MetaCatholic

Michael Bird posts on the pistis Christou debate, which I should note for those not aware of it is whether in Paul’s writings the phrase pistis Christou means “Christ’s faithfulness” (a subjective genitive – Christ is the subject) or “faith in Christ” (an objective genitive – Christ is the object of faith).

I’m at the disadvantage of not having read what he’s quoting from, but from the quotes he gives, I certainly want to. I have one question for Mike: is it right to move from Reasoner’s quoted comment

In the end, the best arguments for the subjective genitive seems to be its theological utility, not the lexical or syntactical difficulties of the objective genitive.

to his own?

That confirms to me that one of the reason for the attraction of the subjective genitive is not exegetical but its aesthetical appeal to certain theological implications that arise from it.

I don’t see that “lexical or syntactic” questions are quite identical to “exegetical” ones. I would agree that the question can’t be settled on lexical or syntactic grounds. I am, however, persuaded that on exegetical grounds “faithfulness of Christ” is the better understanding. For me this coheres with a whole reading of Paul.

I would also add that, in my own reading the “faithfulness of Christ” actually entails “faith in Christ” at least implicitly in many contexts. For Paul, pre-conversion, and for many of those Jews and Jewish Christians he argues with, faithfulness to God is defined by Torah. Accepting Christ as the pattern of faithfulness to God on the basis of the resurrection, and in the face of the Torah’s declaration that the one who hangs on a tree is cursed, is itself a profound act of faith in Christ, and in the one who raised him from the dead.

In short, I assume “the faithfulness of Christ” is the primary denotative meaning of the phrase, but I believe that in many places (if not all) it carries implicit and inescapable connotations of faith in Christ. The opposition between the two meanings is frequently overstated.