Join for free Log in

Discover scienti,c knowledge at ResearchGate, and make your research visible. Join for free

See all › See all ›

Download citation Share Download full-text PDF
6 Citations 6 References

The shape of soteriology and the pistis Christou debate

Article (PDF Available)  in Scottish Journal of Theology

61(02):137 - 157 · May 2008
DOI: 10.1017/S003693060800392X

Cite this publication

David L. Stubbs
1.83 · Western Theological Seminary

Abstract

A historic debate with great implications for theology has resurfaced in New Testament circles; however, it has
not received the attention it should by theologians. It concerns how to translate and interpret approximately ten
instances of the Greek phrase pistis Christou and its near equivalents in the letters of Paul. This phrase occurs
within theologically crucial sections of Romans and Galatians, which have provided the foundation for the
Reformation understanding of ‘justi,cation by grace through faith’. The question is whether ‘faith’ in these
phrases refers principally to the believer's ‘faith in Christ’, as traditionally understood, or should be translated and
understood as ‘the faith of Christ’. In this article, I hope to introduce theologians to this debate and make a
contribution to it from a theological angle, by describing the two primary ‘patterns of soteriology’ which are in
play, and then examining how easily these different patterns of soteriology can be read onto what Paul writes
concerning three crucial issues in his letters: salvation, the Law and the ‘righteousness of God’. I argue that the
overall theological vision which includes three facets – a christologically centred understanding of the pistis
Christou passages, a broader understanding of pistis, and the centring of soteriology around the concept of
‘participation in Christ’ – provides the most convincing interpretational matrix for reading Paul. I also point out
implications this has for contemporary theology.

Your browser blocks 3rd party cookies by default. By clicking on page you allow our partner AppNexus to place cookies to show
relevant ads. Read more or opt out of these cookies here. This notice appears once ×
Discover the world's research
15+ million members
118+ million publications
700k+ research projects

Join for free

Full-text (PDF)
Download full-text PDF
Available from: David L. Stubbs, Oct 19, 2015

Scottish Journal of Theology

http://journals.cambridge.org/SJT

Additional services for Scottish Journal of

Theology:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

The shape of soteriology and the pistis Christou

debate

David L. Stubbs

Scottish Journal of Theology / Volume 61 / Issue 02 / May 2008, pp 137 - 157

DOI: 10.1017/S003693060800392X, Published online: 16 April 2008

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S003693060800392X

How to cite this article:

David L. Stubbs (2008). The shape of soteriology and the pistis Christou debate.
Scottish Journal of Theology, 61, pp 137-157 doi:10.1017/S003693060800392X

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/SJT, IP address: 96.88.134.71 on 19 Oct 2015

C 2008 Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd

SJT 61(2): 137–157 (2008) Printed in the United Kingdom 
doi:10.1017/S003693060800392X

The shape of soteriology and the pistis

Christou debate
David L. Stubbs
Western Theological Seminary, 101 E 13th St, Holland, MI 49423
david.stubbs@westernsem.edu

Abstract
A historic debate with great implications for theology has resurfaced in New
Testament circles; however, it has not received the attention it should by
theologians. It concerns how to translate and interpret approximately ten instances
of the Greek phrase pistis Christou and its near equivalents in the letters of
Paul. This phrase occurs within theologically crucial sections of Romans and
Galatians, which have provided the foundation for the Reformation understanding
of ‘justification by grace through faith’. The question is whether ‘faith’ in these
phrases refers principally to the believer’s ‘faith in Christ’, as traditionally
understood, or should be translated and understood as ‘the faith of Christ’. In this
article, I hope to introduce theologians to this debate and make a contribution to it
from a theological angle, by describing the two primary ‘patterns of soteriology’
which are in play, and then examining how easily these different patterns of
soteriology can be read onto what Paul writes concerning three crucial issues
in his letters: salvation, the Law and the ‘righteousness of God’. I argue that the
overall theological vision which includes three facets – a christologically centred
understanding of the pistis Christou passages, a broader understanding of pistis,
and the centring of soteriology around the concept of ‘participation in Christ’ –
provides the most convincing interpretational matrix for reading Paul. I also point
out implications this has for contemporary theology.

