Romans 3:21-26 Again

Paulos, thank you for your comments regarding this important passage! In this post I would like to make some arguments for why I took the important phrase pistis Christou in the manner I did. This is both to make sure my case is defensible from the text, and also because our conversation partner, Daniel specifically asked about this. But before I do that I must acknowledge that you have redeemed my imprecise language once again. You wrote,

“I wonder if you may have actually intended to say the following, ‘It seems like we need to stop talking about being justified on the basis of faith [instead of by faith], as if the ground of our justification is our faith.’ In my estimation, the problem is not that we talk about being justified by faith, for by faith is a valid way of expressing means. Instead, what troubles me is when I hear preachers and teachers talking about our being justified on the basis of our faith. Here, then, is where your question rightly takes on its valid punch: How is being justified on the basis of our faith an improvement on being justified on the basis of our works?”

Yes, this is exactly what I was intending with my confusing words. Thank you for the aid!

Now, I turn to why I take pistis Christou as ‘Jesus’ faithfulness’. First, since you mentioned the NET Bible in your post, I will post it here for convenience sake.

²¹ But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed-- ²² namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, ²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. ²⁴ But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. ²⁵ God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed. ²⁶ This was also to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus' faithfulness (NET).

Second, there is a tautology or redundancy in v. 22. This is not the primary reason for what is called the subjective reading (i.e., the genitive Christou is the subject of the verbal noun pistis, hence faith/faithfulness of Jesus. The traditional view is the objective reading, seeing Christou as the object of the verbal noun pistis, hence ‘faith in Jesus’), but it is a piece of the evidence for the subjective reading. Though Carson in ‘Lecture Three’, which was linked in your post, argues for an objective reading with an interpretation which makes sense of the tautology, I think there is a better reading, which is to see Paul as talking about two distinct things, that is the believer’s faith and Jesus’ faithfulness. In connection with this, it should be seen that when Paul does a major treatment on pistis Christou, the tautology we see here in Rom 3:22 we see also in Gal 3:22 (‘But the scripture imprisoned everything and everyone under sin so that the promise could be given--because of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ--to those who believe’ [NET].). Now, Carson’s argument for the tautology may work in Rom 3, but I do not think that it will work in Gal 3. So, again, the tautology is evidence but it is not the only piece. What should also be highlighted is that even if one were to take the subjective reading, those who take this view are not necessarily (as some accuse us of doing) robbing the gospel of the importance of belief in Jesus, for in Rom 3 and Gal 3 human belief is a part of the argument.

Third, from the instances in the NT, when pistis is followed by a proper noun or a pronoun predominantly the construction is expressing the subjective genitive (Three exceptions are Mark 11:22; James 2:1, and Revelation 2:13 [see Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 116]). We see this very thing prior to the argument in vv. 21-26. In 3:3 Paul writes, “What then? If some were unfaithful, does their unfaithfulness nullify the faithfulness of God ( ten pistin tou Theou). There is, of course, no debate here regarding the function of the genitive Theou. It should not be rendered ‘belief in God’. Thus, could it not be that Paul is directing us in v. 3 as to how we should ascertain his phrase pistis Christou in vv. 21-26? 3:3 also helps us understand why Paul would bring up the faithfulness of Jesus. Why? Because Israel, as Paul states in 3:3 was apistia, that is Israel was unfaithful. Thus, Jesus is what Israel was not, that is faithful.

Lastly, and this is more to answer Daniel, than to prove a point. He inquired regarding where else Paul talks of the faithfulness of Jesus. I already mentioned Galatians 3, but Paul also mentions it in Philippians 3:9 (“and be found in him, not because I have my own righteousness derived from the law, but because I have the righteousness that comes by way of Christ's faithfulness--a righteousness from God that is in fact based on Christ's faithfulness.”[NET]) and Ephesians 3:12 (“¹¹ This was according to the eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, ¹² in whom we have boldness and confident access to God because of Christ's faithfulness” [NET]). Also the expression is found twice in Galatians 2:16:

¹⁶ yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

Paulos, it’s late, and I need to get some rest. I will answer your question regarding my carry-over of v. 20 into 21 in my next post. The short answer: You’re right, I’m wrong. But I want to ponder it before I commit.

Thanks again for you time, and any other arguments for the subjective reading would be greatly appreciated.