Van Nes NovT 2013 Faithfulness of the Son of God

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 DOI: 10.1163/15685365-12341418

Novum Testamentum 55 (2013) 127-139 brill.com/nt

Faith(fulness) of the Son of God?

Galatians 2:20b Reconsidered1

Jermo van NesLeuven

AbstractFor more than a century, contributors to the debate have focused primarily on the linguistic and theological issues involved without recognizing the potential relevance of a text-critical variant of Gal 2:20b. It is argued that if preference is to be given to the vari-ant reading as based on both external and internal evi-dence, its immediate context encourages an objective genitive understandingI live by faith in God and Christ. As such, Gal 2:20b might offfer an interpretative clue to the other expressions in the Pauline corpus.

KeywordsPaul; Galatians; textual criticism; pistis Christou

IntroductionWhether the Pauline phrase (cf. Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16, 20, 3:22; Phil 3:9; possibly Eph 3:12) is best understood as expressing an objec-tive genitival relationship (faith in Christ) or a subjective genitival rela-tionship (faith[fulness] of Christ) still continues to be debated among

1)Thanks are due to Geertjan Zuijdwegt, doctoral candidate at the Catholic University of Leuven, for pointing out to me the potential relevance of the variant reading of Gal 2:20 for the debate. Thanks are also due to the participants of the Paul and Christol-ogy session during the Galatians and Christian Theology conference held in July 2012 at the University of Saint Andrews, Scotland, for offfering me stimulating feedback. Dr. Bruce Han-sen and Prof. Dr. Heinrich von Siebenthal are to be thanked for their careful reading and insightful comments given on earlier drafts of this article.

128 J. van Nes / Novum Testamentum 55 (2013) 127-139

NT scholars.2 From the end of the nineteenth century onwards, numerous lexical, syntactical, and theological arguments have been offfered in sup-port of each view.3 Because grammar alone was shown to be inadequate for

2)Recent (mainly Anglo-Saxon) contributions to the debate include E.E. Johnson and D.M. Hay, eds., Pauline Theology: Looking Back, Pressing On (SBLSS 4; Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1997; repr. 2002) 33-92; R.B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3.1-4.11 (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002); P. Foster, The First Contri-bution to the Debate: A Study of Ephesians 3:12, JSNT 85 (2002) 75-96; S. Tonstad, : Reading Paul in a New Paradigm, AUSS 40 (2002) 37-59; R.B. Matlock, Even the Demons Believe: Paul and , CBQ 64 (2002) 300-318; in Galatians 3:26: Neglected Evidence for Faith in Christ?, NTS 49 (2003) 433-439; The Rhetoric of in Paul: Galatians 2:16, 3:22, Romans 3:22, and Philip pians 3:9, JSNT 30 (2007) 173-203; H. Choi, in Galatians 3:5-6: Neglected Evidence for the Faithful-ness of Christ, JBL 124 (2005) 467-490; R.A. Harrisville III, Before : The Objec-tive Genitive as Good Greek, NovT 48 (2006) 353-358; D. Hunn, in Galatians 2:16: Clarification from 3:1-6, TynB 57 (2006) 23-33; B. Schliesser, Abrahams Faith in Romans 4: Pauls Concept of Faith in Light of the History of Reception of Genesis 15:6 (WUNT 2/224; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007); K.F. Ulrichs, Christusglaube: Studien zum Syntagma pistis Christou und zum paulinischen Verstndnis von Glaube und Rechtfertigung (WUNT 2/227; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007); D. Heliso, Pistis and the Righteous One: A Study of Romans 1:17 against the Background of Scripture and Second Temple Jewish Literature (WUNT 2/235; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007); K. Han, Pauline Soteriology in Galatians with Special Reference to (Ph.D. diss., University of Birmingham, 2007); P. Owen, The Works of the Law in Romans and Galatians: A New Defense of the Subjective Genitive, JBL 126 (2007) 553-577; J.D.G. Dunn, : A Key to the Meaning of , The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays (eds. J.R. Wagner, C.K. Rowe, and A.K. Grieb; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008) 351-366; J.H. Lee, Against Richard B. Hayss Faith of Jesus Christ, JGRChJ 5 (2008) 51-80; K. Schenck, 2 Corinthians and the Debate, CBQ 70 (2008) 524-537; D.A. Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009); 2 Corinthians 4:13: Evidence in Paul That Christ Believes, JBL 128 (2009) 337-356; M.F. Bird and P.M. Sprinkle, eds., The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009); G.W. Peterman, : Notes on a Neglected Greek Construction, NTS 56 (2010) 163-168; M.R. Whitenton, After : Neglected Evidence from the Apostolic Fathers, JTS 61 (2010) 82-109; W.V. Cirafesi, in Hellenistic Greek and its Contribution to the Debate, BAGL 1 (2012) 5-37; D.J. Downs, Faith(fulness) in Christ Jesus in 2 Timothy 3:15, JBL 131 (2012) 143-160.3)For an overview of these, see D.L. Stubbs, The Shape of Soteriology and the Pistis Chris-tou Debate, SJT 61 (2008) 137-157, and M.C. Easter, The Pistis Christou Debate: Main Argu-ments and Responses in Summary, CBR 9 (2010) 33-47. For arguments presented by those who understand the phrase as referring to an objective reality outside a persons subjective

