Faithfulness of Christ

The phrase πιστις [’Ιησου] Χριστου continues to be a point of contention in the study of Pauline theology since the publication of Haussleiter’s article[1] in 1891, and many others since then had devoted their attention and energy to this debate.[2] The tension of the debate rests on the genitive construction of the phrase: how should we understand the genitive? The divide has generally falls into two camps: subjective genitive (the faith/fulness of Christ) and objective genitive (faith in Christ)[3], and both camps have their ardent supporters.[4] However, this is not simply a question of Greek grammar but entails a far reaching impact upon our understanding of Paul’s theology and his gospel. The readings will lead to different understanding of Paul’s presentation and understanding of Christ’s role in our becoming citizens of the πολιτευμα of God. In this study we will seek to determine the meaning of the expression πιστις [’Ιησου] Χριστου in Ephesians and its theological implications.
The expression pistis Iesou Christou or its variations occurs seven times in the letters of Paul that are considered as authentic Pauline in Gal 2.16 (2X); 2.20; 3.22; Rom 3.22, 26; and Phil 3.9. The only other witness of the use of the phrase is in Ephesians 3.12: evn w- e;comen thn parrhsian kai prosagwghn evn pepoiqhsei dia thj pistewj auvtou. The usual translation of the expression dia thj pistewj auvtou is ‘through faith in him’ which has Christ as the object of human faith (genitive objective)[5]. However, this is not conclusive. Those who maintain the ‘traditional’ reading perceived Paul’s presentation from the ‘Lutheran’ judicial soteriological angle and based on the landscape of the core tenet of sola fide in the efficacy of our salvation. A case for a genitive subjective reading is equally viable in this passage and I think it is one that falls more inline with the flow of the author’s thought.
Here, Moulton’s warning ‘to remember that in Greek [the] question is entirely one of exegesis’[6] is timely as we seek to determine the meaning of the expression and its function in Ephesians. Our task, then, must ultimately be one that rest on good exegetical practice, integrating linguistic/semantic study with contextual and conceptual considerations of the entire epistle. Here we will seek to lay out the argument for a genitive subjective reading based on linguistic/semantic considerations and exegetical soundings.
In the tussle between the genitive objective and genitive subjective readings, the presence or absence of the definite article before πιστις, is suggested to play an important role. It has been put forward by Hultgren that ‘Paul would have supplied the article…if he intended to speak of the (subjective) faithfulness of Christ,[7]’ and has been utilized by many to argue for a genitive objective reading in the other occurrences of the expression. Dunn, following Burton’s conclusion, agreed that statistical data shows that ‘all the phrases which come into dispute in Paul lack the definite article’[8]. He, thus, can conclude that the occurrences in Paul points to (anthropological) faith rather than the faith of Christ.[9] However, Wallace argued that the expression in Paul are always in the prepositional phrase which tend to omit the article and the preposition + anarthrous noun construction is more common than the preposition + article + noun construction[10]. If this argument is followed through, the genitive subjective reading of Eph. 3.12 would not be a dispute, which also agrees with Hultgren’s categorization under pronominal subjectives[11]. Furthermore, Dunn highlighted that the phrase would appear in the more characteristically Jewish-Christian documents of the New Testament.[12] This gives us another edge to push forward the subjective reading of Eph. 3.12 as the letter exhibits a dense Jewish flavor, which Yee demonstrated well in his book[13]. The Jewishness of the letter comes through beginning in the opening doxology through to the paraenesis section. Again, this lean Eph. 3.12 toward a subjective reading.
