Faith in Jesus/Faith of Jesus

Dave Larsen asked me on Twitter where I stood on the "faith in Jesus"/"faith of Jesus" debate but realized 140 characters might not do it. Frankly, there's no silver bullet so several books wouldn't do it.  Here's the skinny on my thoughts.

1. First, most probably don't even know what we're talking about. In a number of key places in Paul, the literal expression Paul uses is "faith of Jesus Christ," even though most translations thus far have translated it "faith in Jesus Christ."  Rom. 3:22; Gal. 2:16, 20 are a couple for starters.

2. I believe that in most of Paul's discussion in Rom. 4 and Gal. 3, as well as verses like Rom. 3:28, Paul has human faith in view. These are not places where he uses the expression "faith of Jesus" but speaks of faith in general as the mechanism of justification. However, such faith is primarily directed toward God, not Jesus (e.g., Rom. 4:17).

I disagree with Wright that faith is a "badge" of membership in God's people for Paul. I wrestled with this for a good long while. What is Wright saying? He's so smart and deep.  As has happened with many such things I have struggled with, I finally decided the problem was not that I was stupid but that Wright (in this case) is just wrong. He's a Reformed Anglican and Paul isn't. Faith is a mechanism of justification for Paul, despite later debates about monergism, synergism, etc.

I might add, however, that I agree with Wright on many other things.

3. Romans 5:19 and Luke Timothy Johnson gnawed at me for a good long while. The language is almost exactly parallel to Romans 3:22.  Obedience of one man is similar to what the faith of Jesus would mean.  Many will be made righteous is pretty much the same as to be justified (same exact word). Strangely, 2 Corinthians 4:13 pushed me over the edge and I have an article in CBQ about it. The train of thought makes most sense if Paul there speaks of our faith imitating the faith of Jesus.

4. So my hunch is that the "faithfulness of Jesus" was a tradition of the earliest church coming out of Jerusalem. Paul seems to use the phrase, "through the faith of Jesus Christ" in a formulaic way, as if he is presenting tradition. And my sense of the development of early Christian soteriology, the topic I started writing on during my sabbatical, sees this phrase as corresponding directly to the earliest understandings of Jesus' death--the death of a righteous person that satisfies God's wrath toward Israel and thus catalyzes Israel's redemption from enslavement.  As Philippians 2 puts it, "obedience to the death," the "faithfulness of Jesus Christ" that is an atoning sacrifice. On that half I agree with Hays.

5. But I agree with Dunn that Paul quickly moves to our faith... in God though more than in Christ. Paul does have a place for faith in Christ in his theology (e.g., Rom. 9:33) but it is subsidiary to faith in God. I've argued that he may exploit the ambiguity of the phrase "faith of Christ" to move from what traditionally referred to Jesus' faithfulness to his emphasis on the necessity of our faith.

As I put it in the article, Paul moves "from Hays to Dunn," "from faith to faith." This is a very complex argument and unprovable, but it makes sense of all the data in an elegant way, in my opinion.

Faith of Jesus Christ (9)

Previously on Paul.

So what does it matter if Paul grammatically meant to say that the "faith of Jesus" is how we come to be declared "right" with God? He still taught that we must direct our faith toward Jesus. And even if this grammatical expression did not invoke Jesus' faithfulness, he clearly saw Jesus' obedience as an element in the equation. Is this debate simply a squabble between scholars that, aside from our desire to know what Paul really was saying, does not really make much of a difference in what we believe?

It probably does not change too much the individual things we believe. What it changes is the overall emphasis and picture, and I personally find the changed overall picture to ring much truer to Paul. It shifts several aspects of Paul in particular that move us away from some of the extremes we have inherited from history and arguably back to Paul himself.

For example, if Romans 3 and Galatians 2 use the "faith of Jesus" as the starting point, then our understanding of Paul shifts just the right amount away from our faith and on to Jesus. The Protestant emphasis on justification by faith was an important corrective in the 1500s, but in the intervening centuries pushed Protestants more and more to a "me" centered path to God. My faith is significant in Paul, to be sure. But if Paul's initial focus was on Jesus' faithfulness, then we have a better balance of emphasis that seems to fit Paul and his time very well indeed.

Related to the human focus is also a kind of individualism that the Protestant emphasis on my faith tends to foster that does not ring as true to the group orientation of Paul's world. I as an individual believer become more the focus rather than what Jesus has done. It seems to fit Paul's world much more, as we will see in the next chapter, if his focus is much more on our incorporation into Christ and into what he has done.

Another shift that seems to fit Paul and earliest Christianity better is a slight shift of focus from faith in Jesus to faith in God the Father. It is not that Paul does not still speak of our faith in Jesus. Directing our faith toward Christ Jesus remains a crucial element in Romans 3:22 and Galatians 2:16 no matter how one takes the phrase "faith of Jesus." But a careful look at what Paul says elsewhere reveals a consistent priority of God the Father over Jesus. After every knee bows in the Philippian hymn (Phil. 2:11), after everything is put under Jesus' feet (1 Cor. 15:28), God the Father is still the one to whom Jesus is servant and subject.

Throughout Romans 4, it is God that is the object of faith. It is God who justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5). It is God who calls into existence the things that do not exist (4:17). It is God who raised Jesus from the dead (4:24). Christians understand Jesus to be God, "eternally begotten of the Father," as the Nicene Creed of AD381 would put it. So we sometimes do not hear carefully the emphasis of Paul's writings at his stage in the flow of revelation. The "faith of Jesus" interpretation seems to recover Paul's balance of where faith is directed a little more accurately. Yes, it is directed toward Christ, but it is even more directed in Paul's language toward God the Father.

Finally, the "faith of Jesus" interpretation recovers a greater sense of the importance of the life of Jesus and of his humanity rather than Paul simply being interested in Jesus' death. Again, because we rightly believe Jesus to be the second person of the Trinity, it is all too easy for us to forget that we also believe he was fully human. Paul and the New Testament authors did not have this problem. Hebrews, for example, can speak of Jesus learning obedience through the things he suffered (Heb. 5:8) and being tempted like us (4:15).

None of these shifts proves that the "faith of Jesus" interpretation is correct. But they do contribute to a picture of Paul's thinking that, I think, fits not only Paul's time better but also things he says elsewhere. It fits with the fact that faith for Paul is primarily directed toward God the Father. It puts the focus of justification more on Jesus than on us as individuals. And it appropriately includes the human struggle and obedient action of Jesus in the equation of salvation.

Faith of Jesus Christ (8)

Previously on Paul. I was unhappy with the last version... I felt like I need to relegate my arguments for the "faithfulness of Jesus Christ" interpretation of Romans 3:22 and Galatians 2:16 more to the endnotes. So I continue today where my revision starts. I also made my normal Monday post on the chapter, "The Priority of the Heart" in the ongoing series, A Great Time for the Wesleyan Tradition.

________
... Yet over time I have come to fall off the log also with those who think Paul, in both Romans and Galatians, started his argument by mentioning Jesus' faith, Jesus faithfulness and obedience to die on the cross. Both sides have made their cases, and neither side has a silver bullet. Where you end up is inevitably your sense of how all the little pieces add up and your overall sense of Paul's thinking in general. If you want to know some of the specific details that led me to this conclusion, I mention three key ones in the endnotes. [1] Here let me just lay out how I like to think Paul's argument runs in Romans 3:21-26.

