Pistis Christou

I first got introduced to the pisits Christou debate by Douglas Campbell's classes on Paul. What follows is a version of a 2nd-year undergrad essay I wrote arguing from Douglas' work that we should read pistis Christou as the faithfulness of Christ. See this recent paper from Douglas called ‘Faith’ in Paul with particular reference to questions of divine and human agency. The debate I think is very important because it affects how we present the gospel and understand salvation.   

In recent years the pistis Christou debate has become very famous within Pauline circles. It is a debate that still remains unresolved and is characteristically divided, with both sides ‘sticking to their guns’ and giving nothing away. This is because, as Douglas Campbell has pointed out, a great deal rests on the outcome. The debate is grounded in a wider context of whether ‘justification by faith’ as an atonement model is Paul’s theological centre. Thus pistis Christou has a determinative role in the ‘justification by faith’ argument. Paul Achtemeier’s comment, then, that ‘what we have is merely an interesting exegetical exercise’ (1997, 82) seems to entirely underestimate what is at stake. The larger question of what is Paul’s gospel, rests, in part, on the outcome of how we translate pistis Christou.

Pist- words, in the ten-letter canon (Rom, 1 & 2 Cor, Gal, Phil, 1 & 2 Thess, Col, Eph, Philem), appear roughly 150 times. The noun pistis, with which we are most concerned, appears 108 times and the verb pisteuo, the remaining 48 times. However, the location of pist- language is concentrated to just a few of Paul’s letters. Moreover, it appears principally in two sections of two letters, where it is densely deployed: Romans 1-4 and Galatians 2:16-3:29. This obviously raises some provenance questions, to which we will return later.  The disputed pistis Christou occurs seven times: Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16 (twice), 20; 3:22;Phil 2:9.

The reason pistis Christou is such a disputed phrase is it is a genitive construction. This means it can be translated either 'faith in Christ' (an objective reading) or 'faith of (a subjective reading). Paul gives no clear grammatical signifier to either reading and ‘the issue can only be settled by exegesis’ (Hooker, 1989, 321). In other words, ‘our interpretative decision about the meaning of Paul’s phrase . . . must be governed by larger judgments about the shape and logic of Paul’s thought concerning faith, Christ, and salvation’ (Hays, 1997, 39). In the objective reading Christ is the object of faith the means of obtaining salvation is a human action of ‘having faith.’  In the subjective reading interprets Christ is the subject of the faith. It is a christocentric understanding, as it is Christ’s act of faith - his faithfulness that justifies, this act of faithfulness is most obviously a reference to the events of Easter - Christ’s passion, death and resurrection.

There are, I believe, four main determinative reasons why ultimately we must endorse the christological reading as the most plausible interpretation of pistis Christou: 1. Paul’s use of Hab 2:4; 2. the singularity of pistis; 3. an alternative reading of Romans 1-4; and 4. the difficulties of the traditional reading.

Firstly, Paul’s use of Hab 2:4.  1. Hab 2:4, along with Gen 15:6 and Isa 28:16 are all quoted by Paul in Romans in the three critical pistis sub-sections (Rom 1:17, 4:3, 9:33, cf. Gal 3:6, 3:11), and all these OT quotes use pist- language centrally. 2. Hab 2:4 seems to supply the dominant prepositional phrase in these arguments, namely, ek pisteous. It functions, according to Campbell, ‘as the fundamental linguistic template from which’ (1992:101) Paul’s use of the pistis genitive derives. That is, the phrase ek pisteous, or its alternative dia pisteous, found so extensively in Romans and Galatians, have their origin in Hab 2:4: ‘the one who is righteous ek pisteous will live’. As a result whenever Paul uses the phrase ek pisteous he has in mind Hab 2:4. In Paul’s version of Hab 2:4 the text ‘has been textually trimmed by Paul to this exact phrase ...’ (1997:713). This implies a distinct relationship between Paul’s use of Hab 2:4 and the ek pisteous phrase – Paul uses the construction ek pisteous to echo repeatedly Hab 2:4.

So far, we have argued that Hab 2:4 is the template behind Paul’s extensive pistis use. The result being if we are to interpret pistis Christou and other pistis genitives, we must look to Hab 2:4 for the answers. This, Campbell contends, is possible in the context of Rom 1:17, where Hab 2:4 is used as Paul’s first scriptural support for his ‘gospel’. (In the context of 1:2, where Paul says the gospel was ‘promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures’, this gives Hab 2:4 an important place. It is perhaps Paul’s key proof text for the validation of his gospel.) Campbell’s proposal is we read Hab 2:4 christologically, as ‘a messianic proof-text’. Jesus is the ‘righteous one,’ who ‘through faithfulness,’ that is faithfulness to the ultimate point of shameful death, ‘will live,’ meaning be resurrected and so vindicated by God (1997b) Rom 1:17 then is not about how one is saved, but a declaration of what has happened: ‘[Hab 2:4] is not a scriptural attestation of how the gospel is appropriated . . . its focus is substantive, rather than instrumental, and christocentric rather than anthropocentric’ (1994, 284). As a result, whenever ek pisteous or its equivalents are used, it is a reference to the faithfulness of Christ and not the believer.   