It has also been noticed that the expression pistis Iesou Christou serves the same function as pistis + [preposition: en, eis, epi, or pros] or the verb pisteuō. Winger points out that the use of noun and verb is just a difference of ‘shading and coloring’ but not of the sense[14]; it is just a stylistic variation that does not alter its meaning. In contrary, Wallace pointed out that the idea of ‘faith in Christ’ is often expressed through the use of the verb πιστευω rather than the noun.[15] When we consider the passages (Gal. 2.16, 3.22 and Rom. 3.22) that have both constructions, and take both as expressing the same sense, the sentences appeared to be clumsy and the pisteuō construction would look redundant. However, when we treat them as carrying distinct sense, the passages are smoother:

Gal. 2.15-16: The argument here regards to different sources of justification and not the means of justification, therefore it is between works of the Law and faith of Jesus Christ rather than the antithesis between doing the Law and faith in Jesus Christ. Justification comes because of the faithfulness of Christ; hence, we who believed can be assured of our justification. Justification rested upon the work of Christ and not anthropological faith.

Gal. 3.22: The promise has its source in the faithfulness of Christ (h evpaggelia evk pistewj VIhsou Cristou) and is given to those who believe in him.

Rom. 3.22: The righteousness of God is manifested through the faithfulness of Christ to all who believed. [16]
These examples show that it is dubious to equate the use of the noun with the verb. When we consider the case in Ephesians, there is only one occurrence of pistis + preposition in Eph. 1.15: Dia touto kavgw avkousaj thn kaqV u`maj pistin evn tw/ kuriw VIhsou kai [thn avgaphn] thn eivj pantaj touj a`giouj. This verse has often been read as ‘your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints’, however, this may not be the only way to understand it. The variants in this verse points toward the better reading of ‘your faithfulness in the Lord Jesus and the same towards all the saints’. The variant in P46 which has thn kaqV u`maj pistin evn tw/ kuriw VIhsou kai thn eivj pantaj touj a`giouj (= your faithfulness in the Lord Jesus and the same faithfulness to all the saints), coupled with the liberty to rearrange the word sequence to dispense with the second thn (81 104 256 al), the word thn avgaphn seems more likely to be an addition.[17] Best suggested that if a satisfactory meaning for the shorter phrase could be found, it should be accepted as the harder reading. He posited that loyalty and faithfulness towards fellow believers could be important in difficult times.[18] This reading coincides with opening greetings to all the saints and faithful in Christ Jesus (toij ou=sin Îevn VEfeswÐ kai pistoij evn Cristw VIhsou).
At this juncture it would be good for us to note that the πιστ- word group occurs a total of twelve times in Ephesians (πιστευω 1.13, 19; πιστος 1.1; 6.21; and πιστις 1.15; 2.8; 3.12, 17; 4.5, 13; 6.16, 23), and these instances would help us determine the meaning of πιστις in Eph. 3.12.The other instance where πιστις occurs together with VIhsou Cristou (like 1.15) is in Eph. 6.23: Eivrhnh toij avdelfoij kai avgaph meta pistewj avpo qeou patroj kai kuriou VIhsou Cristou. Similarly, this place pistewj should be translated as faithfulness rather than faith. Is this reading viable? The verse would be more understandable if it is love and faithfulness from God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Snodgrass concurs that the context supports this reading and sees the emphasis in 6.21-24 as the loyalty of Tychicus and the faithfulness of God and Christ.[19] The first two items in this final greetings: Eivrhnh (Eph. 1.2) and avgaph (Eph. 1.4; 2.4; 5.2, 25) evidently have their source in God, therefore it makes good sense to understand that pistij here as faithfulness. What does it mean if it is ‘faith from God’? I think Best brought out the essence of the verse well by treating pistij as a qualifier for God (=faithful God/ God of faithfulness).[20] Further support can be found in Gal. 5.22-23 where the same group of word appears together (o` de karpoj tou pneumatoj evstin avgaph cara eivrhnh( makroqumia crhstothj avgaqwsunh( pistij prauthj evgkrateia), whereby pistij is understood as faithfulness.