We start in verse 20. No one, neither Jew nor Gentile, will be declared right with God on the Day of Judgment because of how well they have kept the Jewish Law. "Works of Law" is not just good works for Paul here. True, Paul does not think that anyone can earn or deserve a "not guilty" verdict from God just by how good they are (see Rom. 4:4; 10:32). But it is quite possible that the phrase "works of Law" was one that would have immediately have made a Jew think of the kinds of squabbles Jewish groups had over what did or did not make a person unclean. [2] God will not find the Gentiles worthy because of their "works," and God will not find the Jews worthy just because they are circumcised and have been careful about what they eat or touch.

But God is still a righteous God. Verse 21 speaks of how God has demonstrated that he is still righteous, still in the business of saving his people. He has shown his righteousness in a new way, a way that does not involve the Jewish Law--the covenant rules between God and Israel. But the Law--the first five books of the Scriptures--do witness to this new way, as do the Prophets--the second half of the Jewish Bible. [3] This new way is "through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ," that is, through the faithful, atoning death of Jesus on the cross. [4]

This new way to be right with God is now available to all who have faith, both Jew and Gentile. Everyone in both groups has sinned, with the result that they now lack the glory God intended for humanity (3:23). But anyone from either group can be justified easily, be deemed right in God's eyes, "not guilty," "innocent of all charges," because of God's grace. God's grace is his undeserved favor, his willingness to give us a status we do not deserve.

God has demonstrated that he is still just, that the cosmos is still in order, by offering Jesus as a sacrifice, a sign of God's own faithfulness. [5] His righteousness is proved on every side. He saves his people by providing them a path to redemption, yet he also demonstrates his justice in passing over sins (3:25-26). And God does this to everyone who is "from the faith of Jesus" (3:26). I wonder if Paul means this phrase as a double entendre, rather than us having to decide whether he is thinking of the faithfulness of Jesus or our faith in Jesus. It is both. Those who are from the faith of Jesus are those who have been justified on the basis of Jesus' faith and who at the same time have directed their faith on Jesus.

tomorrow: what difference does it make?

[1] The rest of last week's post and additional thoughts on 2 Corinthians 4:13.

[2] See especially the first volume in this series, Paul: Messenger of Grace, pp. ** in the discussion of Galatians. In particular, one of the documents found among the Dead Sea Scrolls was called "Some of the Works of the Law" (4QMMT), and it is an argument over purity at the temple. See James VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today ()*** When Paul uses this phrase in Galatians, he is especially thinking of things like circumcision that separated Jew from Gentile.

[3] The collection of writings the Jews considered Scripture at this time basically consisted of three groups: 1) the Law (Torah, the first five books, the Pentateuch); 2) the Prophets (the "former prophets" of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and the "latter prophets" of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets); and the Writings (a miscellaneous collection headed off by the Psalms but whose precise contents were not completely agreed on). See Luke 24:44.

[4] Although I cannot prove it, I wonder if the expression, "through the faith of Jesus" was commonly known in early Christianity, to where a Christian audience would immediately know it referred to Jesus' obedience to death and the atonement it entailed.

[5] On the whole, I think it is more likely that the phrase "through faith" in 3:25 is a reference to God's faithfulness rather than our human faith.

Faith of Jesus Christ (7)

Previously on Paul

... On the one hand, human faith does seem to be the major focus of what Paul has to say in places like Romans 4 and Galatians 3. When Paul says that "a person is justified [deemed right with God] by faith" (Rom. 3:28, NRSV), he is surely talking about our faith--the faith of Paul the Jew or Ken the Gentile. Paul does not seem to be talking about Jesus' faith here. He is laying down a general principle for how sinful people can be considered right with God, and the answer is "on the basis of [their] faith."

We see this line of thinking very clearly in Romans 4. "Blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin," Paul says (4:8, NRSV). He is expanding on what it means for God to consider someone righteous (4:6) despite their sins (4:7) and ungodliness (4:5). His train of thought is clearly about the faith of sinful humans, not the faith of the sinless Jesus (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21).

Yet over time I have come to fall off the log also with those who think Paul, in both Romans and Galatians, started his argument by mentioning Jesus' faith, Jesus faithfulness and obedience to die on the cross. Both sides have made their cases, and neither side has a silver bullet. Where you end up is inevitably your sense of how all the little pieces add up and your overall sense of Paul's thinking in general.

For example, notice how redundant Paul's thought is in Galatians if he only has human faith in view:

Since a person is deemed right with God "through faith (pistis) in Jesus Messiah, we also have directed faith (pisteuo) toward Messiah Jesus, so that we might be deemed right by faith (pistis) in Messiah." [1]

Here's how I prefer to translate it:

Since a person is deemed right with God "through the faithfulness of Jesus Messiah, we also have directed faith toward Messiah Jesus, so that we might be deemed right through Messiah faith." [2]

Certainly Paul does not have to be concise, so this is no definitive argument that Paul had both Jesus' faith and our faith in view in this verse. It is just one point that eventually added up for me personally as a scholar.

But there are other arguments. For example, notice how similar Romans 5:19 is to this interpretation of Romans 3:22:

5:19: "through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous" (NIV).

3:22: "the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus to all who have faith." [3]

Clearly Paul had a place in his thinking for the obedient, faithful death of Jesus in us becoming right with God (cf. Phil. 2:6). But was he thinking this sort of thing in Romans 3:22? I will not go into further details in the main text here about what finally led me to see this as a "both/and" rather than an "either/or." [4]

You might wonder at this point what difference this whole debate makes, especially if everyone agrees that both the faithful death of Jesus and our faith in Jesus is important. True, beyond our desire in general to know accurately what Paul was really thinking, it is to a large extent a question of emphasis and tone. But I can think of three ways in which taking my interpretation points to three significant shifts...

[1] These two translations of Galatians 2:16 are mine.

[2] I prefer to leave the last faith expression ambiguous, "Messiah faith," in case Paul meant a double entendre here, a reference to both Christ's faith and our faith in Christ. Christ's faith is the basis for our justification, so we have put our faith in Christ. So in every way, it is "Christ-faith" that is the means of justification.

[3] My translation. Notice again how redundant this verse would be if human faith was only what Paul had in mind: "through faith (pistis) in Jesus to all who have faith (pisteuo)."

We can debate whether "righteousness of God" in 3:22 refers to God's righteousness or a righteousness he assigns to us. I tend to see a double entendre here of both, but in any case the idea that God deemes us righteous is obviously part of Paul's thought in the passage whatever the precise meaning of the phrase in this specific place.

The Message of Galatians (Mutiny 2)

To follow the chain back, see the previous entry of this chapter, The Setting of Galatians.

