Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-w5hgh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T06:37:32.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Δικαιωθῆναι διὰ τῆς ἐκ Χριστοῦ πίστεως: Notes on a Neglected Greek Construction1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2009

G. W. Peterman
G. W. Peterman
Affiliation:
Moody Bible Institute820 N. LaSalle Blvd Chicago IL 60610USA email: gerald.peterman@moody.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Keywords

Pistis Christoufaithgenitive

Information

Type
Short Study
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , January 2010, pp. 163 - 168
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

In the debate concerning the faithfulness of Christ one finds, correctly, reference to three types of Greek constructions. First is πίστις Χριστοῦ, the very subject of the debate. As most agree, its ambiguity calls the exegete to search for arguments beyond mere syntax in order to establish the nuance of the phrase.Footnote 2 Second are examples of πίστις with αὐτῶν, ἡμῶν, ὑμῶν or σοῦ.Footnote 3 Typically these are not up for debate, being cited to demonstrate the extensive use of the subjective genitive with πίστις.Footnote 4 Third, one finds reference to πιστεύω/πίστις with preposition (ἐν, εἰς, πρός, or ἐπί). For the sake of this discussion these present no real difficulty, being taken as explicit if not virtually synonymous.Footnote 5

Our contribution entails bringing into discussion another construction, going beyond Paul to the whole NT. The construction appears in two forms. An example of the first is Acts 24.24: ὁ Φῆλιξ … μετεπέμψατο τὸν Παῦλον καὶ ἤκουσεν αὐτοῦ περὶ τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν πίστεως. Here the object of πίστις is clarified, not by an objective genitive, but by an adjectival prepositional phrase in the attributive position (AAPP).Footnote 6 Similar is the redundant Col 2.5: …βλέπων ὑμῶν τὴν τάξιν καὶ τὸ στερέωμα τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν πίστεως ὑμῶν. The εἰς-phrase unambiguously clarifies the object of the verbal noun πίστις.Footnote 7 Various forms of this construction are common in early Christianity.Footnote 8

The second form is the converse of the first, appearing in Acts 23.21, though without πίστις. While in Roman custody, the son of Paul's sister learns of a group plotting his demise. Hoping to protect the apostle from the scheme, the young man informs the centurion, saying: σὺ οὖν μὴ πεισθῇς αὐτοῖς· ἐνεδρεύουσιν γὰρ αὐτὸν ἐξ αὐτῶν ἄνδρες πλείους τεσσεράκοντα, οἵτινες ἀνεθεμάτισαν ἑαυτοὺς μήτε ϕαγεῖν μήτε πιεῖν ἕως οὗ ἀνέλωσιν αὐτόν, καὶ νῦν εἰσιν ἕτοιμοι προσδεχόμενοι τὴν ἀπὸ σοῦ ἐπαγγελίαν. Our concern is the AAPP ἀπὸ σοῦ, which clarifies the subject or source of the verbal noun ἐπαγγελία. Further, this type of AAPP can appear as ἐκ θεοῦ, as figures in Phil 3.9: τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει. Such ‘righteousness has God as its source’.Footnote 9 NT examples of such adjectival phrases with ἐκ/ἀπό/παρά + person are rare.Footnote 10 Outside the NT, one can cite numerous examples of which the following are merely representative.Footnote 11

Jeremiah 11.20 (LXX)

In light of evil schemes planned against him, the prophet cries: ‘Lord, you are the one who judges rightly and who tests hearts and minds. May I see your vengeance against them’ (ἴδοιμι τὴν παρὰ σοῦ ἐκδίκησιν ἐξ αὐτῶν).Footnote 12 Παρά marks σοῦ, that is κυρίου, as subject.

Prayer of Manasseh 11:

The writer laments having more sins than the sand of the sea (v. 9) and being weighed down by God's wrath (v. 10). Then comes the statement, ‘Now I bend the knee of my heart asking for your kindness’ (καὶ νῦν κλίνω γόνυ καρδίας δεόμενος τῆς παρὰ σοῦ χρηστότητος). Παρά marks σοῦ, that is θεοῦ, as subject.