Our second determinative reason for a christological reading is the singularity of pistis. By this I mean, Paul’s specific use of pistis language in Galatians 3 requires us to read it singularly. In Galatians 3:23-25 Paul refers to a singular pistis three times with ‘the frequent association of the notion of ‘coming’’ - ‘[the] pistis came’, ‘[the] pistis would be revealed’, ‘pistis has come’.  A reading that claims pistis means human ‘faith’ seems fundamentally odd and at odds with the notion of ‘coming.’  If, though we were to read pistis as a reference to Christ, Gal 3:23-25 make clearer sense. Paul, in these verses, tables a once-only event - a single relevatory act - which liberates those under the law, from the law (v.25). ‘This emphasis is really incommensurate with acts of belief and trust occurring throughout human history’ (1997:717). Rather, pistis is more simply understood christologically - ‘the faithful one’. So Gal 3:22-26 would be translated:   

      v. 22:  through [the] faith[fulness] of Jesus Christ [the promise is given to those who trust.]
      v.23a: Before the ... coming of [the] faith[ful one] ...
      v.23b: the coming faith[ful one] is revealed.
      v.24:   ... until Christ came, so we might be set free through faith[fulness]
      v.25:   [the] faith[ful one], having come ...
      v.26:   through [the] faith[ful one], in Christ Jesus you are all children through faith[fulness]

Furthermore, as Campbell points out, this is further corroborated both by the equations the argument draws earlier on between Christ, ‘the seed’ (3:16), and [the] pistis (3:16-25), and by the theme of Christ’s arrival that Paul speaks of elsewhere in his writings (see esp. 1 Cor. 1:30 and context) (2004).

However, the argument for a christological reading cannot rest simply on these exegetical issues. There is a need to provide an explanation for why Paul writes Rom 1-4 and Galatians 2-3. If we can suggest a plausible and ultimately a more likely reason for reading these passages alternatively to the traditional ‘justification by faith’ model, it places the christocentric reading of pistis Christou in a stronger position. Campbell believes an explanation can also be found  solving the provenance issues (why Paul wrote Romans and Galatians). Earlier we said that pist- language is deployed in the greater part in the letters to the Romans and to the Galatians. Campbell’s argument is the contingent circumstances behind these letters gives rise to Paul’s use of pist- language. This suggests the antithesis between pistis and nomos (or faith and law) is not where Paul’s underlying centre is to be found, but rather it is Paul seeking to undermine the gospel of his opponents (in this case Jewish Christian teachers) and establish the supremacy of his own.

Let us sketch in some biographical details: first the letter to the Galatians. This deals with ‘troublemakers’ - traditionally called the Judaizers - who have come to the Galatian community and preached a different gospel (Gal. 1:6-7). Paul’s letter is essentially an attack on their ‘gospel’ and a defence of his own. Second, the letter to the Romans. This is, I want to argue, a few ‘rounds’ later in the same battle. Paul, having now be dealing with this alternative ‘gospel’ and its proponents for probably about a year, writes ahead to the Romans to warn them of this possible incoming threat. This explains the systematic and basically better argued nature of the letter; that is,  Paul, after a few ‘rounds’ has obtained a better understanding of the weaknesses of their gospel. 

The traditional approach to the arguments in Galatians 2:16ff and Romans 1-4  is to read them biographically. That is to say, there is ‘some prior phase in which failure to be justified by works takes place’ (1999b, 247, n. 46) and then the realisation that salvation can only be attained by faith. The alternative reading suggested is not to see them as biographical, but instead as merely antithetical. Paul is tabling the two gospels - one, justification by works belonging to the Judaizers, the other, justification by pistis Christou which is Paul’s gospel. (This appears to make a lot more sense, when we realise in both Galatians and Romans, Paul is writing to communities who are already Christians. He is not trying to convert them!) Paul is presenting the two gospels, giving a criticism of his opponents and an endorsement of his own. In the particular case of Romans, Paul’s argument from 1:18 has traditionally been interpreted as Paul wishing ‘to construct a suitable context for the gospel’s proclamation’. Campbell contends rather that it ‘is a critique’ of the Judazier’s gospel and therefore not a description of Paul's gospel. Paul presents the Judazier’s gospel and then ‘drives it through to its absurd conclusion that this proclaimed soteriology will ultimately save no one, not even its own advocates’ (1999b, 244). 

