Gal. 2:16 Faith in (of) Christ...

[shackleton]

Galatians 2:16
NET: 2:16 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 one55 will be justified.

KJV: 16Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Geneva Bible: ...Faith of Christ...Faith of Christ...

ESV: ...Faith in Christ...Faith in Christ...

Faithfulness of Christ is one thing and does not change it when added to our faith in Christ. But does faith of Christ change the meaning of what Paul is trying to say.

If it is Christ's faithfulness to the Father in obedience and even his death that does not change the meaning. But if it is his faith that saves us that does not sound right. Any thoughts?

This was in the notes in the NRSV bible and the notes for the NET bible.

NET Bible notes on 2:16
tn Or “faith in Jesus Christ.” A decision is difficult here. Though traditionally translated “faith in Jesus Christ,” an increasing number of NT scholars are arguing that πίστις Χριστοῦ (pisti" Cristou) and similar phrases in Paul (here and in v. 20; Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9) involve a subjective genitive and mean “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness” (cf., e.g., G. Howard, “The ‘Faith of Christ’,” ExpTim 85 [1974]: 212-15; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ [SBLDS]; Morna D. Hooker, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ,” NTS 35 [1989]: 321-42). Noteworthy among the arguments for the subjective genitive view is that when πίστις takes a personal genitive it is almost never an objective genitive (cf. Matt 9:2, 22, 29; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom 1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1 Cor 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor 10:15; Phil 2:17; Col 1:4; 2:5; 1 Thess 1:8; 3:2, 5, 10; 2 Thess 1:3; Titus 1:1; Phlm 6; 1 Pet 1:9, 21; 2 Pet 1:5). On the other hand, the objective genitive view has its adherents: A. Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 248-63; J. D. G. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1991, 730-44. Most commentaries on Romans and Galatians usually side with the objective view.

sn On the phrase translated the faithfulness of Christ, ExSyn 116, which notes that the grammar is not decisive, nevertheless suggests that “the faith/faithfulness of Christ is not a denial of faith in Christ as a Pauline concept (for the idea is expressed in many of the same contexts, only with the verb πιστεύω rather than the noun), but implies that the object of faith is a worthy object, for he himself is faithful.” Though Paul elsewhere teaches justification by faith, this presupposes that the object of our faith is reliable and worthy of such faith.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The problem with "faithfulness of Christ" as the translation is that then the verse stops being a contrast of our faith vs. our work as to HOW we are justified. What is Paul's point? Is his purpose to remind the Galatians that they were justified by a faithful Savior who worked? Or is it to confront them with their misplaced trust in work to finish the justification begun by faith?

Grammatically, the 'case' is genitive (ieasou), which is frequently rendered in English with the preposition "of", hence "of Jesus". But "of" doesn't always mean "from" "out of" or "possessed by". It can mean "with reference to" (and many other nuances beside). So, when some have chosen "in", that is a very good English rendering of the sense we mean to convey when we say "faith IN Jesus." The KJV translators were firm believers in consistency, as well as responsible exegesis and preaching/explaining the text. So they saw no confusion in using the simple "of" for the genitive. They knew that "of" could convey different senses, and trusted the preacher to help anyone with difficulty deciding which sense fit here. Those men had an excellent grasp of the flow of Paul's theology, as expressed in Protestant thought.

Where does Paul speak unambiguously about "Christ's faithfulness" outside these (now-)disputed texts? Hint: its not a "big" theme of his... On the other hand, eliminate these vital texts, and to a large degree (as we have seen in NTWright's work) the whole doctrine of Justification by faith is commensurately reduced in prominence and importance. It stops being the core of Biblical soteriology. Or, in NTW's own words, "Justification is more about ecclesiology than soteriology."

The objective view has much riding on it. Saying that "justification by faith in Christ" is taught elsewhere by Paul, therefore this "locus classicus" and related texts can be given over to the innovative scholarship of today, is irresponsible. FIRST prove the doctrine, and found it just as firmly as ever without reference to these texts, and then introduce the innovative doctrine of "justification by the faithfulness of Christ" and see how it flies.