We continue with part 2 of chapter 8: "The Message of Galatians." Last night after long consideration, I finally conceded to myself that I need to give up the northern Galatia hypothesis. In any case, I can continue the chapter...
_____________
...
So the situation Galatians addresses is a primarily Gentile audience being urged to convert fully to Judaism by undergoing circumcision. Those who are trying to convince them are most likely Christian Jews, perhaps one key person in particular, who has come to Galatia from elsewhere, quite possibly from somewhere in Palestine like Antioch. It is important to recognize that their detractors claim to be Christians, not non-believing Jews. They are like the Christian Pharisees of Acts 15:5. Paul would probably consider them "false brothers" (e.g., Gal. 2:4), but they think of themselves as believers in Christ and the Jerusalem church likely would as well.

The central issue at debate is circumcision. If the meeting we call the Jerusalem Council was widely known, it is a little strange that we would find missionaries of a sort who are teaching that the Gentiles should get circumcised. [1] But we remember that Galatians 2:3 says Titus "was not compelled" to become circumcised, meaning it was still likely James and Peter's preference. It would thus be understandable if some were telling the Galatians they should fully commit and go the whole way.

One of the more peculiar features of the situation was the fact that these missionaries were apparently claiming that Paul himself agreed with them or at least had submitted to the authority of Jerusalem. They were apparently telling the Galatians that Paul himself thought it preferable for them to become circumcised (Gal. 5:11). How they made such an argument is puzzling to us, since we so strongly associate Paul with the opposite position. Perhaps he and Barnabas were still somewhat tentative on the subject when they came through the area on the first missionary journey. After all, it was after the first journey that Paul made the visit of Galatians 2 to Jerusalem. And Acts tells us that Paul circumcised Timothy at Lystra on his second journey (Acts 16:3), which certainly could have given the impression that circumcision was the optimal scenario.

Whatever they specifically argued, the undermining of his mission clearly infuriated him. This situation was personal, and no doubt reminded him of losing the argument at Antioch. Now they were tampering with his churches in his territory. One of the noticeable features of Galatians is the fact that Paul does not have a thanksgiving section at its opening, like his other letters. Instead, he launches into the Galatians in astonishment that they are beginning to act as if God's gracious acceptance of them is somehow not enough. They are beginning to observe aspects of the Jewish calendar (Gal. 4:10) and even to consider circumcision (5:2).

Paul's counterargument is not only that no amount of such "works of Law" could make one right with God. He is arguing that such Jewish particulars have no impact on one's status with God at all, particularly if one is a Gentile. To the Gentiles, God was offering a remarkable gift. Through the faithful death of Jesus the Messiah, he was offering both Jew and Gentile the possibility of being right with God regardless of how much wrongdoing a person had previously done. To try then to earn God's favor by keeping the particulars of the Jewish Law was a slap in God's face, tantamount to a rejection of His grace.

We have fallen off the log perhaps with the majority in thinking that Paul might be at Ephesus on his third missionary journey as he writes Galatians, perhaps not too long after he wrote 1 Corinthians. While many argue Paul's theology of getting right with God may have been intact very early on in his ministry, it does not really show itself in 1 Thessalonians and hardly in 1 Corinthians. [2] But just after our placement of Galatians in our reconstruction, we hear verses like Philippians 3:9 and then 2 Corinthians 5:21, culminating in Romans. Indeed, Philippians 3 and 2 Corinthians 10-13 address similar issues that Galatians does. We have from Galatians on a deeper exploration of what it might mean to be incorporated in Christ. [3] We even hear of "new creation" in Galatians (6:15) and 2 Corinthians (5:17).

Acts tells us that Paul rented out one Hall of Tyrannus while he was at Ephesus (19:9). Is it possible that Paul ran something like a school of interpretation while he was there? Is it possible that some of the arguments in Galatians are a product of his teaching there? These suggestions are all speculation, but they are not impossible.

The Message of Galatians
The heart of the message of Galatians is thus about what, in fact, makes a person right with God. The argument of Galatians is very thick, perhaps the thickest in the whole Bible. But the basic point is that Jesus is the only way to be right with God. Arguments over whether Gentiles need to get circumcised or whether you need to observe certain days certain ways are ultimately irrelevant to being right with God. Trusting in what God has done through Jesus--that's the ticket!

Of course there are countless debates both between scholars and churches over the details. Paul would no doubt be both perplexed and amused. It might be worth it to take just a little time to spell out what Paul was likely saying so that we can avoid some of the arguments between Christian groups today over theology.

First, it is important to hear exactly what Paul is arguing over concretely. Paul says that no matter how many "works of Law" a Jew might do, it will not make them right with God. It will not "justify" you. Five hundred years ago, Martin Luther heard Paul saying very generally that no one could earn God's favor. No matter how many good "works" you did, you could not earn a right standing with God.

Luther was of course correct. Paul did believe you could not earn God's favor (e.g., Rom. 4:4-5). Whether you were a Jew or a Gentile, all had wronged God and others at some point (e.g., Gal. 2:17; Rom. 3:23), thus requiring Him to overlook our sins. In other words, we all need God's grace, His "unmerited favor."

At the same time, Luther slightly changed the focus of Paul's argument. Particularly in Galatians, Paul is not really talking about faith versus good works in general. He is talking about whether "works of Law," that is the Jewish Law, could gain you right standing before God. [2] In other words, it was things like circumcision, the purity rules of Leviticus, and sabbath observance that were in the "bubble" above his head, not good works like feeding the poor or clothing the needy. One of the documents found among the Dead Sea Scrolls has an argument over "works of Law," and the things it has in mind are squabbles between Jewish groups over what makes a person unclean, not good works.

What Paul is arguing over, therefore, is the parts of the Jewish Law that were most distinctly Jewish, the things that distinguished the Jews ethnically from other people. Around the world, people knew that Jews did not eat pork and did not work on Saturday. These were exactly the kinds of "works of Law" that Paul is targeting. These are the sorts of things at Antioch that got in the way of Jewish and Gentile believers eating together. Paul's main point in Galatians is that none of these things actually help a person get in right standing with God.

In fact, relying on such things can be a slap in Christ's face. Here God has offered a free gift through Christ's death on the cross. It is a gift so good, no one could possibly deserve it. Yet you are insistent on trying to pay for it, and you cannot accept the gift for what it is.

Peter and James apparently agreed that a person could not be in right standing with God apart from trusting in Jesus' death. Paul uses an expression in Galatians 2:16 that scholars debate over, but we think Paul is saying that both he and Peter agree that you could only be right with God if you trusted in the faithful death of Jesus on the cross that one can become right with God. [3] But where they disagreed is in the value of keeping the Jewish particulars of the Mosaic Law. Paul goes on to say that those particulars do not help a person be right with God at all, while Peter and others still saw them playing a role in "justification," in being pronounced right with God. Only trust in what God has done through Christ works.

Paul uses Abraham as his fundamental example of this principle: "justification by faith." Abraham was a superb example because Paul could use him both as a model for the justification of Jews and Gentiles. Paul interpreted Genesis 15:6 to say that Abraham had faith in God, and God considered him right with him as a result (Gal. 3:6). Thus Abraham was a model to Gentiles of how to be right with God. Have faith in what God has done through Jesus the Christ and God will consider you righteous, right with Him. Paul understood Genesis 12:3's promise that all the nations would be blessed through Abraham as a promise that they would get right with God through faith, with Abraham showing them the way (Gal. 3:8-9, 14).