Another case in view that that would be better to read the noun as faithfulness (of God) is 6.16: besides all these, taking the shield of faith(fulness), with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one. It has often been taught that our faith in God or Christ is the shield that helps us to overcome the attack of the evil one, the context here speaks against such interpretation. Firstly, the armour is said to have God as its source (του θεου; 6.11and 13) and the different components of the armour invariably originate from God: truth, 4.21; righteousness, 4.24; 5.9; salvation, 1.13; 5.23; peace, 1.2; 2ff; 6.23; word of God. Faith, here, then should also originate from God and invariably has to refer to the faithfulness of God[21] and not human faith. Then, if we understand the ‘darts of the evil one’ as verbal criticism[22] against the believers, only God’s faithfulness would help them to overcome. Our faith is next to nothing unless the one God that we believed in is faithful. It makes more sense to understand faith as referring to the faithfulness of God.
The above discussion has helped us to determine that at least at 1.15, 6.16 and 6.23 the use of the noun πιστις could be understood as ‘faithfulness’, the following would further consolidate our position to read Eph. 3.12 as ‘faithfulness of Christ’. There is no argument that μια πιστις in 4.5 and την πιστεως in 4.13 refer to the Christian faith (=the gospel or the content); it required more effort on our part to determine its sense in the rest of the occasions.
The continuation of our study bring us to Eph. 3.17 which is usually taken as ‘that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith (=human faith)’. This interpretation is very attractive when we first look at it considering the present understanding of ‘receiving Jesus into your heart through faith’ (a usual evangelistic invitation to believe in Jesus; influenced by John?). This understanding when put into its context will prove that it is skewed and is not conclusive. It is generally agreed that Eph. 3.17 is parallel to and clarifies 3.16[23], therefore it would be wise for us to place them side by side as we study them.

3.16 / dunamei krataiwqhnai dia tou pneumatoj auvtou eivj ton e;sw a;nqrwpon(
to strengthen with might through his spirit (broker) into the inner man
to house the Christ through the faith (broker) in your hearts
3.17 katoikhsai ton Criston dia thj pistewj evn taij kardiaij u`mwn

Here we see that the two phrases parallel each other. There is no problem for us to understand that ton e;sw a;nqrwpon parallel taij kardiaij u`mwn which refers to the innermost part of our being. The affinity between power/might with Christ is not too far fetched when we look back to 1.19-23 where Christ’s resurrection and exaltation are evidences of the great power of God, hence, ‘to house Christ … in our heart’ could very well be a rephrasing of ‘to strengthen with might…in the inner man’. Thus, the prepositional phrase should also run parallel to each other. The Spirit’s association with power could be gleaned from other Pauline passages such as 1 Thess. 1.5; 1 Cor. 2.4; 15.43, 44; 2 Cor. 6.6, 7; Rom. 1.4 and 15.13, but how is Christ indwelling related to the faith? How are we to understand the faith?
The use of the definite article either refers to a particular faith or it may represent a category of faith, whether it is a particular or category it should has its referent in the preceding chapters (1-3.15). The immediate context of the verse (Eph. 3) points strongly to equating the faith with the gospel or the content of the gospel. The author was presenting the core of his gospel which he was entrusted in 3.1-6: 3.6 that is, how the Gentiles are fellow heirs, co-members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. The gospel is the broker through which the Gentiles become sugklhronoma kai susswma kai summetoca thj evpaggeliaj evn Cristw VIhsou. In the same thought the gospel could also be the broker through which God make Christ dwell in the hearts of the believers. This point could be supported by 2.11-22 where Jews and Gentiles are built together into a house of God (presumably God dwells in it; the new temple) through the reconciliation effected by the death of Christ. Hence, it is through this sort of Gospel=Christ died to effect reconciliation both horizontally and vertically, that we become God’s dwelling place. In the same thought, it is through such faith that we become a dwelling place for Christ.
