Without question, the subjective vs.
objective genitive debate over the phrase, “the faith of Jesus (Christ)” has
been the hardest concept within Romans for me to wrap my head around thus far. I honestly struggle with the fact that
anything that we do can have any kind
of impact AT ALL on God’s righteousness.
(Like He needs us to “be” how He is and always has been and always will
be.) However, that said, obviously the
study is important even though it has been equally as interesting as it has
been frustrating!...
First, it is important to note than
when considering the different options for the phrase in Romans 3:21-26, the
discovery and decision will both have a direct impact on and be directly
impacted by the phrase “the righteousness of God” found in 1:16. According to the lecture it will “determine
the means of disclosure of the righteousness of God,” and further, determine
the means whereby God presents Jesus as the sacrifice of atonement as well as
determine the identity of those who are considered to be justified as a result
of the demonstration of God’s righteousness; i.e. who is the center of activity in befitting the benefits that come
as a result of the righteousness of God?
Is it the believer who models faith in
Jesus as God’s mechanism of salvation?
Or, is it Jesus, who demonstrates obedient faithfulness by giving Himself
over to die?
Pistis Christou as an objective
genitive means “faith in [Jesus]
Christ,” while Pistis Christou as a subjective genitive means “the faithfulness
of [Jesus] Christ.” The entire passage of 3:21-26 hinges on this
distinction. Just like the word “of” was
ambiguous in the phrase “the righteousness of
God,” so too is there ambiguity surrounding “the faith of/in Jesus.” Is Jesus the subject of the object of the
phrase? If the former, then the faith is
that which Christ himself displayed through his own loyalty and obedience in
dying on the cross. If the latter, then
the faith is that which believers put in
Christ (the most typical understanding of the phrase). Again, the distinction is important. Both interpretations have vastly different
trajectories in terms of the understanding of how salvation occurs.
In theoretical terms, the two are not
mutually exclusive; that is, even if Jesus is the subject of the faith in the passage, then it is still God and what
He has accomplished towards the end goal of salvation through Jesus as the object of believer’s belief. Alternately, if Jesus is the object of the phrase, it does not negate
Jesus’ obedience in being crucified. There is nothing happening here which can
happen without Jesus, regardless of anything we are a part of, whether that be
in action or in belief.
Rather, in both versions, the action of
God is fundamental. The difference,
however, is whether the gift of salvation is apportioned in response to the
human trust or in response to Jesus and His true faithfulness. Moreover, it is a question of how God
understands the transaction to occur; neither necessarily expels Jesus from the
keystone of divine activity because again, no Jesus, no salvation, no anything. So I repeat: it is not our actions or
understandings that have a bearing on God’s righteousness or Jesus’
faithfulness – it is God’s.
That said, with regard to verses
3:21-22, it is the “through” phrases which bring the Christological focus of
the gospel of God (1:2-4) into a clearer light.
God’s righteousness is made manifest through
putting faith in [Jesus] Christ – meaning, all
who believe. This requires that “all”
believers then, participate in the
faithful action of Jesus and in so doing, enter into a fused relationship
whereby the believer’s identity is wholly found in Christ. While
participation from believers is part of the responsibility (works?) associated
with the manifestation of God’s righteousness, God is righteous nonetheless.
As crystal clear as this study is
(whew), I tend to land right back where I started. “The faithfulness of Jesus” cannot be
disputed. Jesus absolutely was faithful
in His every act, in His very being (faithfulness of), and we (believers) absolutely put faith in Him – in His loyalty and faithfulness.
Perhaps it is our relationship with Jesus
that is more paramount for being non-mutually exclusive than two little words. The relationship is ineffable.
No comments:
Post a Comment