With the recent publication of Douglas Harink’s book, Paul Among the Postliberals,
in which the issue of how to translate and interpret approximately ten
instances of the Greek phrase pistis Christou and its near equivalents in the letters
of Paul,1 is placed within the context of postliberal readings, one can expect

1
The passages are Rom. 3:22, 26; Gal. 2:16 (twice), 20; 3:22, 26 (a textual variant);
Phil. 3:9; Eph. 3:12 and 4:13. The debate resurfaced in the 1980s and continues to
this day. See Paul Pollard, ‘The “Faith of Christ” in Current Discussion’, Concordia Journal
23 (July 1997), pp. 213–28, for an excellent historical summary of the debate, 1795–
1997, and a nearly exhaustive bibliography since the 1980s. For another extensive
bibliographical list, see Richard Hays, ‘ITI and Pauline Christology’, Pauline
Theology, vol. 4 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997), pp. 35–6. More recent articles and

137

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 19 Oct 2015 IP address: 96.88.134.71

scottish journal of theology

it to enter into theological discussions with increasing frequency and force.2

This phrase occurs within theologically crucial sections of both Romans and
Galatians, in passages that have provided the foundation for the Reformation
understanding of ‘justification by grace through faith’. The debate raises the
question whether the ‘faith’ in these phrases refers to the believer’s ‘faith
in Christ’, as traditionally understood, or whether the ‘faith’ mentioned
should be translated and understood as ‘the faith of Christ’ or perhaps even
‘Christic faith’.3 Additionally, the precise understanding of what Paul means
by the term pistis or ‘faith’ has become part of the debate. Consequently,
how one understands this phrase has wide-ranging ramifications for how
one understands these letters, Pauline theology, and the shape of Christian
soteriology as a whole, for the theological concepts involved in these passages
have been and continue to be important theological touchstones. My hope is
that this article will help introduce or deepen the acquaintance of theologians
with this debate, and make a contribution to it from a theological angle.
While the hermeneutical spiral involved in this issue is typically and
understandably entered by New Testament scholars through a discussion

books include: I. G. Wallis, The Faith of Jesus Christ in Early Christian Traditions (Cambridge:
CUP, 1995); Brian J. Dodd, ‘Romans 1:17: A Crux Interpretum for the Pistis Christou Debate’,
Journal of Biblical Literature 114 (Fall 1995), pp. 470–3; Gerald J. Janzen, ‘Coleridge and
Pistis Christou’, Expository Times 107 (June 1996), pp. 265–8; J. Louis Martyn, Galatians, The
Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1997); John Dunnill, ‘Saved by Whose Faith? The
Function of pistis Christou in Pauline Theology’, Colloquium 30 (May 1998), pp. 3–25;
C. E. B. Cranfield, ‘On the ιστις Xριστoυ Question’, On Romans and Other New Testament
Essays (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), pp. 81–97; Dennis R. Lindsay, ‘Works of the Law,
Hearing of Faith and πιστιζ Xσιστoυ in Galatians 2:16–3:5’, Stone-Campbell Journal 3/1
(Spring 2000), pp. 79–88; Barry Matlock, ‘Detheologizing the pistis Christou Debate’,
Novum Testamentum 42/1 (2000), pp. 1–23; ‘“Even the Demons Believe”: Paul and pistis
Christou’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 64/2 (April 2002), pp. 300–18; Paul Foster, ‘The First
Contribution to the pistis Christou Debate: A Study of Ephesians 3:12’, Journal for the Study
of the New Testament 85 (March 2002), pp. 75–96.
2
Douglas Harink, Paul Among the Postliberals: Pauline Theology Beyond Christendom and Modernity
(Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2003).
3
The most common way to characterise the numerous positions is to indicate whether
one understands pistis Christou to be an objective or a subjective genitive phrase. If one
interprets Christou as an objective genitive, then Christ is seen to be the object of faith,
so one translates the phrase as ‘faith in Christ’; if Christou is understood as a subjective
genitive, then Christ is the subject of faith, and so one translates the phrase as ‘faith of
Christ’. The attributive genitive is a third option; here Christou tells us of the quality of
the faith, hence ‘Christic’ faith. However, I believe the most helpful way to frame the
debate is whether the faith referred to in each phrase is fundamentally ‘christological’
or ‘anthropological’, i.e. whether the reality that Paul is pointing to with these phrases
is at its root something to do with Christ or else the human response to Christ. Cf.
Hays, ‘ITI’, pp. 39–40 and Harink, Paul, pp. 27–8.

