LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Concordia Lutheran Seminary

38 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
to believe in Christ Jesus (eivj Cristo.n VIhsou/n evpisteu,samen) in order that
we might be justified evk pi,stewj Cristou/.” The verbal clause “we have
come to believe”, to Voelz, is a “hidden signifier” which determines the
meaning of both of the disputed nominal (noun-based) phrases. Therefore,
pi,stij Cristou/ probably refers to human faith in Christ—not the faith of
Christ Himself—due to the clarifying effect on the meaning of the whole
sentence which is implied by the central verb evpisteu,samen. 58
James Dunn, on his part, spots a more general weakness in the argument
advanced by Hays and others, which might well be discussed in connection
with 2:16 since it is here that some of the more extreme suggestions are
rooted. 59 Hays’ entire argument, Dunn thinks, “is in danger of overkill”—in
the sense that “almost without realising it, we find that every reference to
pi,stij in the body of Galatians … [is] swept up into the defence of the
subjective genitive.” 60 Even though both 2:16 and 3:22 include clear verbal
references to the faith of believers, the tendency is, as Dunn puts it, to
hoover up every relevant reference to “faith” in Galatians in order to defend
the subjective genitive reading of 2:16, 20 and 3:22. This is nothing short of
astonishing. It now appears that a text (Galatians) which has provided such a
powerful charter of “justifying faith” for Christian self-understanding,
nowhere speaks clearly of that “faith.” 61
To the extent that Dunn is right, and Hays and company have in fact pushed
their interpretative stance to the point that the larger goal of Paul’s entire
argument is swept aside (or “vacuumed up”!), it is obvious that context is
not being allowed to influence the interpretation of individual texts with
nearly the force that it should.
iii) Galatians 3:22
If the proposed absence of a noun-based expression of the believer’s faith
creates an embarrassment for Hays, the very real lack of a verbal statement
that Christ had faith poses great difficulties for Hooker. Her proposal to read
every occurrence of pi,stij vIhsou/ Cristou with Christ as its subject severely
taxes Paul’s logic. Why would Paul have consistently avoided saying that
“Christ believed as Abraham believed”, if that was indeed what he meant?
The question becomes particularly acute especially at 3:26, where Paul’s
potentially confusing statement, “You are all sons of God dia. th/j pi,stewj
58
Voelz concedes that there are “convincing arguments on both sides” of the whole pi,stij
Cristou/ question, but notes that “Those who opt for our faith in Jesus have the linguistic
evidence we have here presented on their side” (194 n. 21).
59
See the summary above for arguments advanced by Hays et al.
60
Dunn 735, 736.
61
The only possible exception, Dunn 736 notes, is Gal 5:22.