What this means for the pistis Christou debate is there is an alternative to reading both Galatians and Romans as Paul’s own biographical journey from works to faith. If this is the case, the traditional reading of pistis Christou does not make coherent sense, because Paul does not go on to explain what ‘faith in Christ’ means. However, if we read it christologically, there is an another place we can look for Paul’s own understanding of atonement by the ‘faith of Christ’, namely Rom. 5-8 and Gal. 3:21-4:7, which both present a model of atonement that supports a christocentric reading of pistis Christou. Campbell believes ‘Paul’s emphasis on faith should be understood primarily as counter-argument to the claim of the Judaziers that full law-observance is necessary for salvation . . . we should not necessarily look for its proper definition and role within his polemics against the Judaizers’ (2001).

Supporters of the objective reading, like Dunn, tend to point to the lack of a definite article in all disputed cases as ‘almost sufficient’ evidence for their reading. The arguments runs that if pistis Christou was preceded by a definite article, there would no doubt that it was an indication that Paul meant the phrase subjectively. That is, because Paul leaves out the definite article this suggests an objective reading. Although this argument has no real decisive weight, the christological reader can direct attention to Gal. 2:20. Here Paul uses a definite article with pistis and goes on to explain what pistis means: ‘who loved me and gave himself for me’.

Although in danger of an over-generalisation, I suggest, that advocates of the traditional reading do so because they read the text through the ‘justification by faith’ paradigm (Campbell, 2005). The implications of this are their arguments for an ‘objective’ reading rely on the preconceived notion that Paul’s theological centre is ‘justification by faith’. Thus, often it appears, they do not even attempt to acknowledge the coherence of the arguments for a christological reading. Dunn’s 1997 article appeals more often or not to the idea that Paul cannot mean a christocentric reading because that would render ‘justification by faith’ as unworkable and fundamentally un-Pauline! They appear to be unwilling to admit ‘tradition’ may have got it wrong. In the end, Campbell seems right in suggesting, ‘traditional advocates must rise to meet the new challenges to their explanatory coherence formulated by christological advocates, or their advocacy may ultimately risk the fate of ‘the flat-earthers’’. In other words, the burden of proof lies with the traditional readers.   

Texts Used:

Achtemeier, Paul J. 1997. ‘Apropos the Faith of/in Christ: A Response to Hays and Dunn’. In Hay and
Johnson [eds.], Pauline Theology.Volume IV: Looking Back, Pressing On, Atlanta GA: Scholars. 
Campbell, D. A. 1992. ‘The meaning of PISTIS and NOMOS in Paul: A Linguistic and Structural
Investigation’. Journal of Biblical Literature 111: 91-103.
_____1994. ‘Rom. 1:17 - A crux interpretum for the PISTIS CRISTOU debate’. Journal of Biblical
         Literature 113:
_____1997a. ‘False Presuppositions in the PISTIS CRISTOU debate: A response to Brian Dodd’.
Journal of Biblical Literature 116: 713-19.
_____1997b. 'An interpretative ugly duckling? - the christological construal of PISTIS in Romans.' An unpublished paper.
_____1999a. ‘The coming of PISTIS in Galatians, chapter three [vv.22-26]’. An unpublished paper.
_____1999b. ‘Natural Theology in Paul? Reading Romans1:19-20’. International Journal of
Systematic Theology 1.3: 231-252.
_____2001. ‘Perspectives on the atonement in Paul’. A Notebook on Paul. London: D. A.
Campbell.
_____2004. '‘Faith’ in Paul with particular reference to questions of divine and human agency'. An unpublished paper.
_____2005. The Quest for Paul's Gospel, London: T & T Clark International.
Dodd, Brian. 1995. ‘Romans 1:17 - A crux interpretum for the PISTIS CRISTOU debate?’. Journal of Biblical Literature 114: 470-3.
Dunn, James D. G. 1997. ‘Once more, PISTIS CRISTOU’. In Hay and Johnson [eds.], Pauline   
Theology. Volume 4.
Hays, Richard B. 1997. PISTIS and Pauline Christology: What is at stake?. In Hay and Johnson [eds.].
Pauline Theology. Volume 4.
Hooker, Morna. 1989. ‘PISTIS CRISTOU’, New Testament Studies 35: 321-42.

Comments

[-ash]

One question of clarification: "what would the implications of a christocentric reading be?" that is, if an anthropocentric reading leads us to salvation by faith, what does a christocentric reading lead us to? You say something of "by the faith of Christ," but what does this look like? (the former, of course, I am far more familiar with in lay-terms).

A point, on linguistics: If we cannot de facto link pistis with with the verb pisteou, then what ground is there for linking pistis to the ek pisteous of Habakkuk?