138

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 19 Oct 2015 IP address: 96.88.134.71

The shape of soteriology and the pistis Christou debate

of Greek grammar or a single passage or concept within Pauline theology,

this detailed treatment of isolated pieces of the puzzle often makes the
larger implications for Pauline theology and Christian theology difficult
to discern. Complicating matters, such ‘implications’ also function as
theological background assumptions which tip the scales of interpretational
judgement with surprising weight. While some New Testament scholars
have raised these larger theological issues, there has been too little sustained
discussion.4 However, the recent publication of Harink’s book may well
be a harbinger of a renewed interest in this issue by theologians. In the
following I will bring those theological background assumptions to the
fore by describing the two primary ‘patterns of soteriology’ that are in
play in the debate, and then examining how easily these different patterns of
soteriology can be read onto what Paul writes concerning three crucial issues
in his letters: salvation, the Law and the ‘righteousness of God’. I argue that
the overall theological vision which includes three facets – a christologically
centred understanding of the pistis Christou passages, a broader understanding
of pistis, and the centring of soteriology around the concept of ‘participation
in Christ’ – provides the most convincing interpretational matrix for reading
Paul. These three facets can be thought of as the legs of a three-legged stool;
the stool is quite steady if they all work together. Most theological criticisms
of a christologically centred interpretation of pistis Christou fail to consider this
larger pattern.
The main concern of this article is to show the persuasiveness of this
three-faceted ‘pattern’ as an overarching understanding of Paul’s soteriology.
However, as a theologian, I am not merely interested in Paul, but in how
this pattern of soteriology might affect Christian belief and practice more
generally. I think this pattern, which includes a christologically centred
understanding of the pistis Christou phrases, can be a force in a larger sea-
change in Protestant theology, a change in which salvation, the Law and
the righteousness of God take on new meanings, a change in which the
church and the sacraments take on increased significance, a change which
4
Exceptions to this include the exchange between Torrance and Moule: Thomas F.
Torrance, ‘One Aspect of the Biblical Conception of Faith’, Expository Times 48 (Jan
1957), pp. 111–14; Thomas F. Torrance, ‘The Biblical Conception of “Faith”’, Expository
Times 48 (1957), pp. 221–2; C. F. D. Moule, ‘The Biblical Conception of “Faith”‘,
Expository Times 48 (1957), pp. 157, 222. New Testament scholars who have raised
important theological implications about the translation are Richard Hays, ‘ITI ‘,
pp. 55–7, Morna Hooker, ‘ITI χPITOY’, NTS 35 (1989), pp. 341–2, and
Dunnill, ‘Saved by Whose Faith?’; Martyn, Galatians; Pierre Vallotton, Le Christ et la
Foi: Étude de théologie biblique (Genève: Labor et Fides, 1960). Ian Wallis’s historical study,
Faith of Jesus Christ and Harink, Paul, begin to treat the theological issues with greater
depth.

139

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 19 Oct 2015 IP address: 96.88.134.71

scottish journal of theology

resonates with ‘postliberal’ theological ethics, a change from most modern

ways of understanding divine action in the world, and a change which holds
the promise of greater unity with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
Throughout, I will highlight ways in which this pattern of soteriology moves
Protestant theology in these directions.

Divergent patterns of soteriology

Two overall understandings of Pauline soteriology seem to be at play in this
debate, and are typically linked with different interpretations of the pistis
Christou passages. Richard Hays and Morna Hooker are good representatives
of the view highlighted above which is linked to the christologically centred
reading of the phrases and evidence a pattern I will call ‘participationist
eschatology’. James Dunn and A. J. Hultgren are representative of a second
view of Pauline theology that they themselves characterise as drawing from
the Lutheran Reformation tradition, which centres around the notion of
‘justification by grace through faith’.
After describing these, I will examine how smoothly these broad patterns
of theology may be read into three specific aspects of Paul’s letters, his
discussions of (1) faith and salvation, (2) the relationship of faith to the Law,
and (3) the relationship of faith to the righteousness of God. Examining how
well these patterns make sense of these three loci will sufficiently show the
implications of the pistis Christou debate for interpreting Paul and will provide
an argument for the superiority of a christologically centred interpretation
of pistis Christou.
The first of these patterns of soteriology is nicely summarised by E. P.
Sanders’s phrase, ‘participationist eschatology’. In his ground-breaking study,
Paul and Palestinian Judaism, he examines and compares the soteriology of Paul
with that of Palestinian Judaism. He argues Paul’s vision of soteriology, his
‘pattern of religion’, could be described as ‘participationist eschatology’
which he summarises as follows:
God has sent Christ to be savior of all, both Jew and Gentile . . . ; one
participates in salvation by becoming one person with Christ, dying with
him to sin and sharing the promise of his resurrection; the transformation,
however, will not be completed until the Lord returns; meanwhile one
who is in Christ has been freed from the power of sin and the uncleanness
of transgression, and his behavior should be determined by his new
situation; since Christ died to save all, all men must have been under the
dominion of sin, ‘in the flesh’ as opposed to being in the Spirit.5

5
Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1977), p. 549.