I would suggest that in Eph. 2.8 the faith should also follow the above sense ‘the faith’, the gospel or the content of believe. This runs against the grain of traditional interpretation in taking it as our faith in Christ. Eph. 2.8-9 reads: 8 Th gar cariti evste seswsmenoi dia pistewj\ kai touto ouvk evx u`mwn( qeou to dwron\ 9 ouvk evx e;rgwn( i[na mh tij kauchshtaiÅ The context of Eph. 2.1-10 also touches on the transformation of the Gentiles from being dead in their trespasses and sins but now (o` de qeoj plousioj w'n evn evleei( dia thn pollhn avgaphn auvtou h]n hvgaphsen h`maj)is being sunezwopoihsen…kai sunhgeiren kai sunekaqisen evn toij evpouranioij evn Cristw VIhsou this parallel the thought in 2.11-13. The διο (inferential conjunction) links this to the previous section (2.1-10) reminding them of their prior status but now (nuni de evn Cristw VIhsou) has been brought near through the death of Christ (evn tw ai[mati tou Cristou). Hence, δια πιστεως in 2.8 could very correspond to evn tw ai[mati tou Cristou in 2.13. Secondly, the Gospel as described as to euvaggelion thj swthriaj u`mwn which could be understood as ‘the gospel that saves you’ adds to the possibility of δια πιστεως as a equivalent for the gospel.[24] Eph. 2.1-10 has conceptual similarity with Eph. 3.6, where the Gentiles became fellow heirs, co-members and partakers of the promise dia tou euvaggeliou, the gospel, acts to argue for a strong case to understand Eph. 2.8 as ‘by grace you have been saved through the faith (=the gospel). We also notice that there is a variant here which has the definite article: δια [της] πιστεως (A D2 Ψ), and this likewise suggest we should understand it as such.[25] The second part of the verse (2.8b kai touto ouvk evx u`mwn( qeou to dwron\) lends support to this reading as well for we see the association of grace and the idea of gift is prevalent in Eph. 3:
3.2 ei; ge hvkousate thn oivkonomian thj caritoj tou qeou thj doqeishj moi eivj u`maj(
3.7 kata thn dwrean thj caritoj tou qeou thj doqeishj moi
3.8 evdoqh h carij au[th
These recurring connections between grace and the idea of gift are mentioned within the context of Paul’s mission as an apostle to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. This greatly increase the tilt of reading Eph. 2.8 as was suggested above. The touto in verse 8b cold refer to one of the three preceding words: cariti, seswsmenoi, and pistewj. It is to my discretion that it should refer to the entire process of salvation, and God should be credited with it, so that there would be no room for man to boast.[26] Even if we acknowledge that faith refers to human faith, it would be a reckoned faith[27] or a gift of God[28]. In whatever angle we may read this verse, the picture that comes out strongly is the grace of God.[29] Yee’s remark on this verse points toward the same direction. The author is not putting ‘(anthropological) faith’ and ‘work’ in an antithetical relationship as both the ‘salvation-through- the faith’ is a gift from God and the author had also eliminated ‘all human factors by transcoding the human performers and their ‘doings’ into accomplished ‘work’ of God’[30] in Eph. 2.9-10. Yee is right to see this as an emphasis on the principal role of God in his gracious salvation; the Gentiles are to base ‘their understanding of salvation, faith and works on the matrix of God as the creator par excellence’.[31]
We can now make a preliminary conclusion that the use of πιστις in Ephesians falls mainly into two categories: human/God’s faithfulness (1.15; 6.16, 23) or as an equivalent to the gospel (=the content what is believed; 2.8; 3.7; 4.5, 13). This strengthens our case to argue against the traditional rendering of 3.12 as ‘faith in him’ and to posit our case for a ‘Christ’s faithfulness’ reading.