Josephus

AJ 7.147: After David took Bathsheba as a wife, God appeared to the prophet Nathan and faulted the king (ἐμέμϕετο τὸν βασιλέα). But since Nathan was astute, he kept God's threats (τὰς μὲν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγενημένας ἀπειλάς) to himself and decided to come to David with a pleasant message. Here παρὰ θεοῦ may designate source or it may be the virtual equivalent of ὑπὸ θεοῦ, marking θεός as subject.Footnote 13

AJ 10.16: The king of Assyria writes a threatening letter to Hezekiah, saying it is foolish to think Israel will escape Assyria's power. According to Josephus, Hezekiah is not intimidated, and despised the letter ‘because of God-given confidence’ (ταῦτʼ ἀναγνοὺς καταϕρονεῖ διὰ τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πεποίθησιν). Source is marked by ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ.

AJ 10.277: Josephus holds the view that, long before the events, Daniel predicted the suffering under Antiochus Epiphanes and Israel's desolation by Rome. Those who read (τοὺς ἀναγινώσκοντας) the prophecies will be amazed by how God honored Daniel (θαυμάζειν ἐπὶ τῇ παρὰ θεοῦ τιμῇ τὸν Δανίηλον). Παρά marks θεοῦ as subject of the verbal noun τιμή, which takes τὸν Δανίηλον as its direct object.

Philo

Virt. 1.46: The Hebrews, with few or no casualties, have defeated armies far greater than theirs. Such events are proof of God fighting together with them (πίστις δὲ τῆς ἐκ θεοῦ συμμαχίας).Footnote 14 Source is marked by ἐκ θεοῦ.

Flacc. 170: At times Flaccus would see the beauty of the night sky and cry out, ‘King of gods and men! You are not indifferent to the nation of the Jews, nor do they falsely tell of your providence’ (οὐδʼ ἐπιψεύδονται τὴν ἐκ σοῦ πρόνοιαν).Footnote 15 Although Philo makes frequent use of προνοία, only here does it figure with an AAPP, the preposition ἐκ clearly marking θεοῦ as subject (cf. Mos. 1.67).Footnote 16

Legatio ad Gaium 1.88: Here we find the rhetorical question: ‘Certainly Asia and Europe can hold the gifts which you have given, can't they?’ (Ἀσία καὶ Εὐρώπη τὰς ἐκ σοῦ γεγενημένας δωρεὰς οὐ χωρεῖ;).Footnote 17 Similar to AJ 7.147, ἐκ σοῦ may designate source or it may be the virtual equivalent of ὑπὸ σοῦ, marking σοῦ as subject/agent. Certainly it is well established in NT usage that both ἐκ and ἀπό can be used causally or instrumentally with the passive.Footnote 18

Mostly importantly, although they are rare, forms of ἡ ἔκ τινος πίστις can be found. According to Polybius 23.7.1.4, when returning to Macedonia Demetrius claimed that the Romans had shown him much favor and trust (οἱ Ῥωμαῖοι πᾶσαν τὴν ἐξ αὐτῶν χάριν καὶ πίστιν εἰς τὸν Δημήτριον ἀπηρείδοντο). Very similar is 23.10.5.1, where, in preparations for war with Rome, Philip expelled from cities all politically powerful families, replacing them with Thracians and barbarians whose loyalty to him would be more reliable in times of crisis (ὡς βεβαιοτέρας αὐτῷ τῆς ἐκ τούτων πίστεως ὑπαρξούσης κατὰ τὰς περιστάσεις).Footnote 19

As these examples demonstrate, the AAPP is good Greek, being found in a variety of sources. Certainly the AAPP has its own ambiguities. Since only two examples of ἡ ἔκ τινος πίστις have been found, we cannot make a compelling case that ἐκ always marks the subject. With other verbal nouns ἐκ, ἀπό, or παρά can mark the subject; at other times it clarifies the source.Footnote 20 Nevertheless, in all cases the genitive as object is clearly excluded. Furthermore, a variety of sources shows that ἐκ/ἀπὸ/παρὰ θεοῦ is an acceptable modifier. Presumably, ἐκ/ἀπὸ/παρὰ Χριστοῦ would also be acceptable. But in Paul's extensive discussions of δικαιοσύνη, πίστις, and Χριστός there is one construction he neglects to supply: the unambiguously non-objective ἡ ἐκ/ἀπὸ/παρὰ Χριστοῦ πίστις.