Faith(fulness) of the Son of God? Galatians 2:20b Reconsidered 129

determining the meaning of , it is theology more than linguis-tics that drives the contemporary debate.4

However, as David Parker notes, [w]hat is most necessary is for theological debate to be informed by text-critical research, and to develop arguments on the basis of what is known about the manuscripts and the textual tradition.5 The importance of textual criticism in the debate was first stressed by Barry Matlock, who pointed to the 46 reading of Gal 3:26 which might have served as early commentary on the majority text (i.e. the text supported by most textual witnesses) of Gal 3:26 .6 Wally Cirafesi and Gerald Peterman recently criticized a seeming contribution to the debate by showing how the evidence presented in favor of a subjective genitive interpretation was not supported by the manuscript tradition.7

Similarly, the present study aims to make a case for the objective geni-tive interpretation of the expression by reconsidering the Ausgangstext (initial text) of Gal 2:20b. Since most editions of the Greek NT and its translations have accepted the reading , not much attention has been given to any of its variant readings, including . In the first part of this study, however, it will be argued that the latter reading is to be preferred over the majority text. Upon acceptance of this textual variant, as will be shown in the second part, an objective genitive interpretation finds better support from its immediate context.

response to God, see now P. Sprinkle, as an Eschatological Event, in The Faith of Jesus Christ, 165-184. 4)Cf. D. Hunn, Debating the Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Twentieth-Century Scholar-ship, in The Faith of Jesus Christ, 26.5)D.C. Parker, An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts (Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) 187.6)Matlock, in Galatians 3:26, 433-439.7)See M.F. Bird and M.R. Whitenton, The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Hippolytuss De Christo et Antichristo: Overlooked Patristic Evidence in the Debate, NTS 55 (2009) 552-562, and W.V. Cirafesi and G.W. Peterman, and Christ in Hippolytuss De Christo et Antichristo: A Response to Michael F. Bird and Michael R. Whitenton, NTS 57 (2011) 594-603.


I.The Text of Galatians 2:20bConsidering the manuscript evidence, there are five possible readings of Gal 2:20b:8

Variants Western types Eastern types Editions9

1 D1 lat Cl vg 33 A C 0278 1611 1739 1881 sy co

WH S NA28 RP2 H

2 D* F G MVict 46 B L T W 3 19254 b89 5 330

Obviously, variants (4) and (5) are not likely candidates for being the intended text of Gal 2:20b. While the latter is the shortest reading, its exter-nal attestation by a manuscript dating from the thirteenth century makes it no more than a conjectural emendation.10 Both readings are also unfit for the text of Gal 2:20, because God giving himself up would be an expres-sion anomalous to Paul. Variant (3) as attested by the eleventh-century manuscript 1925 is best explained as a correction of variant (5), which might

