Faith in Christ or Faithfulness of Christ? A new way to resolve this argument.
In recent years there has been fierce debate about how to translate pistis Christou; whether as ‘faith in Christ’ or ‘the faithfulness of Christ’, which, depending on your disposition, may have intrigued, dismayed, or troubled you…or passed you by.
Can this be resolved?
When such disagreements arise, it can be an indication that the underlying theology may be at fault, and alternative renderings are, in fact, a red herring. After all, it seems likely that St Paul’s use of pistis Iesou Christou made perfect sense to him and arose seamlessly from his understanding of the gospel.
When we encounter apparent ambiguity rather than clarity, it is time to inspect the foundations.
NT verses that are often quoted in this debate include Romans 3v22 and Gal 2v16:
‘the righteousness of God through (pistis Iesou Christou) faith in/the faithfulness of Jesus Christ’ Rom 3v22
‘…a man is not justified by works of the law but by (pistis Iesou Christou) faith in/the faithfulness of Jesus Christ’ Gal 2v16
When we encounter apparent ambiguity rather than clarity, it is time to inspect the foundations.
If, as is the case in many churches, our underlying understanding of the gospel is that the death of Christ was a substitutionary sacrifice – He died for me, in my place, took the punishment I deserved – then both translations are plausible. Whilst ‘being justified through the faithfulness of Jesus’ may seem unfamiliar and a categoric error (the subject being the believer's faith rather than Christ’s faithfulness), the Greek allows for either, so ‘faithfulness of’ cannot be dismissed simply because we are more familiar with ‘faith in’.
The debate rumbles on! NT Wright, for example, errs towards ‘the faithfulness of’ but concedes that ‘faith in’, as preferred by most bible translators, makes more sense in other passages such as Rom 5 v1,2. Others are firmly camped in either of the opposing camps.
But if we consider Galatians 2v20 we find that the gospel is not simply substitutionary but is inclusive as well. It is not my experience that the inclusive nature of Christ’s death is believed or being taught.
But Paul clearly viewed the crucifixion of Christ as inclusive as well as substitutionary:
‘I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me’ NKJV, RSV, NIV
Comparing with other translations:
‘I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me’ KJV, NRSVUE, ASV
Understanding the crucifixion to be inclusive as well as substitutionary, inevitably translators will view the Greek with slightly altered lenses.
Tucked away within substitutionary sacrifice theology is a continuation of a disunity between the believer (who has to believe to contact Christ) and Christ (who through his faithfulness reaches believers). The following examples are commonly used phrases that express the disunity:
Righteousness is credited to the believer. Sanctification is a process by which the believer progressively becomes more Christlike. The saved sinner is covered over with a robe of righteousness. When God looks upon the saved sinner, He sees the blood of Jesus. If Christ is ‘in’ the saved sinner, the work of the saved sinner is like John the Baptist who stated that ‘I must decrease and He must increase’. The saved sinner didn’t die when Jesus died but he/she has to ‘die to’ sin in order to follow Christ.
Paul clearly viewed the crucifixion of Christ as inclusive as well as substitutionary
But Galatians 2v20 (and Romans 6 v 6 and Col 3 v 3) states that we died when Christ died, that we have been crucified with Christ. If so, then, surely, the argument that it is ‘my’ faith that is in question in the above passages Rom 3v22 and Gal 2v16, is rendered obsolete? If we have died, salvation cannot be based on ‘my’ faith. Paul states that ‘It is not I who live but Christ lives within me’. Once we see ourselves included in the death of Christ, and raised in Christ, then ‘my life’ is indistinguishable from His; as Paul argues elsewhere, I have become ‘one spirit with the Lord’ (1Cor6v17). Now, since everything comes from His life, including His faith, the translation ‘I live by the faith of the Son of God’ is consistent with a theology that is based on inclusion as well as substitution.
In Mark 11v22 Jesus is teaching the disciples after the incident when Jesus cursed the fig tree. Peter, typically, expressed what must have been passing through the other disciples’ minds: ‘Look…the fig tree you cursed has withered’ to which Jesus replied ‘Exete pistin Theou’ ‘Have the faith of God’ often translated ‘Have faith in God.’
But Jesus was not operating from Himself: ‘Truly I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do’ John 5v19. If Jesus did not operate from his own resources, including His own capacity for faith, then neither do we, so, rendering exete pistin Theou as ‘Have the faith of God’ makes sense, as the little word ‘of’ in English refers to the source, faith located in God, but also contains the meaning ‘out from’ i.e. not garrisoned in God but His faith flowing out from Him in us.
In the 1850s Charles Blondin strung a tightrope across Niagara Falls. A crowd gathered as he made his way across the falls. Then he issued a challenge: "Who here believes I can cross over Niagara Falls again, but this time pushing a wheelbarrow? The crowd began shouting, "We believe you,’ Blondin pushed the wheelbarrow successfully across the Falls and back. Then issued a further challenge: "Who here believes I can cross over Niagara Falls but this time with a man in the wheelbarrow?" When the crowd cheered, Blondin replied, "Ok, then who will be my first volunteer in the wheelbarrow?"
Silence. Until one man walked out of the crowd and was carried across - and back safely.
Did the man have faith ‘in’ Blondin? Of course. But where did that faith come from? You could equally say it was located in Blondin. Blondin believed he could take the man across and return safely, and Blondin’s faith became the man’s faith, he was ‘living by the faith of Blondin’.
This is consistent with the promises in the New Covenant to Ezekiel and Jeremiah:
‘I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you. I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit in you and cause you to walk in My statutes’ Ez 36 v 26, 27
‘I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah…I will out my laws in their minds, and write it on their hearts…they shall all know me from the least to the greatest’ Jer 31 v 31-34
Viewing the gospel as an individual ‘over here’ putting his or her faith in Christ ‘over there’ is a false distinction. There is no separation or disunity maintained as a consequence of the gospel. Through the New Covenant God has brought about a Spirit-spirit fusion, in which all things, including His life and His faith, resonate with our spirit.
True Christianity turns out to be a Spirit-spirit operation.
Referring to the question above – can this be resolved? – the answer is Yes.
Once we grasp that the gospel is inclusive as well as substitutionary, we see that we have been made one with Christ. and, in union with Christ, everything that is in Him is mine, including His faith.
‘I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.’