Why Adopt the Subjective Genitive Reading?
Grammatical Reasons
It is important that we recognize that it is impossible to settle the question of the meaning of
pistis Iesou Christou on grammatical grounds alone. Paul’s epistles contain both unambiguous subjective genitives (e.g. Romans 3:3; 4:16) and objective genitives (e.g. Philippians 3:8). The genitive construction can often bear either objective or subjective senses. For example, when we talk about ‘the knowledge of God’, are we referring to God’s own knowledge or to knowledge about God? The phrase is ambiguous taken by itself. We can say much the same thing about
pistis Iesou Christou.
Narrowing our attention to Paul’s uses of
pistis and the genitive we should recognize that, apart from the disputed cases in which the genitive refers to Christ in some form or other, they are all ‘unmistakably subjective’ (Hays). Romans 3:22, one of the places where
pistis Iesou Christou occurs, has a few unambiguous subjective genitive uses of
pistis in close proximity (Romans 3:3; 4:12, 16). Perhaps some of the strongest grammatical evidence for the subjective genitive reading comes from the parallel between the expression
ek pisteōs Abraam in Romans 4:16 and the expression
ek pisteōs Iesou (Christou) as it occurs in Romans 3:26 and Galatians 3:22.
Whilst the debate cannot be finally resolved on the grounds of grammar, the evidence does lean strongly in favour of the subjective genitive reading. As it constitutes the most natural reading of the expression, it should be our first choice. The burden of proof is with those who would seek to argue for an objective genitive reading.
The Narrative Substructure of Paul’s Theology
Narrative in the Epistles
In Richard Hays’ book,
The Faith of Jesus Christ, he argues for the subjective genitive reading by appealing to a narrative substructure to the book of Galatians. In fact, Hays’ argument for the narrative substructure is more central to his thesis than his argument for the subjective genitive. Hays wishes to place the question of the meaning of
pistis Iesou Christou within the ‘framework of a more comprehensive debate about the story-shaped character of Paul’s theology.’
Many authors have tried to ‘demythologize’ Paul’s gospel, claiming that Paul’s gospel proclamation should be restated apart from any narrative framework. Whilst Paul does allude to a narrative, this narrative is not foundational to his message. Within his epistles Paul is imperfectly moving towards an expression of his gospel that has shed the unnecessary narrative elements.
Hays strongly opposes such positions, arguing that narrative is central and foundational to Paul’s gospel. Paul’s argument in Galatians presupposes a narrative throughout. This narrative is for the most part hidden from view and only fragments and allusions to it are present in the text. However, the argument could not stand without it. Whilst the narrative substructure can shed little light upon the formal structure of the epistle, it serves as the ground for the argument throughout.
For too long we have been inclined to view books such as Romans and Galatians as virtually self-standing declarations of the gospel. As these books are not narratival in form we have all too easily presumed that the narrative of the ‘gospels’ is largely peripheral to the gospel itself. Even when the gospels and epistles have not been divorced, their union has been quite unhappy. One of the greatest gains of the work of N.T. Wright and other New Perspective authors has been their ability to demonstrate the great unity between the gospels and the epistles.
Hays analyzes narrative fragments in Galatians 4:3-6 and 3:13-14 using Greimas’ narrative model (an approach that should be familiar to readers of
N.T. Wright) and detects that they are both references to the same story pattern seen from different perspectives. Within the ‘topical’ sequence (the topical sequence(s) is/are what come(s) between the beginning and the end of the story — the ‘initial’ and the ‘final’ sequence) Jesus plays the role of ‘subject’. Hays claims, on the basis of 3:14, that in this ‘topical’ sequence
pistis plays the role of ‘helper’ (without specifying exactly what
pistis refers to).
Having established the pattern of the story in these places, he then views 3:21-22 within the same framework. In verse 22, the phrase
pistis Iesou Christou appears. Recognizing that verse 22b expresses the ‘topical’ sequence of the story, Hays relates it to the pattern already established from 4:3-6 and 3:13-14. Having done this, it becomes clear that, if Hays’ analysis of the narrative structure is correct,
pistis Iesou Christou (at least in this verse) cannot be an objective genitive.
Following Northrop Frye, Hays argues that a story has different aspects. The
mythos of a story refers to it viewed as a linear progression in narrative sequence. The
dianoia of a story is the meaning or theme of the story. Whilst the
mythos views the parts in their place within the narrative sequence, the
dianoia views the elements of the story in the light of whole story. The
dianoia can never be severed from the narrative, because it is discovered within the narrative. The meaning of the text is rooted in the text.