8)Cf. B.D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Efffect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993) 86; R.J. Swanson, ed., New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Galatians (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House/Pasadena, CA: William Carey International University, 1999) 104; S.C. Carlson, The Text of Galatians and Its History (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 2012) 129. 9)Capitals represent the text-critical editions by B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1881); H.F. von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ltesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte (2 vols.; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913); E. Nestle, K. Aland et al., Novum Testamentum Graece (28th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012); M.A. Robinson and W.G. Pierpont, The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Text-form (2nd ed.; Southborough, MA: Chilton, 2005); M.W. Holmes, ed., The Greek New Testa-ment (Atlanta, GA: SBL 2010); K. Lachmann, Novum Testamentum Graece (Berlin: Reimer, 1831); S.P. Tregelles, The Greek New Testament (London: Bagster, 1870); and D.B. Weiss, Das Neue Testament (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1908) respectively. 10)In support of reading , J.C. ONeill (The Recovery of Pauls Letter to the Galatians [London: SPCK, 1975] 45) argued that [t]he verb is used with God as the implied subject in Rom 4:25. This argument is flawed because in Gal 2:20b God is giving up himself, whereas in Rom 4:25 it is Jesus whom God delivers up.


have originated early. Therefore, either variant (1) or (2) should be taken into consideration, but despite the impressive list of textual witnesses for , most scholars have accepted as the (intended) autographic text-form of Gal 2:20b.

Bruce Metzger suggested that due to parablepsis a scribe originally wrote (cf. ms. 330) and so later copyists were forced to add either or in order to make sense of the verses dictum. Because Paul nowhere else expressly speaks of God as the object of a Christians faith, he (and the editorial committee of the United Bible Societys Greek NT) rejected as the initial text of Gal 2:20b.11 Similarly, Richard Longenecker argues that as found in the main codices and almost all versions and patristic witnesses was probably original, because would be a hapax legomenon in Paul.12 Pointing to the qualifying phrase following upon , Ben Witherington also slightly favors this reading because it clearly indicates that the action of Christ is in view.13 Finally, Richard Hays in his influential study (though not discussing alter-native readings of Gal 2:20b) draws attention to a parallel in Rom 5:15 , which is taken to support the idea that both passages portray Christ as the active agent and Paul as the instrument through which and/or for whom Christs activity comes to expression.14

While most interpreters of Galatians accept the majority reading by either relying upon these arguments15 or neglecting alternative

11)B.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994) 524. 12)Cf. R.N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC 41; Dallas, TX: Word, 1990) 94.13)Cf. B. Witherington III, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St. Pauls Letter to the Gala-tians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998) 192.14)Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 155. 15)So, for instance, K. Romaniuk, Lamour du Pre et du Fils dans la sotriologie de saint Paul (AnBib 15; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1961) 31; E.D.W. Burton, The Epistle to the Gala-tians (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1977) 139; H.D. Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Pauls Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1979) 125, n. 104; Ehrman, Corruption, 86; A.M. Buscemi, Lettera ai Galati (SBF 63; Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing, 2004) 196; P.M. Magalln, Estar crucificado juntamente con Cristo: El nuevo status del creyente en Cristo. Estudio exegtico-teolgico de Gal 2,15-21 y Rom 6,5-11 (TGST 122; Rome: Editrice Pontificia Universit Gregoriana, 2005) 94, n.185; F.J. Matera, Galatians (SP 9; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007) 96; J.-P. Lmonon, Lptre aux Galates (CbNT 9;


readings,16 at least six arguments can be given which question the priority of .17 First, Metzgers conjecture about the scribal omission of involves an imaginary process which seems plausible only when was written in plene, because the parallel diphthongs of and could have been more easily confused. However, in some of the majuscule witnesses to the majority text (, A) an abbreviated form of the nomen sacrum is found (),18 which reduces the parallel diphthongs in this phrase from four to three (). Given that no Ys are used in the 20 letters preceding the first , it is questionable whether a scribe whose eyes passed immediately to the second would have missed the three Ys and two Os in the 6 letters preceding it. This is certainly possible, but not at all probable. By the same token, can be explained as an accidental scribal error arising from faulty hearing or an intentional scribal corruption to state Jesus divinity.19 Either way, the ques-tion of the original wording of Gal 2:20b must be left open.20