140

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 19 Oct 2015 IP address: 96.88.134.71

The shape of soteriology and the pistis Christou debate

In this view, ‘being-in-Christ’ is understood to be at the ‘centre’ of Paul’s

thought, rather than the notion of ‘justification by grace through faith’.
By ‘centre’, he means a feature of someone’s thinking which can be used
to explain most of the other features. Following the same argument put
forward by Albert Schweitzer, he claims ‘righteousness by faith can be derived
from and understood on the basis of other aspects of Paul’s thought such
as possession of the Spirit and living in the Spirit, but not vice versa’.6
Justification language in Paul explains only itself and comes into play only
when the law is being discussed; on the other hand, Paul’s discussions about
ethics, life in the Spirit and the Lord’s Supper can all be seen to stem from
the notion of participation in Christ and not justification by faith.
Those who argue for a christologically centred ‘faith of Christ’ translation
of the pistis Christou phrases link it to something similar to this ‘participationist
eschatology’ understanding of Paul, almost without exception. In addition,
scholars who hold these views usually understand ‘faith’ as referring to
something much broader than intellectual conviction; ‘faith’ points to a
fundamental will, orientation or way of being toward God.7 These three
elements combined form a coherent hermeneutic for reading Paul. In this
reading, Christ’s life, death and resurrection both manifest ‘the righteousness
of God’ and embody a ‘faithful’, trusting and obedient human life. Believers
or followers of Christ are ‘baptised into’, ‘believe into’ and participate
in Christ communally and individually, and in this way are justified and
gradually transformed through the Holy Spirit into the image of Christ. In
this way the faithfulness of God is mirrored by the faith of Christ which is
in turn mirrored by the faith of the community; thus the phrase ‘faith of
Christ’ has its primary reference to the individual faithfulness of Christ, but
also characterises the kind of faithfulness believers have as they participate in
Christ.
Morna Hooker’s work on this question evidences this pattern, which will
be seen in full below. But, perhaps most crucially, Hooker sees how Christ’s
faithfulness becomes the pattern of life which enters into the life of believers.

6
Ibid., p. 441. Other arguments Sanders makes are that (1) participation language about
Christ’s death is much more typical than sacrificed ‘for us’ language, (2) the human
problem is characterised not so much as ‘guilt’ before God, but that we are ‘under sin’,
(3) Paul understands that the main problem with transgression is that it establishes
unions not compatible with union with Christ, 1 Cor. 6 and 10 being good examples.
Ibid., pp. 502–8.
7
A possible exception may be Dunnill. He argues for a christologically centred
understanding of the passages, and has a more expansive view of Christ’s ‘faith’,
but he does not also stress the believer’s participation in Christ. Instead, he makes a
distinction between Christ’s faith and the faith of those who follow Christ.

141

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 19 Oct 2015 IP address: 96.88.134.71

scottish journal of theology

While agreeing in the main with Torrance, Sam Williams and the early study
of Adolf Deissmann, she refines their terminology and argues pistis Christou is
best understood not in terms of either a subjective or an objective genitive, as
if they were opposed, but rather ‘concentrically’:

I suggest that we should think of it [the phrase pistis Christou] not as

a polarised expression, which suggests antithesis, but as a concentric
expression, which begins, always, from the faith of Christ himself, but
which includes, necessarily, the answering faith of believers, who claim
that faith as their own.8

Hays similarly presses for what he calls a ‘multivalent’ interpretation of

this phrase, in which the believer’s ‘faith answers and reflects his – indeed,
participates in his – because according to Paul it is God’s design for us “to
be conformed to the image of his Son” (Rom. 8:29)’.9 In an earlier article,
Hays interchanges the term ‘faith’ with ‘our willing and acting’, and writes
that ‘our faith will recapitulate the faithfulness of Jesus Christ’.10
In contrast, the pattern of soteriology most often associated with
the objective genitival ‘faith in Christ’ readings is a ‘classic Lutheran’
understanding of Paul, or some variation on that theme.11 In this pattern,
it is a human’s ‘faith’, rather than their works of the Law, which makes
one acceptable to God. Faith is given to the human ‘by grace’ – it is God’s
work, not a human work – yet ‘faith’ still characterises the boundaries of the
people of God and is needed for salvation rather than ‘works of the Law’.12