Paul's opponents no doubt had some arguments of their own, and most think Paul is responding to some of them in Galatians. One of the key questions he needed to answer was what the purpose of the Jewish Law was. If it was not meant to show how to be in right relationship with God, then what was it for? Paul's answer is that the Law was like a child's guardian (Gal. 4:24) that watches over it until it comes of age.

So also, the Law served several functions before Christ came. For example, it taught us the difference between right and wrong (e.g., Rom. 7:7). Paul here has seemed to shift a little in what he is talking about. When he was talking about "works of Law," he seemed to be thinking of what many Christians think of as the ritual or "ceremonial" parts of the Jewish Law. [4] But now he is talking about the heart of the Law, what later Christians would call the "moral law." The fact that Paul can glide without notice between these various parts of the Jewish Law is the primary source of confusion over what exactly he meant.

Before Christ, we were all, Paul taught, under the power of Sin in the world. Before Christ, the Law pointed out our weakness in the face of this power (e.g., Gal. 4:3). But now that Christ has come, God's Holy Spirit is available to empower us to do what is right. We no longer need the instruction of our guardian, the Law. We have the power of the Spirit inside us to keep the essence of the (moral) Law.

Galatians thus turns to an exhortation to the Galatians not to let their freedom from works of Law to lead to sinful living. This is the tight rope Paul's theology walks. On the one hand, he argues that the Jewish particulars of the Law cannot make us right with God, nor were we able to live above sin before Christ. But now Christ has enabled us to receive the Spirit of adoption and sonship. Now if we walk in the Spirit, we will not fulfill the desires of the flesh (Gal. 5:16).

Works of law cannot make us right with God, but if we have the Spirit inside us, fruit will follow. The fruit of the Spirit are things like love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal. 5:22-23). Quite different are the works of the flesh, things like sexual immorality, strife, jealousy, anger, and so forth (5:19-21).

And so Paul closes his letter to the Galatians, likely to churches in south Galatia like Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, and Pisidian Antioch. He points out the hypocrisy of those urging them to get circumcised. They are not models of Jewish Law keeping. And Paul would know, since he was once a Pharisee who paid close attention to such things. But in the end, it is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision that matters before God, he claims. It is the new creation of the Spirit made possible through the cross of Jesus the Messiah.

[1] Even though we called them "missionaries of a sort," we are not insistent at all that the main reason they have come to Galatia is to further instruct Paul's converts. They might just as likely have come into the area on other business.

[2] Another article in James Dunn's The New Perspective on Paul is a classic here, "Works of Law," ***.

[3] The expression is "the faith of Jesus Christ." To understand the debate, you have to look at a phrase like "love of God." What does this phrase mean? Is it God's love, as in "The love of God led Him to send His Son"? Or is it our love for God, as in "Your love of God should lead you to serve Him better"? The phrase Paul uses, "faith of Jesus," could also mean either the faithfulness of Jesus or faith in Jesus.

The three main reasons I finally concluded that the first expression in Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:22 refer to the faithfulness of Jesus are 1) Otherwise these verses are quite redundant, Galatians 2:16 then referring to faith in Christ three times in the same sentence, 2) the parallelism between Romans 5:19--"through the obedience of one person many will be established as righteous" and finally, 3) 2 Corinthians 4:13, while the train of thought is hard to follow, seems to say that just as Jesus had faith and was resurrected, so we must have faith and be resurrected. It thus seems to substantiate the notion that Jesus' faith was indeed one of Paul's categories.

[4] It is significant to point out that a Jew, indeed Paul himself, would not not have categorized things this way.

Galatians 2:16 Mini-Bibliography

We spent nearly all of Greek Galatians class today translating Galatians 2:16. Surely it is the most debated verse in the New Testament. Am I wrong?

It occurred to me that I always throw out a core bibliography when I go through Galatians 2:16 for whatever reason. I thought I would post it. Certainly, the key articles reflects my interpretive leanings. Obviously, James D. G. Dunn features high on my list of resources. Since most of the relevant essays now appear in one volume, The New Perspective on Paul, I list the older articles as they are situated in this volume.

"We who are Jews by nature and not sinners from the Gentiles..."
James D. G. Dunn, "The Incident at Antioch (Gal. 2:11-18)," in Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians, 129-82 remains, in my opinion, an excellent introduction to the basic context of Galatians 2:15-21, which I agree is indeed the proposition of the letter.

Since we know that a person is not justified...
What does it mean to be justified? In general, John Piper is too thoroughly ensconched in the Calvinist tradition to be a reliable original meaning interpreter of Paul in general, although as we might expect, he is a good scholar when the right conclusion fits within Calvinist parameters.

N. T. Wright is good on justification two-thirds of the time--on the law court and eschatological parts of it. His covenantal spin, however, continues to be the best illustration of the fact that we often formulate our key ideas when we are young in a PhD program, then become associated with those immature ideas, then spend the rest of our career defending them. A must read is his forthcoming response to John Piper on the topic.

Basically, you can trust a Bible scholar when they are critiquing another Bible scholar. You just can't trust us when we are selling material from our dissertations :-)

by works of law...
Here Dunn's mature statement in the long introduction to The New Perspective, "The New Perspective--Whence, What and Wither" (1-97), is in my opinion the best understanding of this phrase.

Also significant is his earlier piece, "Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Gal. 3:10-14)" from 1985 (New Perspective, 121-40), not to mention the article that put the name "new perspective" on the new perspective, namely, "The New Perspective on Paul" (1983--in New Perspective, 99-120).

except...
Should we translate the two words here in their normal sense or as "but." Dunn's "Incident at Antioch" above argues for "except."

through faith of Jesus Christ...
The two key articles here are reprinted in Richard Hays' signature volume, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11. The two articles were originally presented in Kansas City at the 1991 SBL: Hays: "Pistis and Pauline Theology: What's at Stake" and Dunn: "Once More, Pistis Christou."

even we have placed our faith in Jesus Christ that we might be justified by Christ faith and not works of law...
All the key issues above are repeated here. Consult especially Dunn on works of law and Hays/Dunn on redundancy if one goes with an objective genitive throughout.

Since this is my blog, you'll forgive me if I sneak in my article here, "2 Corinthians and the Pistis Christou Debate, CBQ 70 (2008): 524-37," which suggests Paul may have a double entendre in mind in the final pistis Christou. Since that claim was not a part of my dissertation, you can trust it. :-)

for by works of law no flesh will be justified.
This quotation of Psalm 143 and Paul's modifications to it are well treated by Richard Hays in his book, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul.

You could do a whole course on this verse, reading through this literature. It would actually be quite a good introduction to Paul's theology in the specific area of his interaction with the Jerusalem church. If twenty of you wanted to do an online graduate course on Acrobat in the Fall... :-)

Dunn's Historical Jesus summary of the day is a comin'.

Answers: Paul's Theology in Romans 1-8

I gave my Romans and Galatians class a take home test whose questions I posted a while back. I thought I'd post my answers to those questions today. There's some stuff here I'd like to publish, so as is always implied, © Ken Schenck on the parts that aren't common positions.

1. What is the gospel?
The gospel, the good news, is that God has enthroned Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, the Lord of the cosmos. Jesus was qualified to be cosmic king because he was descended from David and then God raised him from the dead.