This is, admittedly, an argument from silence. Nevertheless, since this debate is so well-traveled, others make arguments from silence asking why Paul did not use πίστις followed by Χριστῷ or by εἰς Χριστόν if he wanted to speak of faith in Christ or why he did not use πιστεύω with Jesus as subject if he wanted to speak of Christ's belief/faithfulness.Footnote 21 These are reasonable questions, as is this: If, in Gal 2.16 for instance, Paul had wanted to speak, not of faith in Christ, but rather of Christ's faithfulness, why did he not say καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν διὰ τῆς ἐκ Χριστοῦ πίστεως?Footnote 22 Such wording would spark debate as to whether ἐκ Χριστοῦ indicates the subject of πίστις or its source, but Christ as object of πίστις in Gal 2.16 would be excluded from consideration.

Footnotes

1 Thanks are due to Professor Michael Vanlaningham for commenting on a version of this work and also to the staff of the Feehan Memorial Library (University of Saint Mary of the Lake, Mundelein, IL, USA) for library privileges graciously granted the author during the sabbatical year 2008–2009.

References

2 ‘[B]oth the substantive meaning of πίστις and the force of the genitive are ambiguous’, according to Taylor, Greer, ‘The Function of ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ in Galatians’, JBL 85 (1966) 58–76 (71)Google Scholar. See also Tonstad, Sigve, ‘Πίστις Χριστοῦ: Reading Paul in a New Paradigm’, Andrews University Seminary Studies 40 (2002) 37–59 (45)Google Scholar; Jewett, Robert, Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007) 277–8Google Scholar. Exceptions include Arland J. Hultgren, who claims that the subjective genitive is excluded on the basis of syntax alone (‘The Pistis Christou Formulation in Paul’, NT 22 [1980] 248–63). Similarly Gerhard Kittel concludes regarding πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in Romans that ‘die Übersetzung “Glaube Jesu Christi” nicht nur zulässt, sondern geradezu fordert’ (‘Πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ bei Paulus’, Theologischen Studien und Kritiken 79 [1906] 419–36 [426]).

3 E.g. Matt 9.2; Mark 2.5; Luke 5.20; 8.25; Rom 1.8; 4.5; 1 Cor 2.5; 15.17; Phil 2.17; Col 1.4; 1 Thess 1.8; 2 Thess 1.3; Phlm 6.

4 Howard, George, ‘Notes and Observations on the “Faith of Christ”’, HTR 60 (1967) 459–65 (459)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wallis, Ian G., The Faith of Jesus Christ in Early Christian Traditions (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1995) 69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 For Williams they diverge. God is the object of πίστις for Paul, while Christ is the object of πιστεύω. To believe in (πιστεύειν εἰς) Christ is to confess truths of the gospel (Williams, Sam K., ‘Again Pistis Christou’, CBQ 49 [1987] 431–47 [442–3]Google Scholar). Contrast the more nuanced discussion of Ulrichs, K. F. (Christusglaube: Studien zum Syntagma πίστις Χριστοῦ and zum paulinischen Verständnis von Glaube und Rechtfertigung [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007] 13–28)Google Scholar.

6 This is the most likely force for the uncommon πίστις εἰς + person (Acts 20.21; 26.18; Col 2.5; 1 Pet 1.21) even if, as asserted by Barrett, C. K., Luke's πίστις does not have typical Pauline content (Acts 15–28 [London: T. & T. Clark, 1998] 1114)Google Scholar.