8
Hooker, ‘ITI χPITOY’, p. 341.
9
Hays, ‘ITI’, pp. 59–60.
10
Hays, Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin 7/1 (September/October 1983), pp. 4–6. Yet
another author who illustrates this pattern is Coleridge. In Janzen’s examination of
how S. T. Coleridge interpreted the pistis Christou passages and Pauline theology in
general, we see the christologically centred interpretation once again linked to both
a broader understanding of ‘faith’ – which for Coleridge refers most fundamentally
to an ‘energy’, ‘disposition’, ‘will’ or ‘principle’ within a person – and a soteriology
centred on participation in Christ’s ‘faith’, ‘disposition’, ‘mind’ or ‘will’. Janzen,
‘Coleridge’.
11
At least among Protestant interpreters of Paul. Aquinas, in his Galatians commentary,
sometimes interprets these phrases as references to the believer’s faith or trust in
Christ, but most often ‘the faith of Christ’ is taken to refer to the Christian religion or
‘manner of life’ or ‘living according to the precepts of the faith’, which is opposed to
the Jewish religion or works of the Law. St Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Saint Paul’s
Epistle to the Galatians (Albany, NY: Magi Books, 1966), pp. 52–4. Thus Aquinas seems
to take the ‘attributive’ genitive position.
12
Referring to E. P. Sanders’s work again, one can understand this pattern to be similar
to what he describes as ‘covenantal nomism’, his description of the Jewish pattern of

142

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 19 Oct 2015 IP address: 96.88.134.71

The shape of soteriology and the pistis Christou debate

Righteousness, understood here as right standing before God, is ‘imputed’

or ‘reckoned’ to the believer on the basis of their faith. Christ has fulfilled
the just requirements of the Law and paid the price for sin on our behalf.
We gain the benefits of Christ through our faith, our trust and belief in
this work of God accomplished in Christ; it is righteousness won by Christ
which is reckoned to us. Faith is thus understood as our belief or trust in
God, specifically God’s saving work for us in Christ. Freed from guilt and
fear, we then live lives of gratitude in response to the grace given to us. This
is Paul’s gospel. This gospel is exhibited in the objectively understood pistis
Christou passages; salvation happens through human ‘faith in Christ’, human
faith/belief/trust in Christ’s vicarious work on our behalf and God’s love for
and acceptance of us.
Hultgren writes: ‘That Paul has in mind the faith of the believer,
which accepts righteousness from God, is consistent with his terminology
elsewhere’.13 Likewise, Dunn argues, ‘the most natural reading throughout
Galatians is summarized in the classic formulation – justified by grace
through faith’, where faith is understood as the human exercise of belief
in Christ. Divine acceptance is thus understood as the primary question that
Paul’s soteriology answers. It is this that explains ‘how Gentile and Jew receive
the blessing of divine acceptance’.14 The details of this basic pattern will be
seen in the way these authors treat the three loci examined below.
Between Hays/Hooker and Hultgren/Dunn there are other options for
understanding Paul’s soteriology. For example, while almost all who argue
for a christologically grounded ‘faith of Christ’ reading seem to share a
‘participationist eschatology’ understanding of Paul, there are some who
think Paul centres his thought in ‘being-in-Christ’, but disagree with the
‘faith of Christ’ reading of these phrases. Surprisingly, both E. P. Sanders (in
some contrast to Hays/Hooker) and arguably Luther (in some contrast to the
‘classic Lutheran’ position!) seem to hold this position.15 While not every
scholar falls neatly into the two main ‘patterns’ I am presenting, they do

religion, but now ‘faith’ rather than the ‘works of the Law’ describes the boundaries
of the community. Cf. Paul, p. 422.
13
Arland Hultgren, ‘The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul’, Novum Testamentum 22 (1980),
p. 259.
14
James Dunn, ‘Once More, ITI χPITOY’, in E. Johnson and David Hay (eds),
Pauline Theology, vol. 4 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997), p. 74.
15
A ‘participationist’ interpretation of Luther is argued quite persuasively by Tuomo
Mannermaa and the Finnish school of Luther scholars that surround him. See
Mannermaa, Christ Present in Faith: Luther’s View of Justification (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2005), and Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (eds), Union with Christ: The New Finnish
Interpretation of Luther (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998). Sanders thinks ‘faith in
Christ’ refers to the believer’s faith, but this introduces tensions in Paul in at least

143

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 19 Oct 2015 IP address: 96.88.134.71

scottish journal of theology

function quite usefully as types and characterise the main choices in recent
Protestant theology.