Second, the awareness among textual critics that the initial text is not necessarily reflected in the majority of manuscripts should make one cau-tious about accepting as original.21 Rather, the variant most likely to be original is the one that best accounts for the origin of all

Paris: Cerf, 2008) 97; M.C. de Boer, Galatians (NTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2011) 141.16)So, for instance, M.-J. Lagrange, Saint Paul: ptre aux Galates (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1925) lxxxiii-lxxxiv; F. Mussner, Der Galaterbrief (HThKNT; Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 1974) 182-183; F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982) 145; B. Corsani, Lettera ai Galati (CSENT 9; Genova: Marietti, 1990) 178-179; J.D.G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC; London: A&C Black, 1993) 146; J.L. Martyn, Galatians (AB 33A; New York: Doubleday, 1997) 259; J. van Bruggen, Galaten (CNT; Kampen: Kok, 2004) 94; T.R. Schreiner, Galatians (ZECNT 9; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010) 172-173.17)The priority of has been defended earlier by P.M. Head, Galatians 2:20: I live by faith in God and Christ..., Evangelical Textual Criticism, entry posted March 15, 2006, http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.be/2006/03/galatians-220-i-live-by-faith-in-god.html (accessed July 9, 2012), and now recently by Carlson, The Text of Galatians, 129-135. 18)See Swanson, Manuscripts, 28. 19)So Ehrman, Corruption, 86.20)Even if Metzgers conjecture is correct, it does not rule out the priority of over as the intended text-form of Gal 2:20b. 21)Cf. G.D. Fee, The Majority Text and the Original Text of the New Testament, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (ed. E.J. Epp and G.D. Fee; SD 45; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993) 183-208.


competing variants.22 In this case, it is easier to see why a scribe would have altered the reading to rather than vice versa, because Son of God language is much more akin to Paul (cf. Rom 1:4, 5:10, 8:3, 29, 32; 1 Cor 1:9, 15:28; Gal 1:16; 4:4; 1 Thess 1:10).23 Why would a scribe change a well-known Pauline expression into a less familiar phrase? Alternatively, an anti-Patripassionist scribe could well have (mis)inter-preted as to function epexegetically (Christ, who is God), which would suggest Gods passibility, and altered the reading to avoid this implication.24 Scenarios like these are supported by the external evidence, because as witnessed by 46 and Codex Vaticanus enjoys the earliest manuscript support.25

Third, the objection raised by Longenecker about the uniqueness of equally applies to . Including the (first) article, both variants in their exact text-form are not found in any of Pauls undisputed writings. In the disputed Paulines, however, is used only once (cf. Eph 4:13), whereas is used even twice (cf. 1 Tim 5:21; 2 Tim 4:1). Metzger correctly observes that in neither of these two instances is it intended to denote having faith in God, but he presupposes (even if correct) an objective genitival relationship in Gal 2:20b. For Paul, it was common to speak of having faith in God (cf. Rom 4:24; 1 Thess 1:8) as well as the faithfulness of God (cf. Rom 3:3). Since it was also common for Paul to speak of faith in and/or of Christ (cf. Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16, 3:22; Phil 3:9), the phrase need not be consid-ered un-Pauline.

Fourth, it is diffficult to explain why the expression is introduced in Gal 2:20b. Paul does speak about Gods Son in Galatians

22)M.W. Holmes, Reasoned Eclecticism in New Testament Textual Criticism, The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (ed. B.D. Ehrman and M.W. Holmes; SD 46; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994) 344-345; The Case for Reasoned Eclecticism, in Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism (ed. D.A. Black; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002) 79; cf. Parker, New Testament Manuscripts, 180.23)Cf. J.B. Lightfoot (St. Pauls Epistle to the Galatians [rev. ed.; London: MacMillan, 1910] 119), who notes: For [may be pleaded]...the diffficulty of conceiving its substitution for the other simpler reading. 24)So Carlson, The Text of Galatians, 134.25)According to Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman (The Text of the New Testament: Its Trans-mission, Corruption, and Restoration [4th ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008] 54, 68), 46 dates from about 200 C.E. while the completion of Codex Vaticanus slightly antedates Codex Sinaiticus in the fourth century C.E.