7 As is done elsewhere with πρός. So, at Abr. 1.268, Philo refers to faith in God (ἡ πρὸς θεὸν πίστις) as the only good (cf. Mut. 1.201; Praem. 1.27; Her. 1.94; Somn. 1.68); cf. 4 Macc. 15.24: because of her faith in God (διὰ τὴν πρὸς θεὸν πίστιν); Josephus AJ 19.289: some Jews worthy of favor because of their faithfulness to the Romans (διὰ τὴν πρὸς Ῥωμαίους πίστιν). Πρός marks the object with other verbal nouns as well. E.g. Acts 13.32: the promise made to our ancestors (τὴν πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας ἐπαγγελίαν γενομένην); 22.1: the defense I make to you (ἀκούσατέ μου τῆς πρὸς ὑμᾶς νυνὶ ἀπολογίας); 26.6: the promise given to our ancestors (τῆς εἰς τοὺς πατέρας ἡμῶν ἐπαγγελίας γενομένης); 1 Pet 1.10: the prophets who spoke of the grace given to you (προϕῆται οἱ περὶ τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς χάριτος προϕητεύσαντες).

8 E.g. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 4.21.134.31: ἡ εἰς χριστὸν πίστις; Justin Martyr Fragmenta operum deperditorum 11.6: τῆς εἰς χριστὸν πίστεως; Irenaeus Fragmenta operum deperditorum 25.3: τὴν εἰς χριστὸν πίστιν; Athanasius Contra gentes 1.17: τὴν εἰς χριστὸν πίστιν; Origen Cels. Prooemium 6.6–7: τῆς εἰς χριστὸν πίστεως; cf. 1 Clem 22.1: ἡ ἐν Χριστῷ πίστις.

9 Koperski, Veronica, ‘The Meaning of Pistis Christou in Philippians 3:9’, Louvain Studies 18 (1993) 198–216 (214)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, followed by Ulrichs, Christusglaube, 237–9; likewise O'Brien, Peter T., The Epistle to the Philippians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 397Google Scholar.

10 E.g. Mark 5.30: Jesus knew power went from him (τὴν ἐξ αὐτοῦ δύναμιν ἐξελθοῦσαν); Mark 7.20: what comes out of a person defiles (τὸ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόμενον, ἐκεῖνο κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον); Rom 11.27: my covenant (ἡ παρʼ ἐμοῦ διαθήκη); 2 Cor 8.7: our love which is among you (τῇ ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐν ὑμῖν ἀγάπῃ); cf Mark 9.10: what is resurrection from the dead (τί ἐστιν τὸ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῆναι); Rom 10.6: righteousness from faith speaks this way (ἡ δὲ ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοσύνη οὕτως λέγει).

11 Included could be Wis 9.6: the wisdom that comes from you (τῆς ἀπὸ σοῦ σοϕίας ἀπούσης); Thuc. 2.92.6.1: fearing help given by Athenians (ϕοβούμενοι τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν Ἀθηναίων βοήθειαν); cf 4.8.5.1, 4.105.1.1; Xen. Hell. 1.7.33: rather consider yourselves ignorant of the necessities of God (ἀντὶ δὲ τῶν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀναγκαίων ἀγνωμονεῖν δόξητε); Plut. Agesilaus 4.1: relatives from his mother's side (τοὺς ἀπὸ μητρὸς οἰκείους). Examples of non-person adjectival prepositional phrases are numerous. E.g., Plut. Sulla 5.1: glory gained in battle (τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν πολεμικῶν δόξαν); Xen Hell 5.4.58.5: blood poured from the body (ἐρρύη τὸ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος αἷμα). Rarely the AAPP can designate both source and object. Thus Cyrus was delighted when he saw the fear that the Greeks caused in the barbarians (Xen. Anab. 1.2.18: Κῦρος δὲ ᾕσθη τὸν ἐκ Ἑλλήνων εἰς τοὺς βαρβάρους ϕόβον ἰδών).

12 All translations are the author's own. With Jer 11.20 compare the nearly identical Jer 20.12, containing τὴν παρὰ σοῦ ἐκδίκησιν ἐν αὐτοῖς. In both cases τὴν παρὰ σοῦ ἐκδίκησιν translates נקמתך.