2. Ethnic make-up of the audience of Romans?
There are only three reasons to suggest that the audience might have a significant Jewish component: 1) the Jewish names in Romans 16, 2) the Jewish interlocutor of 2:17, and 3) common sense, the likelihood that early Christian communities might have been mixed.

Aside from chapter 16, however, whose destination is questioned, the actual text of Romans pushes us toward an overwhelmingly Gentile audience. 1:13 implies that the audience is Gentile, and the discussion of 9-11 speaks about the Jews as other than both Paul and the audience. The interlocutor of 2:17 is an imaginary one and could even include Gentiles who were particularly "conservative" on matters of law.

3. Why did Paul write Romans?
First, Paul planned to visit Rome soon. Romans thus was meant to introduce himself to the Romans in preparation for his coming visit.

Second, he was visiting them hopefully on his way to Spain. He preferred not to minister in locations where the gospel was already established. The church at Rome was already founded, so he hoped to use Rome as a launching pad for a mission to Spain and no doubt hoped to have the material support of the Roman church as he went.

Thirdly, part of his introduction involved fending off possible rumors about him the Romans might have heard. In particular, it was rumored that he advocated sin because of his emphasis on grace (e.g., 3:8) and probably that he disdained his Jewish heritage. Romans is thus, more than anything, a defense of his understanding of the gospel.

Lastly, Paul has apparently heard that the kinds of issues between "weak" and "strong" that he addressed at Corinth were also in play at Rome. Romans 14-15 in particular address these issues directly, 12-13 indirectly, and the theology of Romans 1-11 indirectly.

4. What does Paul mean by the "righteousness of God" in Romans?
The Jewish background of the phrase in Psalm 143, Isaiah 40-66, and the Dead Sea Scroll hymns suggests that the first meaning this phrase would have had for a Jew is that propensity of God to act in love toward His people, Israel, and to save them. For Paul this love clearly extends to the Gentiles as well, so that the phrase, God's "saving righteousness" is very appropriate to the sense of Romans 1:17.

For Paul, the phrase also has connotations of God being just, a slightly different sense that we find in 3:26. God has passed over sins, but he has offered Christ as an atoning sacrifice. He is thus "just" at the same time that he justifies the ungodly.

In a couple places, however, Paul seems to build on the semantic flexibility of the phrase "the righteousness of God" to double entendre (3:21) or explicitly blur to (10:3) a sense of the righteousness that comes from God in justification, a pronouncement of innocence in court, acceptibility by God.

5. What is salvation for Paul?
Salvation for Paul most literally refers to escaping God's wrath on the Day of the Lord. On the one hand, the wrath of God is something already intrinsic to him "giving over" idolaters to sexual immorality and such. There is judgment intrinsic to their actions.

Yet Paul also looks to a Day of Judgment at the point of Christ's return. Salvation relates most directly in his regular usage to being rescued from that wrath (5:9). We must all appear before the judgment seat of God (2:5; 14:10).

When Paul speaks of being saved in the present tense in Romans, therefore, he is either speaking proleptically of something certain enough to speak of it as accomplished, gnomically of general truths, or using a futuristic present. Only Ephesians seems to use salvation language with more of a genuine past tense (2:8), and we would argue that it reflects more the wording of a secretary or heir than Paul's own natural vocabulary, style, and specific thought patterns.

6. What is faith for Paul? What is its content? Whom is it directed toward?
Paul can use the word faith with most of the flexibility of meaning the word had at the time. He can use it to mean faithfulness (3:3). He can use it with a primary emphasis on belief (10:8).

Most of the time Paul uses it, he uses the connotation of trust or confidence in the God who raised Jesus from the dead (4:25) or in Jesus' Lordship and all that it accomplishes (9:33; 10:11). Presumably faith in this latter case involves commitment and investment in Jesus as Lord, surrender to his Lordship.

The belief content of faith is thus primarily that God raised Jesus from the dead and thus that Jesus is Lord.

7. What does the expression εκ πιστεως mean for Paul?
This phrase is drawn from Habakkuk 2:4 and can be taken as a shorthand reference to Paul's understanding of that verse. The expression, "justification by faith" is an apt summary of Paul's understanding, provided that we correctly understand what Paul might mean by that phrase.

First, it is clear from 9:32-33 that Paul understands the phrase more in relation to human faith rather than Christ's faithfulness. Human faith leads to justification as opposed to Jewish or human "works." We trust in what God has done in Christ and God declares us justified, not guilty, our sins not reckoned because of our faith in the God who has raised Jesus from the dead and enthroned him as cosmic Lord. Most of the time Paul uses the expression, we believe he refers to human faith.

However, since we believe that Romans 3:22 refers to the faithfulness of Jesus, his obedient act to the point of death, it seems more likely than not that the first sense of "from the faith of Jesus" in 3:26 is Jesus' faith rather than human faith. The context thus implies a double reference in this verse--a reference to the faith Jesus had and to the faith we must have. 2 Corinthians 4:13 reflects this same common story of faith between Jesus and us, leading to resurrection.

8. What is the role of works in final justification?
Romans 2:5-10 speak of the Day of Wrath when God will render to each person according to his or her works. This is possibly the same event as Romans 14:10 where Paul indicates we will all stand before the judgment seat of God and 2 Corinthians 5:10. In 2 Corinthians, Paul speaks of giving an account for things done in the body.

The idea that even Christians will be judged for their earthly deeds is found several places in Paul. Thus in 1 Corinthians 3:13-15 Paul speaks of the Day disclosing a Christian's works, including some judgment by fire for individuals who will nonetheless be ultimately saved. Paul also indicates that certain notorious sinful types of individual will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

I think we should thus factor in repentance and forgiveness for the time in between "initial" justification, Paul's primary concern in Romans, and ultimate or "final" justification on the Day of Wrath. The works for which a believer might be judged on the Day are thus sinful and carnal deeds toward which a person shows no repentance (e.g., 2:4).

9. What is the role of repentance in justification?
Paul makes no explicit connection between repentance and justification. However, it does show up in a couple instances where Paul is addressing the process of reconciliation with God. It is the goodness of God that allows the sinful to repent (2:4). We suspect that Paul would fully affirm the importance of repentance as a prior requirement for justification, even though it is not a category that plays a major role in his explicit and probably conscious thought.

As an aside, my hunch is that Paul is not saying in 2:4 that God causes repentance but rather that God allows for it.

10. What does Paul mean when he says that all have sinned?
While I believe Paul would affirm that all individuals have sinned, 3:23 primarily indicates that both Jews and Gentiles have sinned. So all have sinned--both Jew and Gentile. The Jews as well as the Gentiles stand under the wrath of God.

In my opinion, Paul uses the words sin and transgression in much the same way, although Sin can take on cosmic proportions for him that the word transgression does not. Transgression tends more toward concrete actions, while sin can become more abstract. The basic meaning he primarily has in mind is to violate God's law (5:13; 7:7-8). Paul, however, seems to focus on those aspects of the Jewish Law that a believer will keep after the Spirit of Christ indwells him or her.

