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.