13 A similar case could be made for the preposition marking the subject in AJ 2.164: rejoicing in how things have worked out in the sovereignty of God (χαίροντες οὖν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐκ θεοῦ γεγενημένοις); 7.152: the immediate death of the child she bore to you (τεθνήξεσθαι δὲ καὶ τὸν παῖδά σοι παραχρῆμα τὸν ἐξ αὐτῆς γεγενημένον); 11.145: Ezra urged them to cast out foreign wives and the children they bore (ἐκβαλεῖν αὐτὰς καὶ τὰ ἐξ αὐτῶν γεγενημένα); cf. 11.152; JW 1.463.

14 Cf. Thuc. 1.89.2.6: having allies from the Peleponnese (ἔχων τοὺς ἀπὸ Πελοποννήσου συμμάχους); Jos JW 6.286: to wait on help from God (προσμένειν τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ βοήθειαν); AJ 8.117: your [God's] help given to all men in common (ἀλλὰ πᾶσι κοινὴν τὴν ἀπὸ σοῦ βοήθειαν).

15 For Josephus, προνοία as divine providence is distinguished from προνοία as forethought. The former is ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ προνοία (AJ 2.349; 3.99; 4.60; 6.159; 13.80; 20.49, 168).

16 At Legatio ad Gaium 1.146 likewise ἐκ clearly marks the subject: Augustus ended wars that came about because of attacks by bandits (διὰ τὰς ἐκ λῃστῶν ἐπιθέσεις).

17 Cf. Virt. 1.122: freedom given by birth (τῆς ἐκ γένους ἐλευθερίας); Mos 2.252: God's unconquerable help (τὴν ἀήττητον ἐκ θεοῦ βοήθειαν).

18 Moule, C. F. D., An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1963) 73–4Google Scholar. Moule cites, amongst others, Luke 7.35; 22.45; Acts 4.36; 15.4. See also Jas 1.13 (μηδεὶς πειραζόμενος λεγέτω ὅτι ⸀ἀπὸ θεοῦ πειράζομαι) where in א, 429, 630, 1505 and 1611 ὑπό is substituted for ἀπό. Ἀπό designates the agent in the AAPP of Jude 23: the garment dirtied by the flesh (τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα).

19 Similar constructions include Philo Joseph 1.127: without proofs given by me (ἄνευ τῶν παρʼ ἐμοῦ πίστεων); Diodorus Siculus 19.42.5.4: the trust that had been given by the kings (τὴν δεδομένην ὑπὸ τῶν βασιλέων πίστιν); 19.86.2.2: the trust that had been given by Antigonus and Demetrius (τὴν δεδομένην ὑπ’ Ἀντιγόνου καὶ Δημητρίου πίστιν); Josephus JW 2.21: Ptolemy seemed to be important because of the trust Herod placed in him (Πτολεμαῖον ῥοπὴν εἶναι δοκοῦντα διὰ τὴν παρὰ Ἡρώδῃ πίστιν). When Philip followed the advice of Aratus, he guarded his loyalty to the Messenians (διεϕύλαξε τὴν πρὸς Μεσσηνίους πίστιν, Polybius 7.14.2); but when he followed the advice of Demetrius, he lost the loyalty of the other Greeks (τὴν παρὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις Ἕλλησιν ἀπέβαλε πίστιν, 7.14.6).

20 At other times the expression is partitive. E.g. Job 10.7 (LXX): who can rescue [someone] from your hands? (τίς ἐστιν ὁ ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν σου ἐξαιρούμενος;).

21 The former is asked by Wallis (The Faith of Jesus Christ, 70), the latter by Ulrichs (Christusglaube, 47 n. 263).

22 Or perhaps even δικαιωθῶμεν διὰ τῆς ἐκ Χριστοῦ εἰς τὸν ἴδιον πατέρα πίστεως (cf. τέλειος δ’, οἶμαι, καθαρισμὸς ἡ διὰ νόμου καὶ προϕητῶν εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πίστις in Clement Strom 4.25.159).