1974), 212-214.
Longenecker, Bruce W. “pistis in Romans 3:25: Neglected Evidence for the Novum Testamentum 50 (2008), 358-375.
Premasagar, P. Victor. “The Biblical Concept of Righteousness and the Indian Context.” The Indian Journal of Theology, 26/3&4 (July-December 1977), 105-110.
Watson, Nigel M. “Justified by Faith; Judged by Works-An Antinomy.” New Testament Studies, 29/2 (April 1983), 209-221.
[1] Adolph Deissmann and Hermann Ridderbos had this view. As this understanding does not have less probability and supports, it shall not be discussed here. For detail, cf. Adolf Deissmann, Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1926), 162-164 and Hermann Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of his Theology (London: SPCK, 1977), 239.
[2] Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11 (
[3] He said that the reference vIhsou (Cristou/) in Rom. 3:22, 26 are sandwiched between unmistakably ‘subjective genitive’ references to pi,stij qeou/ (3:3) and pi,stij vAbraa,m (4:12, 16). Kittel, “pi,stij vIhsou Cristou,” 424, quoted in Hays, 157.
[4] He also said that the verb `aman in its various forms, and `emunah and the other derivative nouns have the fundamental meaning of ‘firmness, steadfastness, sureness; and this applies above all to God, so that `emunah, faithfulness, becomes a divine attribute. Herbert, “Faithfulness and faith,” 373-376, quoted in James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: SCM Press Ltd., [1983], 1987), 162.
[5]
[6] George Howard, “The ‘Faith of Christ,’” The Expository Times 85/7 (April 1974), 214.
[7] Howard, “The ‘Faith of Christ,” The ExpT 85/7, 213. He found that there is a uniformity of usage when pistis is followed by the personal genitive, the genitive is virtually always subjective. In his investigation, pistis followed by the personal genitive is quite rare. Pistis occurs 23 times in the OT Apocrypha; twice it is followed by the subjective personal genitive (Sir. 4615, I Mac. 1435) but never by the objective personal genitive. In the Greek Pseudepigrapha, the genitive after pistis never occurs. In Philo, pistis occur 116 times. Twice it is followed by the subjective personal genitive. Josephus uses pistis 93 times, four times followed by the subjective personal genitive and one time by the objective genitive, which could also be questionably if it is to be understood as the objective genitive proper.
[8] Robinson, “Faith of Jesus Christ-A New Testament Debate,” 76, quoted in Howard, ExpT 85/7, 214.
[9] George Howard, “Faith of Christ,” The Anchor Biblical Dictionary, vol. 2, edited by David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 760.
[10] Bruce W. Longenecker, “pistis in Romans 3:25: Neglected Evidence for the ‘Faithfulness of Christ’?” New Testament Studies 39 (1993) 03: 479.
[11] Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 149f.
[12] Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 151.
[13] Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 153.
[14] Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 158.
[15] Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 158.
[16] M. D. Hooker, “pistis Cristou,” New Testament Studies 35 (1989), 324. She argued that if Adam is disobedient, then Christ is obedient (Rom. 5); if human fails to give glory to God (Rom. 1), Christ is the one who does not fall short of God’s glory (Rom. 3:23). She continued that we may expect the Second Adam to be obedient, to give glory to God, and to be faithful. Moreover, what the Christian becomes depends on what Christ is; if the Christian is a son of God, it is only because Christ is Son of God (Rom. 8; Gal. 4); if righteous, this is dependent of Christ’s righteousness (2 Cor. 5:21). This indicates the Christ own nature which is effective for the Christians that Jesus is not the object, but subject.
[17] Rom. 3:22, 26; Gal. 2:16, 20; 3:22 and Phil 3:9.
[18] Hooker, “pistis Cristou,” NTS, 35, 336.
[19] Martinus C. De Boer, “Paul’s Use and Interpretation of a Justification Tradition in Galatians 2:15-21,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28/2 (2005), 203.
[20] Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 144.
[21] Although he retained Revised Version and Revised Standard Version’s translation as ‘by faith of Jesus Christ’ [Rom. 3:21], Bruce meant it as ‘through faith in Jesus Christ. Cf. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary (The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, London: The Tyndale Press, [1963], 1969), 102.
[22] A. M. Hunter, The Epistle to the Romans: Introduction and Commentary (London: SCM Press Ltd., [1955], 1957), 46.
[23] Hodge said that faith is not the ground of justification, but the righteousness is through faith, as it is received and appropriated by faith. It is, moreover, not faith in general, not mere confidence in God, not simply a belief in the Scriptures as the word or God, much less recognition of the truth of the spiritual and invisible, but is faith of Christ; that is, faith of which Christ is the object. Cf. Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [1947], 1980), 89.
[24] Bultmann, without giving explanation, supported that the genitives following pi,stij in Rom. 3:22, 26; Gal. 2:16; 3:22; Phil. 1:27, 3:9; Col. 2:12; Eph. 3:12; and 2 Thes. 2:13 are to be taken as objective genitives. See footnote number 230, Rudolf Bultmann, “pisteu,w ktl,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 6, edited by Gerard Friedrich (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), 204.
[25] Barrett said that faith in Jesus Christ is trust in him as the creative means of reconciliation provided by God. Jesus is not presented as the mere manifestation of God’s righteousness visible to human, but the object of faith oriented to God. Cf. C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1957), 74.