He does not, however, seem to define sin as the violation of some absolute perfection, such as to "miss the mark." Nor does he have in mind unintentionally violating a law that one knows. We now know the commandments (as opposed to those between Adam and Moses) and in this context Paul never speaks of sinning without knowing one is sinning. We should probably steer away from the word unintentional, however, because Romans 7 speaks of a person who does not intend to sin but is overpowered by Sin's power over their flesh.

11. What does it mean to lack the glory of God?
The glory of God is what God intended humanity to have at creation (Ps. 8) but that all currently lack because of sin (Rom. 3:23). Christ's atonement and our justification on the basis of his and our faith gives us hope to attain to such glory on the Day of Salvation.

Romans 8 gives us some hints of what such glorification might entail. It involves, for example, the redemption of our bodies (8:18, 23). It relates directly to the Spirit we have inside as a downpayment (8:23; 2 Cor. 5:5). And presumably, it has a lot to do with the resurrection body of 1 Corinthians 15.

12. What does it mean to be justified for Paul?
To be justified is to be found innocent, not guilty, reckoned as righteous (4:6) by God. This is despite the fact that all have sinned (3:23-24) and takes place by way of the atonement God has provided through Christ (3:25). Justification so credited when first confessing faith in Jesus as Lord does not guarantee the ultimate trial verdict on the Day of Judgment.

13. What does Paul mean by the "faith of Jesus Christ"?
The expression that appears in Romans 3:22 and Galatians 2:16 may at least initially refer to the faithfulness of Jesus to the point of death. Romans 5:19 seems to parallel this sense closely. The fact that Paul does not explain the expression may imply that it was a well known expression in early Christian Judaism as a shorthand reference to the faithful death of Jesus.

However, Paul tends to build on the ambiguity of the expression in moving toward human faith in his later discussions (see #7) above.

14. What does Paul mean by "works of Law"?
In Galatians 2 it seems fairly clear that Paul primarily has in view elements of the Mosaic Law such as circumcision and food laws when he denies that "works of Law" can result in justification. The expression now found in the Dead Sea Scroll document, "Some of the Works of the Law" corroborates a primary connotation of the phrase in reference to those elements of Law keeping that fueled intra-Jewish debate.

However, Paul's use of the phrase is not limited to those elements of the Jewish Law that separated Jew from Gentile. Paul always has the Jewish Law in view no doubt when he uses the phrase. The question is which parts he most focuses on at any one time. In Romans he tends to speak more generally of "works of Law" in reference to how well one keeps any part.

Paul's point is simply that being right with God is always a matter of His grace. Everyone has some violation of Law for which they need God's forgiveness. The real point of controversy between Paul and his opponents does not seem to be this point, but rather on what basis God dispenses it. God does not dispense His grace because of how well one keeps the Law but on the basis of confession of Jesus' Lordship and all that it entails.

15. What is the nature of atonement in Romans?
Atonement is sacrificial in nature in Romans. God offered Jesus as an atoning sacrifice by means of his blood. The Greek word ιλαστηριον is notoriously controversial (3:25). It surely involves a vindication that God is just (3:26) and a cleansing for sin as well. The fact that the word always refers to the physical cover of the ark of the covenant in the Jewish Scriptures surely implies that Paul has it in view here. God has made Jesus to be the Day of Atonement altar where our atonement is effected.

The logic of atonement remains difficult for us, the way in which the ancients understood animal or human blood to substitute for the offenses of others. But the result was reconciliation between the person or group and the offended god or gods. In the Christian sense, it has to do with reconciliation between an alienated humanity and God by way of the blood of Jesus. Redemption is another image used for the freedom of the offender from their guiltiness by the "payment" of Christ.

16. What is the nature of boasting in Romans?
The principal boasting Paul has in mind is the boasting that a Jew might make in being acceptable before God simply because of being a Jew and knowing the Law (2:17). Boasting in works (3:27) thus still primarily refers to the kind of boasting a Jew might make for keeping the Law. Gentile believers similarly have no basis to boast in relation to the Jews either (11:18). What Christians can boast in is the hope of the glory of God (5:2).

17. What is the role of grace in justification?
Justification is entirely by grace. No one merits or earns God's favor (4:4-5), and death results in a kind of justification for all (5:7). But God has now graciously and mercifully enabled justification for the living on the basis of their faith in what He has done through Jesus Christ and in the Lordship he has bestowed on him.

Grace here is God's patronage toward us in doling out forgiveness. Such grace does not come without expectations, however, and one should not think that such grace is unconditional or will continue indefinitely regardless of how one behaves toward the Spirit of grace.

18. What is the role of Adam in Paul's theology?
Adam for Paul brought Sin and death into the world (5:12-14). Since Adam, all humanity and the creation are under the power of Sin. All humans die, and the creation decays (8:20). Because of the power of Sin, we all sin like Adam although we do not inherit his sin.

But just as we have borne the image of the earthly man Adam we will bear the image of the heavenly man Jesus (1 Cor. 15:49). As in Adam all die, so all in Christ will be made alive (1 Cor. 15:22).

19. What is the role of sin in the life of the believer?
Paul makes no allowances for sin in the life of the believer in Romans, although it seems very likely that he assumes it does happen sometimes. It does not have to (1 Cor. 10:13), but he is not making some absolute argument in these chapters. He is not arguing that a Christian will never sin. What he is arguing is that sin must not reign in a believer's life (6:12) and that sin should not typify a Christian's life. Sin should be atypical of a believer, not typical.

Here of course he is talking about doing wrong when you know to do the good (e.g., 7:19). He is not talking about never "missing the mark." Paul consistently in this section says that while we used to be enslaved to sin (6:17) we now walk in newness of life (6:5). We fulfill the righteous requirement of the Law through the power of the Spirit (8:4).

Paul knows nothing about Christ fulfilling the Law for us, only of us dying to the Law by participating in Christ's death. Paul knows nothing of some legal fiction of righteousness that continues to cover our actions after we have first been justified by our faith in the Lordship of Jesus the Christ.

20. What does flesh signify for Paul?
Flesh is that aspect of our human bodies that is susceptible to the power of Sin. There is a dualistic element to Paul's thought here. The physical world is not evil, but it is weak in relation to the power of Sin. Apart from the power of the Spirit our flesh will overcome any intent of our mind to keep the Law. Apart from the Spirit, we will not be able to do the good we want to do. The body and the flesh thus relate to the world where Sin is empowered. Spirit and the mind pertain much more to the heavenly realm, although our minds perhaps can also be affected by Sin (12:2).

In Paul, the flesh thus becomes shorthand for a person under the power of Sin, so much so that those who are "in the flesh" are unable to please God (8:8). To be "in the Spirit" is thus for a person to be empowered in relation to the weakness of the body in this world where Sin and Satan hold sway.

21. What is the Law in Paul's thinking and how does it function?
Paul can use the word Law in a number of ways. Clearly the Jewish Law, the Mosaic Law, the legislation of the Pentateuch, is the base camp for Paul's references to the Law. When he says that Gentiles are freed from the Law or are not under Law (e.g., 1 Cor. 9:20) he both means that they are not required to keep the Jewish particulars of the Law and that our (initial) justification is not on the basis of the Law.