The preliminary study shows that we can in fact read Eph. 3.12 as ‘in whom we have boldness and confident access through his faithfulness’, and the co-text of Eph. 3.12 and its conceptual framework will further support such a reading. We should recognize that the understanding of Eph. 3.12 should be placed within the wider context of Eph. 3.1-13 where Paul digressed into his apostleship to the Gentiles. This section can be treated as two sections: Eph. 3.1-7 and Eph. 3.8-13. In Eph. 3.1-7 Paul presented to the readers the content of the gospel that he was entrusted (given) by God for the Gentiles, i.e. (v6) ei=nai ta e;qnh sugklhronoma kai susswma kai summetoca thj evpaggeliaj evn Cristw VIhsou dia tou euvaggeliou (that is, the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ through the gospel). Paul further explains his task as one entrusted with the mystery of Christ in Eph. 3.8-12: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ and to bring the plan of the mystery into light to everyone. The purpose is that now the manifold wisdom of God may be manifested through the church to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places in accordance to the eternal purpose which God accomplished in Christ, in whom we have boldness and confident access dia thj pistewj auvtou. The surrounding context’s focus is on the purpose (or mystery) of God (referring to Eph. 3.6) which he wrote briefly before (mostly refer to Eph. 1.9-10 and Eph. 2) is being fulfilled in Christ through his death (Eph. 2.14-18), hence, to understand dia thj pistewj auvtou as ‘faith in him’ seems forced. The phrase thj pistewj auvtou to be read as ‘Christ’s faithfulness’ as summative term for the story of Christ’s passion[32] would be more congruent with the context. This would also connect nicely with Eph. 3.13 where Paul asked them not to be discouraged because of his suffering which is their glory (i.e., for the enhancement of their status in the faith-community).
Both Wallis and Foster correctly recognize the importance in the parallel between Eph. 3.12 and 2.18[33], we may also add to this Eph. 2.5 and 8 (we may also consider Eph. 1.7):

1.7 VEn w- e;comen thn avpolutrwsin dia tou ai[matoj auvtou

2.5 cariti evste seswsmenoi
2.8 Th gar cariti evste seswsmenoi dia [της] pistewj

2.18 diV auvtou e;comen thn prosagwghn … … proj ton patera
3.12 evn w- e;comen thn parrhsian kai prosagwghn evn pepoiqhsei dia thj pistewj auvtou

These three sets of verse shared a similar concept, which is that of redemption: thn avpolutrwsin, seswsmenoi and thn prosagwghn proj ton patera, whether it is redemption, have been saved or access to the Father all shares the concept or Eph. 2.14-18. The main idea is that our status and position before God has been transformed from ‘those who are far away’ to ‘those that has been brought near’, from alienation to reconciliation through the death of Christ. The passage in Eph. 2.14-18 serves as the framework for the understanding of the other passages related to the changed position of the Gentiles. It is interesting to note that the three prepositional phrases in 1.7, 2.8 and 3.12 (if we are right) share the same concept also, i.e., through the passion of Christ. Our redemption (the forgiveness of sins) is effected through the death of Christ (as the apex of his passion) and the efficacy of sunezwopoihsen …kai sunhgeiren kai sunekaqisen evn toij evpouranioij evn Cristw VIhsou is through the faith (=the Gospel). Similarly, our passport for access to the Father is the faithfulness of Christ (=summative term for Christ’s passion story).
Secondly, this reading fits well with the overall focus of Ephesians, which is the equalization of status of Jews and Gentiles in the community of faith. The efficacy of reconciliation (both horizontally and vertically) rested on the work of Christ describes as through his blood (1.7; 2.3), by his flesh (2.13), and through the cross (2.16), which accomplish the mystery of His will, i.e., Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ through the gospel. This plan, which God planned beforehand in Christ (1.9-10), He accomplished in him (3.11) and that through the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross (2.14-18). Then we need to note also that pepoiqhsei also carries the same reference to trusting in God[34] , thus it would be redundant if dia thj pistewj auvtou carries the same sense. However, this sits it well with our slant on the reading of the phrase as Christ’s faithfulness: in whom we have boldness and access in confidence of Christ’s faithfulness. Our boldness and confidence to access into God’s presence is based on the faithfulness of Christ rather than on our faith. Paul, I believe, understood this point and hence could ask the readers not to lose heart because of his suffering for them as he has confidence in Christ’s faithfulness that is the foundation of his gospel.