Is this whole "pistis" thing from the Greek? if so, can we make linguistic claims that link the Old and New Testaments in this way? I would assume that the Septuagint would be the method of doing this, but is this entirely reliable to base a whole semantic theory on- we would not attempt the same with the English translation of texts (one would hope) ?

I do apologise if I've missed the point here somewhat, or misunderstood, as I got lost in there a couple of times as you might expect(!) It's certainly an interesting thing. I remember begining a document by someone (Breuggmann[sp?] I think) on this whole debate, but found the language too unfamiliar and resolved to simply reading the appendicies. This, however, was far more accessible, albeit still difficult in places, but that is necessary really.

very interesting indeed.

-ash

[andy goodliff]

I have somewhat revised this post, hopefully making some of it clearer.

[Gary Manders]

I would agree with Ash, about needing some clarification. I love the general thrust of the argument but what are the implications for the Christocentric interpretation of Pistis Christou? How does it affect how we present the gospel and understand salvation? I guess I put Campbell on my reading list.

[dritsema]

I just came across your blog on pistis christou. I am currently having a debate with others about the thorny text of 1 Tim 2.15 "saved through childbearing." I argued that because this text is filled with grammatical difficultes (the verbs don's have subjects being one), that there is causes to look elsewhere for understanding. I cited this pistis christou debate as an example of how difficult some areas of biblical stuy are when worked on purely from a grammatical basis. Please check out the discussion on my page on 1 Tim 2.15 Childbearing. There are right now three comments. I would love for you to comment on this aspect of the debate, and if you give me permission I will add your page to my links list. Thanks a lot. God bless.

[Ron Sirkel]

Andy
This is the topic that has changed my whole view of what is called the gospel. There is so much I want to say about the faith of God or of Jesus but I still struggle with making it clear. Let me hear from you. Can the paper you quote by Campbell still be found on the internet? Do you have a copy you could e-mail? There is a great need for a contemporary book for the common man on "pistis christou". Do you have anymore references you have found that are written for the average Christian reader. I have read Hays, Martyns, Howard, and Ian Wallis, Wright, ect. These are specialists and their writings tend to be read within the guild of scholars and stay there, except for students and pastors. What about your paper on the subject? Send it to me.
I can't let this go, write to me.
Ron

[Steffen Zimmermann]

"pistis Christou"
It is only about the belief of the Jesu Christu, around the belief of the son of the Man and not around the belief of the sons of the people. The translation since Luther is wrong.

[andy goodliff]

Ron, I suggest getting hold of a copy of Douglas Cambpell's The Quest for Paul's Gospel. You're right once you understand pistis christou as a reference to the faith/fulness of Christ, I found the gospel made much better sense, a doctrine of salvation makes much better sense.

[Ron]

Andy
I ordered Campbell's book. I will give you a report later. Have you stayed in touch with him since his going to Duke?

Have you ever read George Fox (Quaker)? The "faith/fulness of" and the promised Spirit paradigm shift of this contemporary scholarship lends authority to the early Quaker experience of revelation (openings) and the life of Jesus filling the meetings (Holy Spirit).

I guess time will tell.

Peace
Ron

[Seth]

Campbell's work is outstanding, especially his book on Paul's gospel. He has a bigger book on the problem of justification coming out next year (fingers crossed!).

Here's a pretty good background article on the debate: http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/XLIV/44-3.htm

Grace and Peace,
Seth

P.S. Love the blog, Andy

[Ron]

Hi Andy
Campbell's new book arrived and I dived in with relish. Overall it was an eye opener, but difficult to read for the average person. That is, if one were not familiar with the terms and perspective it would be difficult to understand.
All in all, it pushes the "faith of" paradigm into a more comprehensive arena of its centrality to the gospel. I think "faith of" is synonymous to the gospel or the preaching of Jesus Christ.
Reconstructing the theology of salvation is a tall task and I look forward to his next book, mentioned by Seth, and hope it will deal with the JF model in a more fluid way, less technical. I hope, but scholars will do what scholars do and it may be up to a popular writer or preacher to present this to the public mind.
I think once "the faith" is preached again with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven, the works of God will again be manifest as the prototype shows "Peter preaching in Acts 10 to Cornelious and his friends"
I did like his treatment of Romans 1:8 - 3:20, like Martyns did with his Anchor Bible commentary on Galatians, responding to the "teachers or missionaries" with their view first and allowing them to see their error before he strikes with the outcome.
Again, I think "Pistis Christou" is the key to this last days ingathering and it is a sovereign work which no man can stop.(Too Bold?)
I appreciate every writer that takes on the task of reconstruction. The light does dispel the darkness and how great was that darkness.