(cf. 1:16; 4:4),26 but he uses the names of God and Christ so frequently (cf. 1:1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 20, 22, 24; 2:4, 6, 16, 17, 19, 20a, 21; 3:1, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29; 4:4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 19; 5:1, 2, 4, 6, 21, 24; 6:2, 7, 12, 14, 16, 18) that it makes the majority text more diffficult to accept.

Fifth, by pointing to the phrase following upon Gal 2:20b in support of a christocentric reading, Witherington ignores vv. 1:3-4a . The wording is similar to 2:20, because God and Christ are both mentioned while the work of Christ is emphasized by a qualifying participle phrase. Moreover, it has been efffectively argued that Gal 2:20 as a depiction of justification by faith is better to be interpreted in the context of vv. 15-20.27 Up to v. 20, Pauls point isas Ronald Fung aptly summarizesthat, although in seeking to be justified in Christ believers become sinners in that they do not possess the law (v. 17a), this is but an outworking of the principle of dying to the law in accordance with its own demands, and the purpose and result of freedom from the yoke of the law is not to lead them to sin, but to enable them to live for God.28 This theme of living a new life is continued in v. 20, but being the governing verb it might be as much a further explication of, v. 19, living with God ( ) as of being crucified with Christ ( ). Since the character of the new life as presented by Paul thus seems bi-focal rather than christocen-tric, would make perfect sense in the context of vv. 15-20.29

Finally, the reading fits better with the overall concern of Galatiansthe true Gospel. According to Bernard Lategan, Gal 2:19-20 functions as one of the key transitions in the structure of the letter and expresses the theological basis on which this Gospel rests.30 As v. 20 , , / sums up Pauls concept of Christian existence, it anticipates the theological and ethical sections which follow in Gal 3-4 and 5-6 while

26)Dunn (Galatians, 64-65) correctly observes that sonship is an important theme in the letter, but in Gal 2:15-21 it does not contribute to Pauls argument. 27)Cf. S. Shauf, Galatians 2:20 in Context, NTS 52 (2006) 86-101.28)R.Y.K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988) 123.29)A conclusion not drawn by Shauf himself, but he implies to be willing to accept the reading. Cf. Shauf, Galatians 2:20, 101, n. 52.30)See B.C. Lategan, Is Paul Defending his Apostleship in Galatians? The Function of Gala-tians 1:11-12 and 2:19-20 in the Development of Pauls Argument, NTS 34 (1988) 411-430.


simultaneously it underlines the argument of Gal 1-2. Recently it has been shown how Pauls Gospel in 1:13-2:21 is substantiated by setting up two cat-egoriesseeking to please people or seeking to please God (cf. 1:10a)and defended by means of his independence from the apostles (cf. 1:11-2:14) and his subsequent life motivation (cf. 2:15-21).31 The argument of Gal 1-2 is thus primarily driven by Pauls desire to please God in order to be a true servant of Christ.

Given these considerations, it seems both the external and internal evidence for outweigh the evidence for . Upon acceptance of this new reading of Gal 2:20b, it raises the question how it relates to the debate. Was Paul speaking of (the) faith(fulness) of God and Christ or faith in God and Christ?

II.Translating Galatians 2:20bLinguistically, there is not much new in the phrase that contributes to its meaning except for the reduction of the definite articles from four to three. For Douglas Camp-bell, it would still be an appositional construction that fulfills all the gram-matical expectations in Koin [Greek] of a subjective relationship (i.e., it is a fully arthrous arrangement).32 Campbells analysis seems to be sup-ported by the analogy found in Rom 3:3 . In both phrases, and take the definite article. However, in Rom 3:3 its usage is truly articular, referring to the faithfulness of the (one and only) God, while in Gal 2:20b its usage is appositional. As Gordon Fee comments, [i]n typical fashion, Paul has phrased his contrasts in poetic chiasm: , ..., where the word order , calls for the defining because of the inter-vening .33 The analogy, therefore, is imprecise and will remain inconclu-sive as long as there is no decisive study which demonstrates that nouns followed by a definite article and genitive modifier invariably express a subjective genitival relationship. The grammatical parallel as claimed by

31)Cf. D. Hunn, Pleasing God or Pleasing People? Defending the Gospel in Galatians 1-2, Bib 91 (2010) 24-49.32)Campbell, The Deliverance of God, 847; cf. 1149, n. 40.33)G.D. Fee, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007) 225, n. 56.