Reading the patterns onto Paul

Using these two basic understandings of Paul’s pattern of soteriology, let
us turn to some of the loci in Paul’s letters that figure prominently in the
debate in order to compare the explanatory power these patterns have for
illuminating the details of Paul’s thought.

Faith and salvation

Much in this debate turns on one’s basic understanding of what Paul means
by the term, pistis, and what exactly he understands ‘salvation’ to be. There
is wide agreement by those on both sides of the debate that the Hebrew
word for ‘faith’ often carries the connotation of ‘faithfulness’, that it has
this connotation when applied to God, and that it is also used to refer to
a corresponding faithfulness in God’s people.16 The question then becomes
whether in Paul pistis also carries this connotation of ‘faithfulness’, or whether

two areas. First, Sanders argues the ‘juridical language’ or ‘righteousness’ language of
Paul is best understood as controlled by Paul’s ‘participationist’ language. Paul ‘presses
into service’ the inherited language of righteousness into his theology, with the result
that his righteousness language is not equivalent to typical Jewish usage, nor is it
systematically worked out in and of itself: ‘It is precisely because he pressed the term
[righteousness] into meanings which it does not easily bear that the exegesis of what
he wrote has always been so difficult and confusing’ (Paul, p. 508). In response to
Sanders, while the ‘faith of Christ’ interpretation does not make Paul easy reading, it
does smooth out and make more coherent many traditionally difficult ‘righteousness’
passages, as will be pointed out below. Second, Sanders argues a common problem with
Pauline interpretation is that interpreters assume the opening arguments of Romans
and Galatians are good clues to the centre of Paul’s theology. Sanders believes this
‘is ultimately misleading’, presumably because these arguments are about ‘juridical’
concerns, while the centre of Paul is ‘participationist’ (p. 441). However, given a
‘faith of Christ’ reading, these opening arguments are good indications of the centre
of Paul’s theology, which is reasonable to expect. In these passages, the ‘juridical’ and
‘participationist’ languages are merged, and in a way in which the juridical language
is more coherent with itself and with the participationist language than in a ‘faith in
Christ’ reading. In sum, I agree with Sanders that ‘participationist’ language is at the
heart of Paul’s theology, but think that a reading of Paul which includes a christological
‘faith of Christ’ understanding will smooth out the tensions Sanders highlights in the
‘righteousness’ language of Paul’s letters.
16
Vallotton, Le Christ et La Foi, pp. 13–19; A. G. Herbert, Theology, 58/424 (Oct. 1955);
T. F. Torrance, ‘One Aspect’, pp. 111–14; Dunn, ‘Once More’, p. 75, citing his own
Romans 1–8 (Dallas, TX.: Word Books, 1988), pp. 200–1. Wallis, Faith of Jesus Christ, pp.
9–23. Dunnill, ‘Saved by Whose Faith?’, pp. 4–5.

144

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 19 Oct 2015 IP address: 96.88.134.71