If our reading and understanding of Ephesians 3.12 is correct, it would bring a revised (or a return to its nascent?) understanding of Ephesians’ theology. We may need to re-read Ephesians in this new light since our study shows that Eph. 3.12 could be read as ‘in whom we have boldness and confident of access through his faithfulness’ and this has both linguistic and conceptual supports. The above investigation presents to us that none of the employment of πιστις in Ephesians carries the sense of anthropological faith. However, this does not mean that human faith has no place in this letter; the author uses the verb πιστευω and not its cognate noun when he mentions human faith. The context shows that the emphasis is on the work of Christ through which God accomplished His will, either expressed through the term ‘Gospel’ , ‘Faith’ or the explicit mention of the passion of Christ (2.13, 14, 16; 5.2, 25), rather than human faith. The efficacy of the reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles, and between the two and God is based on the work God accomplished through and in Christ Jesus[35]. The other focus of the letter is the prerogatives of God in the outworking of the plan as explicated by terms like His will, pleasure, counsel, grace, love and kindness. The author seemingly tries to marginalize the role of human faith in his entire discourse and choose to highlight the activities of God and Christ’s participation in these acts. However, this does not mean that human faith has no part to play; the faithfulness of Christ entails the production of faith in us. It is just that faith (a human quality) does not have the final say. It is the grace and prerogative of God that constitute the ground and framework of the entire process of salvation. Hence, man is justified by His grace[36] through the faithfulness of Christ. This answers our dilemma of sola fide or sola gratia: God saves sinners by His grace, through Christ[37]. The grace of God is the a priori of salvation and it is God who took the initiative (1.3-14)[38], even our believing happens in Christ (1.13-14)[39]. Human faith as a positive response to the address of God is only possible as a result of the invocation of the Gospel that constitutes the faithfulness of Christ.
Secondly, ethnic reconciliation and human-divine reconciliation must be based sole on the effective work of God in Christ. It is the exhibition of Christ’s faithfulness in his passionate perseverance in the will of God that we can establish equality between different ethnic groups. When human faith is set as the benchmark, then hierarchy would unavoidably formed within the community of believers: those who first believed would become first grade citizens and those who believe after them would risk being treated as second class members (owing their status and position to us!). The purposeful downplaying of human faith in Ephesians works well in the author’s scheme to bring about conciliation between the Jews and the Gentiles: it is through the faithfulness of Christ that we both have access to God.
Finally, the piling of the phrase ‘in Christ’ and its parallel speaks more of a participatory rather than a ‘judicial’ soteriology. This is congruent with the emphasis on ecclesiology, i.e., integration of different ethnic groups into the faith-community or the people of God (=saints) and the opening of the letter (1.3-14). These speak strongly for a participationist ecclesiology, further supported by Eph. 2.18 and 3.12, which speaks of our (Jews and Gentiles) access to God-Father, from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named, occurs in Christ and through Christ’s faithfulness. Hence, the ‘Lutheran’ judicial soteriology could not, at least in Ephesians, be established. The doctrine of justification by faith alone, too, has its misgivings when placed within the matrix of Ephesians.

[1] Johannes Haussleiter, “Der Glaube Jesu und der Christliche Glaube,” Neue kirkliche Zeitschrift 2[1891]: 109-145, 205-230. This article has been referred to in Sanday and Headlam’s A Critical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 83-4. Kittel also acknowledged his indebtedness to this article in his study of the pistis Xristou expressions as noted by S. Tonstad in “πιστις Χριστου: Reading Paul in a New Paradigm,” AUSS 40(2002): 37-59.
[2] Selective bibliography, see Choi, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ in Galatians 5:5-6: Neglected Evidence for the Faithfulness of Christ,” JBL 124/3 (2005): 467-90. Here, 468n6.