Hays in Rom 5:15 appears to be inconclusive as well, because of the real diffferenceas Hays himself admitsthat the phrase is appended as a modifier of , whereas in Gal 2:20 the appositional phrase functions as a modifier of .34 Consequently, the genitival relationship in Gal 2:20b cannot be determined by its grammar but should be determined by its context.

Accepting the variant, Stephen Carlson argues for a sub-jective genitive interpretation mainly because (1) Paul does not otherwise describe two faiths for a Christian and (2) Pauls statement that he is no longer living but Christ living in him (cf. Gal 2:20a) suggests that the faith-fulness of God and Christ implicitly contrasts with Pauls own faithfulness inherent in his life in the flesh ( ).35 The first argument, however, is weakened by its similar need for two separate references to support the subjective genitive reading. Whereas only Rom 3:3 refers unam-biguously to Gods faithfulness (all references to Christs faithfulness are disputed), Rom 4:23 and Gal 2:16 clearly refer to having faith in God and Christ respectively. Moreover, when Paul speaks of a gospel of God (cf. Rom 1:1, 15:16; 2 Cor 11:7; 1 Thess 2:2, 8, 9) and a gospel of Christ (Rom 15:19; 1 Cor 9:12; 2 Cor 2:12, 9:13, 10:14; Gal 1:7; Phil 1:27; 1 Thess 3:2), does this mean that there are two diffferent gospels to be believed in?

Carlsons second argument seems only to account for Christs faithful-ness, but it has been cogently argued that according to Gal 3:21-26 Gods covenantal faithfulness is revealed in and through the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah, the representative Israelite (cf. Rom 2:17-24; 3:1-8).36 Other passages in Galatians expressing Gods faithfulness in Christ might include 1:1, 4, 6, 15; 2:21; 3:18, and 4:4-7. Yet the antithetical parallelism in Gal 2:20b between Pauls faithfulness inherent in his life in the flesh on the one hand and his living by the faithfulness of God and Christ on the other can be sustained only if is used in an ethical sense. Most commenta-tors, however, interpret the phrase as referring to Pauls earthly existence (cf. 2:16; 2 Cor 10:3; Phil 1:22, 24; Phlm 16). Not only is the postpositive particle continuative, clarifying what Paul means by (v. 20a), also the relative pronoun is best interpreted as an

34)Cf. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 154.35)Carlson, The Text of Galatians, 130, 132.36)N.T. Wright, The Letter to the Galatians: Exegesis and Theology, Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology (eds. J.B. Green and M. Turner; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000) 218-219.


accusative of content, being a pronominal substitute for the verb . The adverb probably denotes a time subsequent to the change expressed in the phrases and (v. 19). As such, v. 20 in all likelihood refers to the remainder of Pauls earthly (and not sinful) life as a Christian.37

An objective genitive interpretation of , on the other hand, makes better sense in the immediate context of Gal 2:20.38 This has been shown by several recent studies. Jae Lee, for instance, has demon-strated that Pauls emphasis from Gal 2:15 onwards is on the human act of believing. In support, he points to vv. 15-16, which can be structured symmetrically:39

A: (2:15)B: [] ,

(2:16a)C: , (2:16b)B: , (2:16c) B: . (2:16d)

According to Lee, prominence must be given to v. 16b, because it is the only independent clause (except for v. 15, which is verbless) and its message is highlighted by the implied contrast between the emphatic markers and () in v. 16d. Since all people will not be justified by works of the law, Paul declares that even we have believed in Christ Jesus. This is to suggest that the focus in v. 16 is not just on the antithesis between the law and , or on a contrast between Gods deed and any human act, but on Pauls act of believing in Jesus for justification.40 Similarly, Paul could say that he lives by faith in (God and) Christ (cf. 2:20b), also because his emphasis on believers faith frequently recurs in the remainder of the letter (cf. 3:2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 22, 26; 5:5, 6).

