I've written before about Biblical translation issues. In the post listed above I touched briefly on one issue related to a phrase Paul uses: "faith in Jesus Christ". Paul uses this phrase several time (Romans 3:22 & 3:26, Galatians 2:16, 2:20, 3:22, Philippians 3:9). The Greek version of this phrase reads thusly: PISTIS IESOU CHRISTOU. Rendered literally it reads: "faith of Jesus Christ". It is known as a genitive construction, and genitive constructions are ambiguous.
Think about this one: "the love of God". Now am I talking about God's love FOR me? Or my love FOR God? Or am I talking about having love like God has for others. See, you don't know because you have no context. The same is true of "faith of Jesus Christ". It isn't clear right off the bat if one is talking about the faith Jesus HAD, or whether one is talking about Christian faith, or what. The thing is, in The Bible, it is taken in the latter sense. Hence the rendering "faith IN Jesus Christ". Almost all translations render it this way, though many will notate it and mark the ambiguity.
But there are strong reasons to think this rendering is incorrect, and that theological bias guides the tendency. Let's take one example, perhaps the most paradigmic:
Romans 3:21-22a: But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.
This is the normal rendering. On it's face it is strangely redundant. It seems that the sentence should end with "Christ". What's more, it makes it seem like the prophetic tradition is fulfilled in our believing. But this makes no sense. Surely messianic prophecy is about the messiah, and not those who believe in him.
Check out the same passage, with the alternative rendering:
Now doesn't this make more sense? Now it is the faithfulness, the obedience of Christ that fulfills the Law and Prophets. Further, it is Jesus' faith that is the righteousness of God. And the redundancy is gone. Our faith is what lets us see the righteousness of God in Christ's actions and belief.
So I think it is clear that this is how the text should be rendered in this case. You may disagree, but TO ME it seems pretty clear.
If you go to the other places this phrase shows up, and undertake the same exercise, you'll find consistently that this rendering of PISTIS IESOU CHRISTOU either makes the passage clearer or is as good as the traditional rendering.
The thing is, the theological consequences of this shift are cosmic in scope. In the first place, it is our faith in Christ that saves us. In the second, it is what CHRIST believed and did that has the saving power. Our salvation either come simply from His actions or from our ability to mimic them (depending on your overall view of Paul's theology). Either way, it radically changes ones doctrine of atonement.
This is a controversial position, and I always counsel investigating all the literature on this matter. You must work out your own salvation "with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12). But I think when you do, you will find at least that both approaches are equally valid, and that should give most any Christian pause. If the Bible is THE or ONE OF THE foundations of Gods revelation to us, then certainly issues of translation from the original language of that revelation are of supreme import. The full implications of that process may shock or confuse us, but any such knowledge can only deepen our understanding of the nature of God.
Soon I plan to touch on another issue of massive import that revolves over but one passage of scripture: Revelation 13:8
The question that came up to me was "Why have a bias to go with 'in' vs. 'of'? My modern mind comes up with this: If you say 'of' and Christ did all of the work, then what exactly do we do? Put positively, what does our involvement matter? The negative is, why should I bother to do anything if Christ has done it all?
ReplyDeleteSince I was raised Roman Catholic with a strong Calvinist influence my guess is that the church authorities wanted to drive home that the faithful had to act. Which implies this is done to improve the level of control over the actions of individuals by putting it in the sacred texts.
Does this hold any water? I'm dreadfully biased to see this and I'm wondering if this makes any sense whatever. This is one that if you tell me, "Kev, you're over interpreting" I'll be happy to know that.
Thanks Josh.
Some would still hold onto a subjective side of salvation by arguing that Paul thinks that we have to have the faith, ie be faithful and obedient, as Jesus was. This is Philippians 2 as a theory of salvation. If we find some way to live out Jesus' obedience unto death in our own lives, like him we will be raised up and given the Power of the Spirit. But I don't think we need to think this way to make sense of our actions mattering at all. What we do matters ultimately because what we do hurts or helps God. We stop thinking about the ultimate consequences of our decisions FOR US and start asking about the consequences FOR GOD. Will we, in this moment, hurt or help God? God takes the consequences of our sins into Himself. God Suffers our sins. Is this not of ultimate import? What matters more, how my behavior effects ME or how it affects CHRIST? I need to make sense of the intuition that what I do has eternal significance. Most Christians make sense of this by talking about eternal consequences in Heavan or Hell. I think in terms of eternal significance in the life of God. If I love God, I will try to alleviate Gods suffering by living a better life. If I don't love God, I may do right to avoid heaven, but he can this have any power to save me if I dont love God in the first place?
DeleteI may do right to avoid hell*
ReplyDelete