[3] The dominant view is that of “Faith in Christ” which is followed by most commentaries. Longenecker in his article “ΠΣΤΙΣ in Romans 3.25: Neglected Evidence for the ‘Faithfulness of Christ’?” has listed for us names of scholars who took the ‘faithfulness of Christ’ reading since 1982. Among other variations are A. Deissman’s genitivus mysticus (faith experienced in mystical communion with Christ), E. Wissmann’s genitivus confessionis (confessing faith), and O. Schmitz’s “characterizing genitive” (“Christ-faith”), see Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” in The Faith of Jesus Christ by Hays (2002). Here, 249. A. Vanhoye suggested that it should be understood as the “reliability of Christ” in “πιστις Χριστου: fede in Cristo o affidabilita di Cristo,” Biblical 80 (1999):1-21.
[4] R.B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11, 2d ed. The Biblical Resource Series. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), 273nn3-4.
[5] NASB, NAB, NIV and NRSV followed the genitive objective. KJV and Rheims New Testament, however, have it as ‘by the faith of him’.
[6] R.B. Matlock, “Detheologizing the ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ Debate: Cautionary Remarks from a Lexical Semantic Perspective,” NovT 42 (2000): 1-23. Here, 1.
[7] A.J. Hultgren, “The PISTIS CHRISTOU Formulation in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 248-63. Here, 253.
[8] Dunn, 252 – 253.
[9] Ibid.
[10] D.B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 115.
[11] Hultgren, 253.
[12] Dunn, 253.
[13] T.L.N. Yee, Jews, Gentiles and Ethnic Reconciliation: Paul’s Jewish Identity and Ephesians, SNTSMS 130 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 35-45.
[14] M. Winger, “From Grace to Sin: Names and Abstractions in Paul’s Letters,” NovT 51 (1999): 145-75. Here, 157, 160.
[15] Wallace, 116.
[16] pace D.W.B. Robinson, “Justification an the faith of Jesus,” RTR 29 (Sept.-Dec. 1970~): 71-81. Robinson related this (Gal. 2.15-16) to Paul’s believe in Christ’s firm adherence to the will of God in the work of atonement and redemption, and such serve as the foundation of justification for the believer. Similarly, in Gal 3.22 Christ’s ‘firmness’ serves as the ground of men’s confidence and trust as they seek to be justified before God. His faithfulness overcame the obstacle posed by the law and made the Abrahamic promise available to all who believe. The faithfulness of Christ served as the avenue through which God’s faithfulness is manifested. Others like A. Gonzáez considered it an unnecessary repetition if Paul spoke here twice of our own faith. See, A. Gonzáez, “LA FE DE CRISTO,” Feb 1990. Internet; accessed 24 October 2006.
[17] B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1994), 533. Metzger concurred that the arrangement of the words to dispense with the second την is a secondary modification. He proposed that the shorter reading occurs because of a homoeoarcton (την ... την), and argued against the hypothesis that the verse is copied from Col. 1.4, which would have h]n e;cete inserted instead of the second την. But it is not necessary that Eph. copied from Col., it might well be an original construction of the author. The case for a homoeoarcton mistake is very unlikely as the distance between the words are not considerably far apart. In addition, the mentioning of God’s love for the believers exceeds that of believers’ mutual love for each other, and as I will show later in the study that the attitude of faithfulness between believers, rather than love, is the attitude exhorted in the letter.
[18] E. Best, Ephesians: A Shorter Commentary (Edinburgh/New York: T&T Clark, 2003), 37.
[19]斯诺德格拉斯. <<以弗所书>>.简体版. 国际释经应用系列49. 伊妙珍翻译. (香港:汉语圣经协会有限公司, 2005), 393-4.
[20] Best, 335. contra Meyer, 554-5 and Barth, 810-1.
[21] Best, 323. Best suggested that it should be understood as the faith, what is believed, since this falls into the same semantic range as truth, righteousness, and gospel. Furthermore, the case could be built upon the presence of the definite article governing the noun. But, if we take it as ‘what is believed’ would it not be a repetition since the gospel has already been mentioned prior to this in 6.15? Hence, it should be read as faithfulness which will coincide with 6.23.
