The implications of reading pistis Christou as the faithfulness of Christ are huge. Let me provide the highlight's from Douglas Campbell's paper I referred to at the beginning of the previous post.
'The meaning of ‘faith’ in Paul is deeply contested, essentially, between two quite different interpretative paradigms ... To make matters worse, these questions of ‘faith’ ... are involved inextricably with questions concerning the nature of salvation itself, and so the stakes are high and the discussions rather intense and convoluted.'
He claims that 'most interpreters of Paul agree on a fundamentally anthropocentric approach to the theme of ‘faith’ in his thought' and this 'is grounded in the statistically dominant discussions of ‘faith’ in Paul that occur in Romans and Galatians.' These faith texts also comprise of 'Paul’s famous ‘justification’ discussions that supposedly speak primarily of salvation in the sense of ‘justification through faith’, so I dub them JF texts, and this soteriology the JF model.'
The JF model is described as: '... a transfer from one state to another, a transfer that individuals activate. The first state is ‘legalism’, within which people try to work their way to heaven. It presupposes a judgment according to works ... But a sensitive conscience soon realizes that this scheme is hopeless and that, far from obtaining salvation, it only ensures one of a certain eventual fate of eternal damnation ... At this point, the proclamation of the gospel must be greeted by great delight. If individuals only believe in the gospel then they are forgiven all their various sins and transferred to a new state of salvation ...
... All that is needed for the transaction to take place is faith on the part of the individual. Faith is therefore the trigger or catalyst for the receipt of salvation by the individual ...
The entire movement from sin to salvation is usually described ... in metaphors drawn from the law court. God presides as the judge, and the sinner, cast in the lot of the defendant, walks free from the serious charges of wrongdoing thanks to faith in Christ ...
... In short, the meaning of faith in Paul tends to be swallowed up within a more fundamental conception of salvation, as the JF construal of Paul’s gospel dominates the interpretation of the apostle’s most densely-populated ‘faith’ texts ...
The next stage of Campbell's argument, having described the JF model, is to discuss the problems with it. These are the (1) The implications of Abraham; (2) The arrival of ‘faith’; (3) The gift and/or revelation of ‘faith’; (4) The content of ‘faith’; and (5) The capacity for ‘faith’. There is not the space here to do more than note the headlines.
Having made the claim that the JF model is unsatisfactory, Campbell sets out an alternative explanation.
He says, 'I suggest that a coherent and comprehensive explanation of ‘faith’ in Paul is possible if it is approached from a different angle from the one suggested by the JF model and its key texts (i.e. Rom. 1:16-5:2; 9:30-10:17; Gal. 2:15-3:29).'
In this explanation, Christians receive their key beliefs, trust, and fidelity, from the Spirit, but also thereby with reference to Christ. The Spirit enables them to participate in Christ’s prior and definitive ‘possession’ of these actions and characteristics' ...
'This process is clearly quite appropriately described in terms of an unconditional revelation or disclosure, and in terms of a gift' ...
'The end result of Christian participation in Christ is, in essence, a new orientation towards God that encompasses truth in the sense of true beliefs, personal trust, and unwavering fidelity, like Abraham and, if necessary, through shame and suffering, until the Eschaton or death (whichever comes first)' ...
The final stage of Campbell's paper is to ask what do we do with the JF texts?
'JF advocates, as we have seen, derive most of their theoretical leverage from the very dense pist- discussions in Romans and Galatians. Hence, the christocentric advocate must answer two questions if they are to be ultimately successful: What is Paul arguing in his ‘faith’ discussions in Romans and Galatians, if he is not arguing what we have usually been told he is?, (i.e. justification through faith: see esp. Rom. 1:16-17; 3:21-5:1; 9:30-10:21). And what is he suggesting in his ‘works of law’ texts as well, that seem to prepare for his later ‘faith’ discussions? (cp. esp. Rom. 1:18-3:20).'
'Let us assume for the sake of argument that Romans was written for much the same reasons as Galatians—surely a plausible suggestion. That is, Paul fears that ‘the Teachers’ will proclaim their rival gospel, ‘that is really not a gospel at all’, at Rome (cp. Gal. 1:6-9). Their gospel is, at least in some respects, a sort of Fundamentalist Judaism: ‘turn to the law or burn’' ...
... 'Rom. 1:16-5:2 is then a two-fold attack on this gospel. In its first phase, argued in 1:18-3:20, Paul cleverly develops a series of reductions that are rooted in the preaching of the Teachers ... He argues that, in terms of its own premises, the gospel of the Teachers neither benefits through conversion to Judaism, which is shown to be meaningless in an impartial system based purely on merit, nor saves anyone, including the Teachers themselves, given the Scriptures’ attestation to universal sinfulness! It is, in short, a thoroughly self-defeating exercise. In the second phase of his attack, elaborated in 3:21-4:25, but anticipated in 1:16-17, he suggests that the Scriptures—carefully defined to include both the Law and the Prophets—witness to his version of salvation' ...
'Now this is clearly a highly contingent reading, that also thereby removes much of Paul’s JF argumentation from the realm of his own theology ... Paul’s ‘faith’ discussions consequently no longer function in sequence with his discussions of ‘works of law’, thereby creating a discussion of salvific conditions and a resulting two-phase, prospective soteriology. They function in parallel to them, thereby disrupting that soteriology. (Indeed, the model really now collapses.) His ‘faith’ discussions are an argument in their own right (and one that no longer has to address soteriological conditions). Hence I would suggest that a plausible rereading of Rom. 1:16-5:2 is indeed possible, that removes the JF model from this, and parallel, texts, allowing the christocentric paradigm to explain all the ‘faith’ data in Paul.'
To summarise, pistis Christou has huge implications for Paul's gospel and for our understanding of atonement. Salvation comes through participation in Christ by means of the Spirit, not through our belief in the facts of the gospel. We share Christ's faith, not manifest our own. Salvation is a gift from God and not an act of human faith.
Thanks for the swift response to comments and for spelling out some of the implications for this reading of Pistis Christou. Much to think about. Is Campbell's paper available?
Posted by: Gary Manders | February 27, 2005 at 10:03 AM
Didn't see the link-Doh!
Posted by: Gary Manders | February 27, 2005 at 10:06 AM