Reflecting upon a story or poem, the narrative elements are ordered in a manner that frequently differs from the sequence of the narrative itself. In Galatians, Paul assumes his readers’ knowledge of the
mythos of the story. However, they have missed the ‘point’ of the story. In Galatians Paul is arguing for the
dianoia of the story — ‘Jesus the Messiah crucified’.
Narrative Logic
Paul’s argument is governed by a ‘narrative logic’. A narrative possesses ‘shape’ and ‘sequence’. Narrative logic is governed by these two aspects of a text. The ‘logic’ of narrative
sequence refers to the order in which events occur within a story. The elements of a story are not randomly ordered. However, the ending does not follow from the beginning by a strict logical necessity. The manner in which one event follows from another is characterized by
fitness (as Hays terms it) rather than strict logic. The conclusion should not be ‘predictable’, but it should be ‘acceptable’.
The logic of narrative
shape has regard to the ‘“world” of possible and appropriate action’ established by the story. This ‘logic’ recognizes ‘patterns of order and value’ posited by the story. It ‘configures’ narrative elements into significant patterns, patterns which are integral to the story itself and not imposed upon it. Hays maintains that the whole of Galatians 3 is governed by a ‘participationist soteriology’, which belongs to the logic of narrative
shape.
Hays argues that Galatians 3 and 4 work within such a framework of logic. His argument centres upon the place of the Torah within the story. The Torah is
after the promise to Abraham
until the coming of the Messiah. Paul’s critique of the Torah flows from his appreciation of the place that it possesses within the salvation narrative. Those who seek to go back to Torah are denying the whole logic of the narrative sequence of the story. It is like the king’s daughter choosing to return to live with the dragon after having been delivered by the knight (a particularly colourful illustration from Hays!).
‘Pistis’ in the Narrative Framework
Hays seeks to integrate the various elements of Paul’s argument into this logical framework. He pays particular attention to the place of
pistis in 3:23 and 3:25. The place of
pistis in these verses has been variously understood in history (a new redemptive-historical period, a new body of doctrine, a new way of relating to God, etc.). Hays argues that none of these suggestions do sufficient justice to the fact that
pistis refers to a particular
event that ‘came’ (although they all contain important elements of truth). Paul uses an aorist rather than a perfect participle; it should be translated ‘because the faith came…’ rather than ‘now that the faith has come…’
Hays shows that ‘the faith’ in these verses is closely related to Christ so that ‘the coming of
pistis is virtually identified with the coming of Christ himself.’ The role of the Torah was until the coming of
pistis (vv. 23, 25) or the Messiah as the promised seed (v.19). The only other occurrence for the verb
apokaluptō in Galatians, apart from 3:23 where it refers to
pistis being ‘revealed’, is in 1:16 where the object is God’s Son (see also 1:12).
Hays argues that this
pistis should be taken as a reference to Christ as the
ground of faith, not merely as its object. Christ does this by His life of faithfulness, culminating in His faithful death. By doing this He acts as a representative figure, enacting a pattern of redemption that determines the existence of others
hoi ek pisteōs (‘those of faith’ — ‘the faith people’). Hays writes:—
In a mysterious way, Jesus has enacted our destiny, and those who are in Christ are shaped by the pattern of his self-giving death. He is the prototype of redeemed humanity. Thus, for Paul, “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” has an incorporative character.… Jesus is not merely a good moral example; rather, his story transforms and absorbs the world.
It is, of course, misguided to ask whose faith is being referred to by the term
pistis in verses 23 and 25. It is both Christ’s own faith and it is the faith of those who participate in Him and recapitulate His life. As Hays observes, we participate in Christ and in His destiny ‘not only vicariously but also actually’. Christ is the Head of a new humanity.
Our Faith and the Faith of Jesus Christ
Taking these observations back to Galatians 2, there are a few further observations to be made. In verse 16 there is a clear reference to believing ‘in’ Christ Jesus. S.K. Williams has interpreted this phrase by referring to the parallel expression in Galatians 3:27 which refers to being ‘baptized into Christ’. Just as one is ‘baptized into’ Christ, so one ‘believes into’ Christ. This is the means by which we come to be ‘in Christ’. This involves adopting Christ’s own ‘life-stance’ of
pistis.