[22] M.Y. MacDonald, “The Politics of Identity in Ephesians,” JSNT 26 (2004): 419-44. Here, 426-7. MacDonald suggested that the image of ‘arrows’ here has parallel with the Qumran Literature which used it to describe the fiery words that the wicked use to speak against God. Particularly, she mentioned 1QH 10.23-26: (25-26) I have said: heroes have set up camp against me surrounded by all their weapons of war; they loose off arrows without any cure; the tip of spear, like fire which consumes trees. Qotation taken from F.G. Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English, 2d ed (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1992), 330. Compare this with Pro. 26.18(NASB): Like a madman who throws firebands, arrows and death.
[23] Snodgrass, 192-3; Best, 165.
[24] J.P. Louw, Semantics of New Testament Greek (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholar Press, 1982), 75-6.
[25] Although we are making our argument based on variant reading, it is not spurious but has it sown validity. These witnesses present to us the different shade of understanding that the early believers have regarding the passage, hence, there must be a certain degree of reliability and validity for such reading. We could read it, while preserving the word order scribe(s) added the article to the noun, as the attempt to explain dia pistewj with δια της πιστεως. See Matlock, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ in Galatians 3.26: Neglected Evience for ‘Faith in Christ’? NTS 49 (2003): 433-9, where he engaged the variant reading to argue for the objective genitive reading.
I also differ from Wallis who see faith as a gift and Foster who see it as a referent to the faithfulness of Christ. Although agreeing with Foster that the faith here could not mean human faith, the argument put forward by Foster for faithfulness of Christ is not persuasive. The association between riches and the gift based on 2.7-8 and 3.6,8 is not convincing. Whereas 2.7 talks about the riches of kindness that God shows the believers in Christ Jesus, 3.8 is about the riches of Christ and these two are of different referent (First Contribution, 91-2). Wallis suggests that 2.8b indicates that faith originates from God and is given by him as a gift of grace. This reading cannot be establish because touto of s different gender to faith (pace Snodgrass, 110; Best, 82; Yee, 65), furthermore, the use of touto in Ephesians often points to the entire antecedent (1.15; 5.17; and 6.13).
[26] Hendricksen, 121-2. Here Hendriksen brought together three different explanation of Eph. 2.8-9 in regards to the connection of touto to v8a.
[27] M.D. Hooker, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” NTS 27 (1989): 321-42. Here, 331.
[28] I.G. Wallis, The faith of Jesus Christ in early Christian traditions, SNTSMS 84 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 129-131.
[29] W. Hendricksen, NT Commentary on Galatians and Ephesians (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), 120-3.
[30] Yee, 64-7.
[31] Ibid., 68.
[32] R.B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 73-118; R.B. Hays, “Is Paul ‘s Gospel Narratable,” JSNT 27 (2004): 217-39. S. Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004), 383-4. Westerholm suggest that ‘grace’ could be employed as a summative term for ‘the path of faith by which the unrighteous (i.e., sinners) are declared righteous because of Jesus Christ’.
[33] Wallis, 131-2; Foster, 89-91.
[34] TDNT, VOL. no.6, 199, 217-8.
[35] H.W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academics, 2002), 173-4. The expression ‘in Christ’ and its parallel occur thirty-six times in Ephesians. This shows the central role of Christ both as the agent/instrument and sphere of God’s work in accomplishing His eschatological administration.
[36] Titus 3.5-7; 2 Timothy 1.9. Westerholm, 309, 405-6.Westerholm agreed that for Paul salvation is a gift of grace, which excludes any consideration of human works. In his study of Ephesians and the Pastorals, he conceded that both echo Paul’s insistence that God saves sinner by grace, through Christ.
[37] Westerholm, 406.
[38] Yee, 68.
[39] Hooker, 327-31. In Galatians Paul argued that the Gentiles shared the blessings through incorporation in Christ.