In particular, Debbie Hunn has shown how Pauls discussion of justifica-tion by faith in Gal 2:15-21 is continued in 3:1-5. Re-examining the phrase

37)Cf. Lagrange, Galates, 52; H. Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater (4th ed.; KEK; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965) 102; Burton, Galatians, 138; Fung, Galatians, 124, n. 72; Longenecker, Galatians, 93; Martyn, Galatians, 258; Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 190-191; Mussner, Galaterbrief, 183; Van Bruggen, Galaten, 94.38)Cf. Head, Galatians 2:20, but he does not support this interpretation. 39)Lee, Against, 72.40)Lee, Against, 74.


(3:2, 5), Hunn counters the common interpretation hearing of/with faith41 or the message that evokes/elicits faith42 by arguing that the comparison to Abrahams faith (cf. 3:6-9) limits in 3:2, 5 to human faith (cf. Rom 4:3, 5). Accordingly, Pauls discussion in 2:15-21 of and as contending means of justification are paralleled by and in 3:1-5. By equating the justification of Gentiles with the blessing of Abraham (cf. 3:8) and the blessing of Abraham with the sending of the Spirit (cf. 3:14), Paul wants the Galatians to under-stand that their reception of the Spirit is now proof of their own justifica-tion, which was not the result of doing works of the law but because of having faith in Christ.43

For James Dunn, it is an inescapable conclusion that the ones in Gal 3:6-7 can be reckoned as Abrahams sons precisely and only because they believe as Abraham believed.44 Because the ones are those who believed as Abraham believed, it must refer to the Galatians own faith. This not only is a strong argument for the objective genitive interpretation of the references in Galatians, it also is supportive of the reading of Gal 2:20b. As both a believer in Christ (cf. 2:16) and a descendant of Abraham (cf. 3:14), who believed (in) God (cf. 3:6), it is not inappropriate for Paul to say that he is living his new life by faith in God and Christ.

Finally, a subjective genitive understanding of as attested by 46 is diffficult to match with the 46 reading of Gal 3:26 as commentary on the majority text . Witherington, who himself rejects the variant reading of Gal 2:20b, is therefore not mistaken when he asserts that [w]hatever the origin of this variant, it appears clear that these scribes did not understand the subject here to be the faithfulness of God or Christ, but rather faith in them.45

41)So, for instance, Burton, Galatians, 147; Dunn, Galatians, 152. 42)So, for instance, Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 131; Martyn, Galatians, 288.43)Cf. Hunn, , 23-33.44)Dunn, , 361.45)Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 191.


ConclusionBased on both external and internal evidence, it has been argued that in Gal 2:20b the reading is to be preferred over the majority text. Thus far the potential relevance of this variant reading for the debate has been left unnoticed, because contributors to the debate have been predominantly concerned with the exegetical and theological issues involved. Whether or not the arguments presented here in favor of the variant reading have proved convincing, it should nonetheless be taken into consideration more seriously as it might contribute significantly to the debate.

If preference should be given to the reading , it seems the context of Gal 2:20 demands an objective genitive interpretation. Pauls emphasis on the human act of believing in Gal 2:15-3:14, expressed in terms of the Galatians faith in Christ (cf. 2:16b) and Abra-hams faith in God (cf. 3:6), makes it hard to see why Paul as a descendant of Abraham (cf. 3:14) would not speak of living his life by faith in God and Christ. Of course, this is not to suggest that Paul used the phrase invariably with the same reference. However, the contextual evidence presented for the consistency of Pauls argument (at least for Gal 2:15-3:14) makes the reading another strong argument for the objective genitive interpretation of the phrase in the Pauline corpus.

/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 150 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /Warning /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 550 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /Warning /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 2400 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /PDFX1a:2001 ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError false /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (GWG_GenericCMYK) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False

/Description > /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ > /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ]>> setdistillerparams> setpagedevice

Van Nes NovT 2013 Faithfulness of the Son of God

Documents

Transcript of Van Nes NovT 2013 Faithfulness of the Son of God