To adopt this stance is to trust and obey Him who raised Jesus from the dead, to believe like Christ, and thereby to stand with Christ in that domain, that power field, created through his death and resurrection.
Christ is not so much the ‘object’ of our faith as He is the One who is its pioneer, creator and chief exemplar (Hebrews 12:2). It is interesting that, in a number of key places, Scripture seems to suggest that our faith is primarily directed, not towards Christ, but towards God the Father (e.g. Romans 4:24; 1 Peter 1:21). This, of course, is not to deny that Christ is clearly presented by Scripture as the object of faith on a number of occasions.
In Galatians 2:20 we read that the life that Paul (of course, some have interpreted the ‘I’ to mean Israel) now lives in the flesh he lives by
the faithfulness of the Son of God who loved Paul and gave Himself for Paul. Is this a direct reference to Christ’s own faithfulness? Probably not. However, it clearly refers to a new animating force within Paul’s life. Paul has been crucified with Christ and now he no longer lives but
Christ lives in him. The animating principle of Christ’s own life — His
pistis — becomes the animating principle of Paul’s life as Christ lives in Paul.
Dunn has argued against the subjective genitive understanding of
pistis Iesou Christou (the subjective genitive reading is rejected by a number of New Perspective authors, not least Don Garlington and James Dunn). One of the arguments that he has brought forward is against the subjective genitive reading of
dia tēs pisteōs autou in Ephesians 3:12. He claims that the ‘faith’ mentioned in verse 17 of the same chapter must be referring to the same faith that is mentioned in verse 12. As the ‘faith’ of verse 17 is a faith in the hearts of believers, verse 12 cannot be taken as a reference to Christ’s own faithfulness.
Apart from the fact that, viewed in isolation from verse 17, the subjective genitive reading of verse 12 would be more consistent with the biblical way of expressing this theme (where this theme occurs in Hebrews, it is our ‘faithful’ High Priest who is the primary focus, not our personal faith in Him — Hebrews 4:16; 10:19), we should also recognize that Dunn’s argument with regard to verse 17 does not stand. The observations made on Galatians 2:20 have, I believe, application here. Surely verse 17 makes far more sense when we read it as saying that Christ dwells in our hearts by the living principle of faith that guided His own life, rather than merely by means of our own personal faith. The passage seems to be primarily stressing God’s agency, not our own. To focus on the contingency of Christ’s indwelling upon our personal faith would, I expect, disrupt the flow of Paul’s prayer. Of course, the principle of faith by which Christ lives in us must also be thought of as our own faith.
Once we understand this, we will appreciate that no dichotomy need be drawn between Christ’s own faith and the faith of the Christian. The very least that we can say is that any denotation of the one necessarily connotes the other. The phrase
pistis Iesou Christou is beautifully ambiguous. As Hays and others observe, Paul’s language is very allusive and poetic. In Western theological traditions we have tended to try to argue that Paul speaks univocally and that there is only
one right interpretation of such phrases. Poetic thought can be clear without being univocal.
Hays, in particular, has done great work in challenging the general models for Pauline interpretation.
Reading Paul is like listening to a symphony or reading poetry. True accuracy of interpretation consists in attuning our ears to the text. We need to hear the echoes of the OT Scriptures in the epistles; we need to learn to navigate the webs of allusions and interplaying themes. Accuracy of interpretation does not necessitate the elimination of all ambiguity in the text. Just as it is futile to claim that there is only one meaning to a poem, so we must recognize that the Pauline epistles — and indeed, the Scriptures as a whole — have many levels of meaning. Rather than focusing on narrowing the interpretation down to
the single meaning, we need to open up the texts to reveal their multifaceted significance.
I was intending to complete this material on the faith of Jesus Christ within a couple of posts. However, to do it justice I feel that it is far more expedient to spread it out a bit. Hopefully I will be able to post the rest within the next few days. I trust that the compelling nature of the subjective genitive reading is beginning to become apparent. It should be clear that it provides a way to safeguard the Reformed truths that I mentioned at the beginning of my previous post. In the next post I would like to demonstrate the effect that the subjective genitive reading has upon the argument of some key Pauline passages: Galatians 3, Romans 3 and Philippians 3. I would also like to show how Christ’s faithfulness relates to God’s righteousness, thereby addressing some of the questions that will have been hanging over from my post on that subject.