The shape of soteriology and the pistis Christou debate

Paul explicitly limits its range of meaning. All agree that when Paul applies
the term pistis to God it has the connotation of divine faithfulness (as in Rom.
3:3–7, and Dunn thinks Rom. 1:17 as well), but not all agree whether this
connotation of faithfulness also applies to Paul’s talk about human pistis or
whether he ever uses the term pistis to characterise Jesus Christ. This is the
key difference here.
Those who understand the pistis Christou phrases ‘christologically’ believe
Paul intends to draw parallels between the faithfulness of God, the faithfulness
of Christ and a faithful human response to God. For example, Richard Hays
points out the phrase in Romans 1:5, hupakoen pisteos, faith-obedience, is
‘an epexegetical construction’ in which faith and obedience are ‘closely
correlated’. The phrase as used here clearly characterises a particular response
to the gospel, and he argues this kind of faithful human response is a major
theme throughout Romans. Pistis is used in a similar way in Rom. 1:8, 1:12,
11:20, and 14:1. The opening of the paraenesis section of the letter has a
similar theme to it when Paul calls the Romans to present their ‘bodies as a
living sacrifice’ (Rom. 12:1).17 Hooker, in exegeting Philippians 3, ties the
mention of pisteos Christou back to the Christ-hymn of Philippians 2 where
Christ is extolled for his obedience to God, showing that the idea of being
conformed to Christ accounts for Paul’s train of thought. In her treatment
of 2 Cor. 1:17–22, Hooker also argues that, even though the word pistis
is not mentioned, the passage centres on the issue of Paul’s faithfulness or
steadfastness. In making his point, Paul appeals to the steadfastness of God,
whose promises receive their ‘yes’ in Christ and ‘through him’ an ‘amen’ in
believers, whom God has ‘established’ by putting the Spirit in their hearts.18
The ‘concentric’ relationship between God’s, Christ’s and human faithfulness
is apparent, even though not explicit. Again Hooker brings out the theme of
pistis as faithfulness in her analysis of 2 Cor. 4:13 where, given the context,
the phrase ‘having the same spirit of faith’ is most likely referring to the
spirit of faith(fulness) which ‘enabled Jesus to be given up in death’.19
In contrast, Dunn agrees pistis means God’s faithfulness in Rom. 3:3 and
Rom. 1:17, but argues that Paul does not speak of an analogical faithfulness
either in Christ or in humans. Rather, Dunn thinks Paul draws a sharp
distinction between the common Hebrew understanding of faith meaning
faithfulness and an understanding of pistis that means belief and trust in God’s
faithfulness. In Paul’s arguments about Abraham in Rom. 4, he argues Paul sets
up a contrast between faith, meaning trust in the life-giving power of God,

17
Hays, ‘ITI’, pp. 40–1.
18
Hooker, ‘ITI χPITOY’, pp. 334–5.
19
Ibid., p. 335.

145

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 19 Oct 2015 IP address: 96.88.134.71

scottish journal of theology

and the works of the Law.20 Paul thus argues against the traditional Jewish
interpretation of Abraham as the epitome of ‘faithfulness’. In contrast, Paul
highlights Abraham as the epitome of trust/faith – this kind of trust/faith
is the model for the believer’s faith. Using this definition of human faith,
Dunn notes that there are no direct or implied attributions of trust/faith
to Christ anywhere in Paul, outside the disputed passages. He asks why, if
Christ’s ‘faith’ is such an important theme, Paul didn’t make mention of it
in more than two ambiguous phrases in Romans.21 In response to Dunn,
one could argue that the many thematic parallels Hays and Hooker examine
which point to Christ’s ‘faithfulness’ (not merely his trust/faith in God)
show Christ’s pistis is a major theme in Paul. But because of Dunn’s position
on the meaning of pistis, Dunn responds to Hooker’s arguments about Rom.
5 and 2 Cor. 1:17–22 with a continuation of his argument from silence,
begging the question about the meaning of pistis.
In sum, if Paul does make an essential distinction between human pistis
(belief and trust) and God’s pistis (faithfulness), and we assume any possible
references to Christ’s faith would mean the human kind of faith, then Dunn’s
arguments are indeed strong. However, if Paul thinks of human pistis as also
having connotations of faithfulness, then Christ’s pistis and a corresponding
human pistis are arguably major themes in Paul, which in turn lends much
weight to the ‘faith of Christ’ translation.
Besides influencing the outcome of this debate, the way one interprets
the meaning of ‘faith’ has important theological implications for the
relationship between faith and salvation. When one takes faith to mean
merely belief and trust, faith becomes the key to acceptance by God but
does not tell us anything further about the content of salvation. There is a
tendency for this understanding of faith to be paired with the understanding
of salvation as escaping final negative judgement in the eschatological
Day of the Lord. Salvation thus means saved from rejection, punishment

20
Dunn, ‘Once More’, pp. 75, 80. Romans 4 will be treated in greater depth below.
Dunnill, while arguing for a christological reading of the pistis Christou phrases (p. 10),
does share Dunn’s distinction between divine and human pistis, although for Dunnill
Christ is included in the divine side. He argues this on the basis of Rom 4 and the
reduced semantic range of the verbal, as opposed to nominal, forms of the pistis word-
group (pp. 11, 15–16). When Paul uses pistis in reference to God and Christ, it is in
the nominal form, which Dunnill interprets often as ‘faithfulness’, while the verbal
form always refers to human forms of believing, their responsive faith or trust (p. 12).
21
Dunn, ‘Once More’, pp. 77, 77, n. 69. In Dunn’s conclusion on p. 79, this point,
along with the grammatical arguments and the general argument that Paul’s letters
read more smoothly when reading ‘faith in Christ’, are his three summary arguments
which convince him of the ‘objective’ or ‘anthropological’ reading.