[26] Cf. Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (London: SCM Press Ltd., [1973], 1980), 94.
[27] Barth has more Christocentric view from this objective genitive phrase by saying that the context discloses Christ as the object of pisteu,ein, and it also serves as the orientation of faith towards Jesus which is usually spoken of as ‘faith in’ him. G. Barth, “pi,stij,” Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3, edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [1993], 1994), 93.
[28] Hendriksen too held this view and said that according to Rom. 3:22 the object of this faith is Jesus Christ. Cf. William Hendriksen, Romans, vol. I (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1980), 127.
[29] Karl Barth, A Shorter Commentary on Romans (London: SCM Press Ltd., [1959], 1963), 44f.; Cranfield, ICC: Romans, vol. I, 203.
[30] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans: The New International Commentary on the New Testament, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [1959], 1982), 111.
[31] As already mentioned, they affirmed that the fundamental meaning of the Hebrew verb ‘aman and ‘emunah and other derivatives are ‘firmness, steadfastness, sureness, faithfulness’ and that is also divine attribute only. See Hebert, ‘”Faithfulness” and “Faith,’” Theology 58 (1955) 374, quoted in Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 162.
[32] Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 164.
[33] The term pisteu,w is used frequently in the LXX and used also in a strict religious sense, but this usage is dominated by the Old Testament conception of faithfulness.
[34] Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 175.
[35] Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology, Part One (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1971), 162.
[36] Cf. Friberg Lexicon, s. v. pi,stij. Also see Bauer, _____
[37] Jeppen, “Nm),” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. I edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company [1974], 1990), 317.
[38] Such construction are found in Rom. 3:22; Gal 3:22 (faith of Jesus Christ); Rom. 3:26 (faith of Jesus); Gal. 2:16 (faith of Christ Jesus); Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:9 (faith of Christ); and Gal. 2:20 (faith of the Son of God).
[39] James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 381.
[40] Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 382.
[41] James D. G. Dunn, “Once More, pistis Cristou,” in Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11 (
[42] She drew the parallel between Christ and Adam and said, “If men and women are faithless, we may expect Christ to be faithful.” Cf. Hooker, “pistis Cristou,” NTS, 35, 324.
[43] The parallel/contrast between Adam and Christ is rich and resonant, but it evidently did not include the thought of Christ undoing Adam’s faithlessness by means of his own faith in God. Dunn, “Once More, pistis Cristou,” 267.
[44] Dunn, “Once More, pistis Cristou,” 268.
[45] M. Barth, “Faith of the Messiah,” 336ff., quoted in Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 151.
[46] Käsemann’s view.
[47] Free, of course, but it is also due to the redemptive works of Jesus.
[48] Alan Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1958), 236.
[49] Nigel M. Watson, “Justified by Faith; Judged by Works-An Antinomy,” New Testament Studies, 29/2 (April 1983), 209.
[50] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. III (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981), 118.
[51] Christianity Today, vol. 27, December, 1983, 44; quoted in Jose B. Fuliga, “The Joint Declaration On The Doctrine of Justification By Faith,” Asia Journal of Theology 15/1 (April, 2001): 96.
[52] Joint Declaration 15.
[53] Fuller, “Justification and the Holy Spirit,” ATR, LXXXIII/3 (2001), 499.
[54] Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: Anchor Bible, vol. 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 119.
[55] K. Kertelge, “dikaiosu,nh,” Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [1990], 1994), 327.
[56] G. Schrenk, “dikh, di,kaioj, dikaiousu,nh ktl,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. II, edited by Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [1964], 1991), 206f.
[57] Barrett, Romans, 74.
[58] Hendriksen uses this phrase as ‘righteousness from God,’ not ‘righteousness of God.’
[59] Hendriksen, Romans, vol. I, 129f.
[60] Charles H. Cosgrove, “Justification in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Reflection,” Journal of Biblical Literature 106/4 (1987),” 665.
[61]
[62] Marion L. Soards, The Apostle Paul: An Introduction to His Writings and Teaching (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), 170f.
[63] Hooker, “pistis Cristou,” NTS, 35, 339f.
[64] Bultmann, Theology, vol. I, 314f.
[65] Bultmann, Theology, vol. I, 316.
[66] D. E. H. Whiteley, The Theology of
[67] Joseph Healey, “Faith: Old Testament,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 2, edited by David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 747.
[68] M. D. Hooker, “On Becoming the Righteousness of God: Another Look at 2 Cor. 5:21,” Novum Testamentum 50 (2008), 373.
[69] P. Victor Premasagar, “The Biblical Concept of Righteousness and the Indian Context,” The Indian Journal of Theology, 26/3&4 (July-December 1977), 108.
[70] James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (London: SPCK, 1990), 158f., 190.
[71] Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Secundarabad:
[72] E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1977), 543.
[73] Gerhard Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol. I (Edinburg: Oliver and Boyd, [1962], 1968), 380.
[74] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (
Pu Joseph i ziah te ka chhiar chhuak dap a ka vannei hle...hetiang Pastor ṭha Presbyterian in kan nei hi a lawmawm dawn hle mai...hei hian zirtirna dik tawk lo tam tak inhnialna tichhuak si a chhang fiah ka ti khawp mai
ReplyDelete