The Jewish Law in this respect functioned 1) to tell me the commandment of God that I must not violate and 2) pointed out my helplessness to keep that Law because of the power of Sin over my flesh. Paul here has subtly blurred into a focus on those parts of the Law that remain in force for a believer, what later Christians (but not Paul) would call the "moral" law. Paul affirms in Romans 8 that Christians can fulfill this righteous requirement (8:4; cf. 3:31). Romans 13:8-10 suggests that it basically amounts to loving one's neighbor.

But Paul uses the word Law in other ways as well. It can refer to the first five books of the Old Testament, the Pentateuch. He can use it to mean a "rule" (3:27). The fact that he does not signal any of these sorts of shifts significantly confuses his meaning.

22. What is the role of the Spirit in the believer and in the Church?
As mentioned under #20, the Spirit finally empowers the person wanting to do good, to do good. The person is empowered to love as God gives life to our mortal bodies (8:11). A person who does not have the Spirit of Christ, on the other hand, is not his (8:9). The Spirit is thus the most essential ingredient in salvation.

The Spirit is an earnest of our inheritance, both a downpayment of our glorified bodies and a guarantee (5:5). The Spirit of sonship indicates our adoption as sons of God (8:14-17). The Spirit sanctifies us, purifies us and possesses us as God's property (1 Cor. 6:11).

My CBQ Article Out at Long Last

I received about a ba-zillion copies of my latest article in the mail today. It's titled, "2 Corinthians and the Πιστις Χριστου Debate." If you're in Marion and want a copy, I have dozens of them.

I basically argue that the logic of 2 Corinthians 4:13 moves from the faith of Jesus to Paul's faith. I suggest that the pattern of thought serves as a kind of Rosetta Stone to the faith of Jesus Christ debate. Jesus had faith in God; we are to have faith in the same God who raised Jesus from the dead.

I thus suggest that Romans 3:22 and Galatians 2:16 follow a similar logic. Paul begins on common ground with his imaginary Petrine interlocutor. We know the faithfulness of Jesus Christ is essential for justification (his faithfulness to death=his atoning death).

[I recognize that we can distinguish the faithfulness of Jesus from the faith of Jesus, but they are not too far apart and would easily flow into one another.]

Accordingly, we have trusted in Christ (and in the God who raised Jesus from the dead). From this point on I think Paul largely has the faith of the believer in view.

I thus playfully suggest that Paul's thought moves εκ Hays εις Dunn.

Galatians 2:15-16

I was dialoguing with Glen Robinson on the translation of Galatians 2:16 under the post "By Faith Alone." I've spent a lot of time reflecting on this verse and actually have an article coming out this year with CBQ that ends with my understanding of it. I thought I might make this a commentary post.

1. We who are Jews by nature and not sinners from the Gentiles...

As the next statement makes clear, Paul is referring to "we Jewish believers" and although I don't think he is still telling us what he said to Peter, the "we" refers to people like him and Peter--Jewish believers.

Sinners from the Gentiles is not tongue in cheek. What is a sinner if not a law breaker and what other law would be in view other than the Jewish law. Clearly Gentiles don't keep the Jewish law, so sinners is quite literal here. Gentiles are clearly sinners. Paul plays out this idea in the whole of Romans 1:18-32--"Gentiles are sinners."

To some extent, we should think of Paul as starting out with common ground between him and Jewish believers like Peter. As we will see, however, he considers Peter's perspective to be incomplete because Peter only sees half of the equation. Paul will round out the argument when he gets to 2:17--we Jews, even Jewish believers, are sinners too. That is reminiscent to the progression of thought in Romans 2:1-3:20, namely, that Jews have sinned too. In fact, all [both Gentile and Jew] have sinned and lack the glory of God (Rom. 3:23).

2. since we know that a person is not justified...

Justification here is a legal term. The issue is on what basis a person might be considered righteous or "not guilty" in the divine court. Perhaps more to the point, the issue is on what basis a person might not face God's judgment. While the question is primarily a judicial question, its most crucial relevance pertains to the Day of Judgment and is thus eschatological.

I remain unconvinced of N. T. Wright's claim that it is also covenantal, meaning that a primary part of the meaning is whether or not a person is a member of the people of God and Israel in particular. Certainly Paul's language should be read as corporately as possible, rather than individualistically ("we" since "we" know "we" have placed faith...). But the Israel angle has not yet "clicked" for me. I don't see it.

3. ...since we know that a person is not justified on the basis of works of law except through the faith of Jesus Christ...

"Works of law" must certainly refer to works of the Jewish law. Paul is still stating common ground between himself, Peter, and other "conservative" Jewish believers. None of them, in fact no Jew at all, would claim that they deserved God's favor. They of course did believe that works of the law were an essential part of the equation, but all would have agreed with Paul that deeds of the law, apart from God's graciousness, did not earn God's acceptance of them.

"Works of law" might have had a strong connotation of the kinds of issues Jewish sects are notorious for debating. Rabbi so and so says that such and such makes the hand unclean, while so and so other rabbi says it doesn't. 4QMMT is a Dead Sea document in which, perhaps, the leader of one Jewish sect argues for his understanding of various temple issues to one of the Maccabean high priests. The title of this document is "some of the works of the law." Accordingly, Dunn argues that while "works of law" likely refers to any deed of the Jewish law, it probably had overtones of the elements in the Jewish law that distinguished Jew from Gentile.

The natural force of the word usually translated as "but" is more naturally translated "except" or "unless" (ei me). Since Paul is still laying out common ground between himself and Peter/conservative Jewish Christianity, this perspective is perfectly natural. Peter believes that the faithfulness of Jesus unto death (in other words, the atonement afforded through his death) is an essential element in justification before God. BUT, works of law are also an essential part of the equation for James and friends.

To take the phrase "faith of Jesus Christ" as a reference to the faithfulness of Jesus and in particular his faithful death is to take a particular position in a long and well documented debate. I personally became finally convinced when I came to a particular conclusion on the logic of 2 Cor. 4:13. That was the straw that tipped the scales for me. However, a more obvious argument is the similarity between Rom. 5:19 and 3:22. The parallel is striking, as pointed out by Luke Timothy Johnson:

"Just as through the disobedience of the one man many became sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man many will become righteous"

"through the faith of Jesus Christ ... being justified [declared righteous]"

The faith of Jesus Christ here refers to his obedience to death (Phil. 2:8) and thus is a shorthand way of referring to Jesus' atoning death, the redemption provided through the atoning sacrifice God made through Jesus' blood.

4. We Jews ... since we know that a person is not justified by works of [Jewish] law except through the faith[ful death] of Jesus Christ, even we have put our faith in Messiah Jesus...

The novelty here for Paul is to point out that in fact Jewish believers have not only put their faith in God and what God has done through Jesus, they have in a sense put their faith in Jesus as Messiah. We are so programmed to think of faith in Christ that we miss that this is in fact the more unusual way of thinking of faith both for Paul and even moreso for other Jewish Christians. Rather, their faith was primarily in God and in what God had done through Jesus. Romans 4 is all about faith in God, not faith in Christ. And in 1 Thessalonians, in my view before Paul started getting really thick into these debates, he speaks of faith toward God (1 Thess. 1:8). God remains throughout Paul's writings, in my view, the primary object of faith.

