pistis christou, subjective or objective? Poll

Is pistis christou "faith of Christ" or "faith in Christ."

  • Subective Genitive: faith/faithfulness of Christ

    Votes: 8 36.4%
  • Objective Genitive: faith in Christ

    Votes: 12 54.5%
  • I have no idea

    Votes: 2 9.1%

  • Total voters
    22
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re. the ETS paper (.pdf), there goes the Reformation... The big problem in Galatia wasn't faith vs. works, it was failure to appreciate union with Christ! Wow. OK... I guess we can all go back to Rome now.

Your assessment of the quote is good...but was the link to the paper supposed to work?
 
Re. the ETS paper (.pdf), there goes the Reformation... The big problem in Galatia wasn't faith vs. works, it was failure to appreciate union with Christ! Wow. OK... I guess we can all go back to Rome now.


I admit I rushed through reading most of it, it is quite long, but I didn't gather that as much. Unless I am misunderstanding you. Maybe a sentence of elaboration?
 
Here's a few lines:
Thus, the essence of the contrast between the two terms [ergwn nomou and pistew Ihsou Xristou, BGB]was not found to reside in human doing versus human believing but between identity with Moses and identity with Christ. So that the contrast between law and gospel was not so much between human effort and faith as it was between two separate economies in God’s program. This emphasis upon the historical sequence of God’s dealings with man was emphasized and confirmed in Paul’s discussion of redemption history in 3:22-26. He speaks of being under the law as a temporary time under a pedagogue which is brought to a close by the faithfulness and now that the faithfulness has come we are no longer under a tutor (3:23-25). Thus, in Paul’s discussion, to be “of the works of the law” is not only to be identified with Moses but to be identified with a distinct period of history which has been superseded by “the faith.” In turn, “the faith” then is not simply “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” on Calvary but also the new epoch which it has introduced.

Conclusion
We have sought to demonstrate that the theology of law which Paul articulates in Galatians can only be understood as the answer to the specific, historical situation of the Galatian believers. While it is most likely true that the Galatian churches were composed of a Jewish/Gentile mix of people, Paul’s argument is clearly directed toward those Gentiles who have been tempted to secure Abrahamic blessing in the Law. He counters this false notion by demonstrating that Gentiles are blessed with Abraham’s blessings not by being “in the law” but by being “in the seed of Abraham.” Since that seed has now come, Gentiles are blessed directly in him. God has fulfilled the promises to Abraham by means of Calvary. Simply stated, if Gentiles are in Christ then they are sons of Abraham. Paul’s argument against the law, then in this book is not so much ontological as it is chronological.164 The role of the law in redemption history has been fulfilled and the promised seed has come in which Gentiles are blessed. For Gentiles to seek the blessings of Abraham in law is to deny that the basis of their sonship is in Christ, and thus they “fall from grace” (5:5). This message may be summarized then as:
The inclusion of Gentiles
in the blessings of Abraham​
is accomplished by their incorporation
in Christ rather than
in Law.​
pp.45-46

In other words,, according to the author, Paul's message to the Galatians is: Salvation by union with Christ. Really?

Here's another quote from p.40:
If this point is correct then it would reinforce Hay’s point that Paul’s route to Abraham is through Christ and not through faith. If the statement in 3:29 summarizes his point (and it would seem that it does) then Paul’s strategy is to show that “if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring” rather than “ if you have faith like Abraham you are his seed. ”
Is it summary, or is it conclusion? And how is it that we are in Christ? Frequently in his letters, Paul will make a strong theological point, and then follow it up with an rather forceful argument such as: "... Therefore X! And thus if X is so, then this Y is also the case!"

Just saying, its another argument for a subjective, vs. an objective reading. And I don't think it makes any better case than others attempted before it.
 
Last edited:
Ok, sorry, I misread your post...when I made the comment I was failing to distinguish the "quote" within your sentences.
 
Also looked at the reference #164, and I'm not sure T. David Gordon would appreciate being used to reinforce a man's conclusion like that, especially if it would make TDG appear to stand in support of this particular thesis, if he differed (and knowing him, I think he would).

One's conclusion should stand without additional footnotes, in my opinion.

-----Added 12/4/2008 at 11:55:19 EST-----

Yet another quote I'm not comfortable with, p.17:
In summary, what makes Paul’s gospel unique in Galatians is not the doctrine of faith. Although his good news includes this teaching, this is not the component of the message which is in danger and for which in turn he so powerfully argues. Paul is not attacking Judaism or the law per se, or primarily defending the truth of justification by faith. His unique calling is to promote the gospel that Gentiles are saved in Messiah without becoming Jews.
I just think he's granting the merit of some version of the NPP thesis, and trying to argue a "non-liberal" or "conservative" incorporation of it within evangelicalism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top