146

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 19 Oct 2015 IP address: 96.88.134.71

The shape of soteriology and the pistis Christou debate

or extinction, or positively, acceptance by God and future resurrection.

‘Justification’ and ‘righteousness’ when applied to humans thus imply a
positive juridical standing before God. This has often resulted in close links
between faith/belief, justification and salvation; sanctification then becomes
another discrete occurrence and activity.22
On the other hand, in a ‘faith(fulness) of Christ’ reading, Paul’s talk about
faith and salvation no longer revolves around the typical Lutheran question of
‘how can a sinner find acceptance before a just God?’ but rather the question,
‘how can the purposes of God come to pass in light of the unfaithfulness
of Gentiles and also Jews?’ Salvation now is understood as being saved from
the power of ‘sin’, from the ways of the world and ‘flesh’ that are contrary
to the purposes and patterns God has intended for God’s creation – these
purposes of God are highlighted. Although salvation still includes within it
acceptance before God, and because of human unfaithfulness ‘atonement’
is still needed, acceptance and atonement are not sufficient characterisations
of the telos of God’s purposes. For Paul, salvation, as in Rom. 3:21–7, in
its fullness means ‘being made righteous’ not merely declared so. Martyn
writes in his Galatians commentary that this justification is an ‘apocalyptic’
‘rectification’ of the entire cosmos, which includes, but is not limited to,
the individual believer.23 God’s intentions for human life are that we are to
reflect the very character of God in our beliefs, thoughts and actions; this is
part of the process of God’s defeat of the present evil age. Justification and
sanctification are thus descriptions of different aspects of this larger process
of salvation. This process is accomplished through the Spirit who works in
us to conform us to the faith(fulness) of Christ, who himself is the image of
the faithful and true character of God.
Such an understanding of pistis and salvation illuminates the thematic
coherence of Paul’s thought. It also avoids the unfortunate bifurcation of
Paul’s ‘gospel’ from his ‘ethics’ which often results from that traditional
understanding. And given this christologically orientated reading, his
writings other than Romans and Galatians can be seen also to reflect this
larger ‘narrative substructure’ of salvation, even though Paul used different
terms to speak of it as the context occasioned.24 The power this reading has

22
While Sanders understands salvation differently, he understands justification and
righteousness similarly in that he sees them as ‘transfer terms’ that have the primary
connotation of being forgiven for past sins. Sanders, Paul, pp. 470–2.
23
E.g. Galatians, pp. 97–105, 246–60.
24
Harink, Paul, p. 45. Cf. J. Christian Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and
Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), pp. 11–36. ‘Narrative substructure’ is a
term Hays uses in The Faith of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Narrative Substructure of Galatians
3:1–4:11 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983).

147

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 19 Oct 2015 IP address: 96.88.134.71

scottish journal of theology

to illuminate Paul’s discussion of the law strengthens the case for it even
further.

Faith and works of the law

One’s understanding of faith and salvation has implications for how one
reads what Paul is reacting against in ‘the works of the Law’, a phrase he
frequently contrasts to ‘faith’.
In the traditional Lutheran understanding, gospel and the law are strictly
opposed. The ‘works of the Law’ becomes a catchphrase to denote any kind
of human striving for acceptance before a righteous God. The issue at stake
is how a guilty human individual can be accepted by a righteous God. The
wrong answer is the attempt to do ‘good works’ to make oneself acceptable
to God. The right answer is faith in Christ, meaning trust in the atoning
action of God accomplished through Christ, and rejection of any human
striving. Israel as a whole and Jewish-Christians must understand that God is
acting in a new way in Christ and so they must no longer rely on ‘works of
the Law’ to make themselves acceptable before God. Hultgren’s exegesis of
Rom. 3 reflects this pattern.25
Sanders’s description of Israelite religion as covenantal nomism, however,
has problematised this description of Israelite religion as a striving after
‘works righteousness’. Dunn, working from Sanders’s understanding of
covenantal nomism, argues rather that Paul’s criticism of the ‘works of the
Law’ centres on the mistaken Israelite emphasis on the Law’s exclusionary
character vis-à-vis the Gentiles.26 According to Dunn, Rom. 4:4–5, Rom.