But Paul certainly can also speak of placing faith in Christ, as this verse and other places where he uses the verb form pisteuo. We are prone to draw false distinctions between the verb "to believe" and the noun "faith" because they look different in English. But it is the same root: pisteuo (believe) and pistis (faith). To believe thus often means to have faith, although we have to be careful because these words have a range of meanings and should not be translated the same in every instance.

Hopefully everyone knows that the word Christ is the Greek translation of Messiah. Most of the time, the word lurks without Paul drawing much attention to it. But I think it has meaning for him (see, for example, Rom. 9:5) and I think the word order here in Gal. 2 means something. When referring to the faithfulness of Jesus, Messiah, Jesus comes first. But now that Paul speaks of putting faith in him, he puts Messiah first because it is primarily as Messiah, as Christ, that we place our faith in him.

5. ... we have put our faith in Christ Jesus in order that we might be justifed by faith of Christ and not by works of law...

I think Paul is having a little fun here. The expression "faith of Christ" is deliciously ambiguous, as the history of the scholarly debate shows. Is it faith in Christ or the faith of Christ? I think given the lead up it must be both, a clever double entendre. But I think that given his comment to faith in Christ that has just preceded, it has the upper hand. In other words, if I gave the tie to Richard Hays in 2:16a, I'm going to give it primarily to Dunn here in 2:16c.

So Paul sets up a contrast. The balance of the phrases with what are called "objective genitives" speaks against seeing Hays' interpretation here: faithfulness of Jesus and not doing the law. We are justified by trusting Christ and not by doing law. The principle of justification by faith will then play itself out throughout Paul's subsequent argument.

6. ...for by works of law no flesh will be justified.

Here Paul cites and modifies Psalm 143:2. The verse says that no one living is righteous before God. Paul changes "no one living" to "no flesh." Flesh is of course a characteristic category for Paul, as we have seen. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 15:50). The key is therefore to get out of the flesh ;-), which we can due through the Spirit (Rom. 8:8).

Paul also adds the phrase "works of law" to the quote. In this way again those living can be justified through faith of Christ, even if not by works of law. Just as a final parting blow, Paul's use of Scripture here is the death blow to fundamentalist and biblicist interpretation. As I've argued elsewhere, we cannot use Scripture as Paul if we do not see the Word of God as something bigger than the words of the text. Paul found the text in the Word of God, he did not find the Word of God in the text.

Final Translation
"We who are Jews by nature and not sinners from the Gentiles, since we know that a person is not justified by deeds of law except through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, even we have placed our faith in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not deeds of law, for no flesh will be justified by deeds of law."

Faith of Jesus Christ

This is from a class I'm teaching. Some will know that the expression translated "faith in Christ" in Greek is more usually, "the faith of Jesus" or "the faith of Christ." European scholarship has tended to follow the traditional "faith in Christ" translation (in this corner, James Dunn as the type). American scholarship has tended to follow the "faithfulness of Christ" translation (in the other corner, Richard Hays as the type).

I wrestled with this issue for fifteen years before I had any real sense of what I think. Here's where I'm at.

1. It's clear that Jesus' "obedience to death" (Phil. 2:8) was a significant part of the equation. Hebrews 5:7 speaks of Jesus praying to the one who could save him out of death and being heard because of his godliness. Romans 5:19 speaks of the importance of Christ's one act of obedience and how many will be justified because of it. So it clearly would fit with Paul's theology that we are justified through the faithfulness of Jesus in some way. The question is whether Paul actually used the expression "faith of Jesus Christ" in this way.

2. That Paul could think of having faith upon Christ in some way also seems clear to me from Romans 9:33, "The one who has faith upon him will not be ashamed." The object of faith here is clearly the rock of stumbling, namely Jesus the Lord. We know this from 10:11, which repeats this same Scripture from Isaiah 28:16. The having faith upon him is parallel there to calling upon the name of the Lord, namely, "Jesus is Lord," as in 10:9. Having faith upon Jesus in this context is thus having faith that he is Lord which involves having faith that God raised him from the dead for our justification (4:25).

3. If "faith upon him" in 9:33 broadly means faith on Christ, meaning faith that God has raised Jesus from the dead and established Jesus as Lord, then we can backtrack to 9:32, where Paul says that Israel did not reach the "rule of righteousness" because they did not pursue it "on the basis of faith but on the basis of works." The that the following verse, which speaks of putting "faith on him," refers to faith on Christ implies that the expression "on the basis of faith" here refers to human faith, not Christ's faith. But since this expression is a formula Paul uses over and over, we must conclude that human faith is a major part of what Paul means by the expression ek pisteos, "on the basis of faith."

This would imply that, at best, Hays is only half right to see the expression in relation to Christ's faith. It would seem that Paul uses this expression in relation to a general principle, namely, that God justifies on the basis of faith. Perhaps this is true in relation to Christ as well--who is justified or found not guilty on the basis of a sinless faith rather than, as in our case, a faith in the midst of sinfulness. But at this point I conclude that Dunn is more correct when it comes to the expression ek pisteos, "on the basis of faith," in both Galatians and Romans.

4. The clincher for me on the specific expression "faith of Jesus" was 2 Corinthians 4:13. Here Paul quotes Psalm 115:1 (LXX): "I have had faith, therefore I have spoken. What is Paul talking about? What Paul speaks is that the one who raised Jesus will also raise us (4:14). Here is my interpretation of this passage. Paul is comparing his sufferings to those of Jesus. Here we remember Hebrews 5:7: "Jesus prayed to the one able to save him out of death and he was heard because of his godliness." My argument is that Paul likely read Psalm 115/116 as the words of Christ, as he and other Christians did so many psalms. Thus he sees in Psalm 115:1 Jesus expressing his faith that God would raise him.

My argument is somewhat involved (it comes out in CBQ sometime over the course of the next year) but basically I believe Paul is saying in this verse that just as Jesus had faith (in the God who could raise him from the dead) so also Paul has such faith. This verse was for me the straw that tipped the "faith of Jesus" debate Hays' way in terms of the specific expression, "the faith of Jesus." I believe that the idea of the "faith of Jesus" was thus not only a part of Paul's vocabulary, but even more likely a commonplace in Christian circles. This would explain how Paul can use an expression that seems so ambiguous to us without feeling the need to explain it.

5. So in conclusion, I believe that Paul begins several theological discussions with a commonly understood phrase, "the faith of Jesus" (Rom. 3:22; Gal. 2:16). Note that Jesus is the immediate word following faith in these particular expressions (see also Rom. 3:26). But then Paul balances out the faith of Jesus with the importance of humans having faith (and Paul primarily sees God as the object of such faith, see Romans 4, although he can loosely speak of having faith on him, Christ, as in 9:33). When he finally gets to expressions like "the faith of Christ," then, he has established a general principle that applies to everyone, both Christ and humans. The expression, "the faith of Christ" thus becomes a sort of double entrendre referring to both Christ's faith and our faith in Christ. From then on, the expression "on the basis of faith" comes to refer primarily to human faith in what God has done in Christ.

We might say, therefore, that Paul argues "ek" Hays "eis" Dunn.