Perspectives in Translation

Question: How should we translate the phrase pistis Christou (πίστις Χριστοῦ) in such passages as Galatians 2:16?

NT scholars vigorously debate today how one should translated πίστις Χριστοῦ (pistis Christou, “faith of Christ”). Should it be translated as “faithfulness of Christ” or “faith in Christ”? Incidentally, the exact wording varies, but I refer to “faith of Christ” (πίστις Χριστοῦ) for the sake of simplicity here. I will argue that there are solid reasons (eight of them) for concluding that Paul refers to faith in Christ. Not all the reasons are equally compelling, but the cumulative case is remarkably strong.

1.) Understanding the genitive Cristou as objective (“faith in Christ) is not at all novel grammatically. The genitive object with “faith” is clear in some instances. Mark 11:22 speaks of faith in God where “God” is in the genitive, and Jas. 2:1 refers to faith in Christ where Christ is genitive. In both of these instances the words in the genitive are clearly objective.

2.) A genitive object with other verbal nouns also shows that an objective genitive with the verbal noun faith is normal grammatically. Jesus Christ is described as the object of knowledge (Phil 3:8) and the object of hope (τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 1 Thess. 1:3). If Christ in the genitive can be the object of knowledge and of hope, there is no grammatical reason why he can’t be the object of faith as well.

3.) Those who favor the subjective genitive reading claim that it is repetitious to say in the same verse that one must “believe” and one must have “faith in Christ.” Repetition, however, plays a significant role in communication, serving to emphasize what an author deems to be crucial. Hence, the texts which use the verb “believe” in a verbal construction and the noun faith with the genitive Christ are not superfluous but emphatic (Rom. 3:22; Gal. 2:16; 3:22), stressing the importance of faith in Christ to be right with God. This is not to deny that there are nuances in the text that are communicated through both the nominal and verbal forms. But readers hearing the letter read out loud would detect the emphasis on faith in Christ in the oral recitation of the text. The simpler and most economical interpretation should be preferred. Paul uses both the verb and noun in speaking of faith to underscore the centrality of faith for salvation.

4.) Paul often contrasts works and human faith in his theology, and the places where pistis Christou is used regularly contrast faith with works (cf. Rom. 3:22, 26; Gal. 2:16; 3:22-25; Phil. 3:9). But such a correlation suggests that both faith and works refer to human activities. Human beings are prone to secure right-standing with God by works, but works cannot secure such a goal since human sin intervenes. One can be declared in the right before God only by faith in Jesus Christ.

5.) It has become increasingly popular to see a reference to the “faithfulness of Jesus Christ,” but Paul never uses the word “faith” (pistis) to describe his “obedience.” There is not a single unambiguous example. But he often uses “faith” to refer to human trust in God or Christ. Since there is no clear evidence that pistis ever designates Christ’s faithfulness in Paul, and since it often refers to human faith, there are good reasons to think that the same applies to the construction under consideration here.

6.) Some maintain that the salvation historical character of Gal. 3:23-25 shows that Paul must be referring to the faithfulness of Christ, for he refers in these verses to an objective event in history: the coming of faith. But this argument fails to see that salvation history and the objectivity of revelation fit very well with a reference to faith in Christ. Certainly, Gal 3:23, 25 refer to the coming of faith at a certain time in redemptive-history. But such an observation hardly excludes faith in Christ, for faith in Christ becomes a reality in history when he arrives and fulfills God’s saving promises. God’s salvation-historical work in Christ makes possible for the first time in history belief in Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ. Those who appeal to salvation history rightly see the epochal character of God’s revelation but they go too far and eliminate the human response to that revelation.

7.) Occasionally, proponents of the “faithfulness in Christ” interpretation say that the emphasis on faith in Christ in the traditional interpretation is Pelagian, as if it somehow detracts from God’s work in salvation. Such a criticism is far off the mark, for to call for human response is not necessarily Pelagian. Otherwise, the apostles’ preaching in Acts was Pelagian, since they summoned people to repent and believe (Acts 2:38: 3:19; 16:31). A human response of faith does not undercut the truth that God saves, particularly since God grants faith to his own (Eph 2:8-9). One must beware of an overemphasis on divine sovereignty that undercuts the teaching on human responsibility.

8.) It seems that most of the early church fathers understood the phrase to denote faith in Christ. The interpretation of the early church fathers is not infallible. But their reading of the construction reveals how they understood the grammar of the text, suggesting that faith in Christ was entirely natural for those who first interpreted the Pauline letters.

I conclude that we can be quite confident that πίστις Χριστοῦ (pistis Christou) should be translated as “faith in Christ,” and not “the faithfulness of Christ.”

Thomas R. Schreiner is James Buchanan Harrison professor of New Testament interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He served as New Testament editor for the ESV Study Bible.

This entry was posted by Thomas R. Schreiner and is filed under New Testament.