LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Concordia Lutheran Seminary

More documents

Recommendations

Info

40 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII as being theo- and Christocentric—while still calling for the believer’s full participation as one whose faith is bound up in every respect with Christ’s. 64 At the same time, however, it must be noted that very few of these theological implications are developed or expounded in the existing literature with any thoroughness. Partly this is due to the “occasional” nature the literature, since a glance at any bibliography reveals that the bulk of the work on pi,stij Cristou/ consists of short exegetical articles. There is simply not enough space in the span of 15 or 20 pages to develop an integrated theology based on “the faith of Christ”—even if that were the goal, which in the case of most of these exegetically-minded scholars it clearly is not. The only two longer works on the topic, the volumes by Hays and Wallis, both suffer (in a sense!) from their authors’ preoccupation with advancing their arguments textually rather than systematically. The reader is left in both cases with the uneasy feeling that a great deal more needs to be said about this topic before it can be properly “settled”. Indeed, the ongoing acrimonious debate on the question points to the same conclusion: that the theological implications of reading pi,stij Cristou/ subjectively have not yet fully been explored. What are some of those implications? Christology is perhaps the theological area most directly affected by this debate. Richard Hays, for example, bluntly charges that “Some opposition to the subjective genitive interpretation may be rooted in an implicitly docetic Christology.” 65 Docetic or not, though, one’s Christology cannot help being affected by the suggestion that Christ’s faith as the Son of God differed in no significant respect from our own. Granted, Aquinas may have exaggerated matters in a docetic direction by claiming that “from the moment of conception Christ had the full vision of the very being of God … . Therefore he could not have had faith.” 66 And surely Aquinas is not alone in defending the divine aspect of Christ’s person in such abstract and philosophical arguments that Jesus’ humanity is eclipsed to the point of practically disappearing. This pendulum, too, as every pendulum, swings to both sides. But it helps little—even in the face of borderline docetism—to rush headlong to the other extreme and insist, as some proponents of the subjective interpretation are on the verge of saying, that Christ’s faith exactly equals our own in every respect. Hooker’s suggestion, for example, that “The term ‘Son of God’ … needs to be interpreted in terms of Christ’s oneness with the Father and obedience to his will, rather than in terms of 64 See Hooker 321-23 and 341-42; Wallis 67-69; and Hays, “PISTIS” 727-29. 65 Hays, “PISTIS” 728. 66 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 3a.7.3, quoted in Wallis 1.
CHAMBERS: PISTIS CRISTOU IN PAUL divinity”, exposes her to the charge of kenoticism—an equally grave departure from orthodoxy as is docetism. 67 The Christological challenge therefore remains: How can one speak appropriately of “Christ’s faith”? That a significant number of New Testament texts quite apart from the pi,stij Cristou/ passages repeatedly refer to Christ as “faithful” (pisto,j) suggests that Christ’s own faith should at least be considered within, if not incorporated into, one’s overall Christological deliberations. 68 Soteriology, too, is deeply challenged by a subjective reading of pi,stij Cristou/. Although not all proponents of the idea advance the notion equally strongly, the principle of imitatio Christi is a frequent aspect of the subjective-genitive proposal. 69 Williams’ idea that one can “believe into Christ”, for instance, suggests that it is the believer’s own act that is salvifically essential: “To adopt this stance [of faith] is to trust and obey Him who raised Jesus from the dead, to believe like Christ, and thereby to stand with Christ in that domain, that power field, created through his death and resurrection. To do so is to become the beneficiary of Christ-faith.” 70 Granted that a “participationist” view of soteriology yields important insights (as Deissmann, Schweitzer, and others have shown), 71 it nevertheless must be asked whether or not this is how Pauline soteriology really “works”—by patterning our faith after that of Christ. Does not the distinction between justification and sanctification insist that the ability to respond to God’s grace is a subsequent and, for that matter, secondary consequence of his prior initiative through Christ and the Holy Spirit? Ironically, in this same connection, Hays too flirts with soteriological disaster in the opposite direction when he states that “‘Faith’ is not the precondition for receiving God’s blessing; instead, it is the appropriate mode of response to a blessing already given in Christ.” 72 The underlying idea here, too—like Williams’—is laudable: salvation as extra nos, unbidden and 67 Hooker 323. 68 References to Christ as pisto,j are found in II Thessalonians 3:3; II Timothy 2:13; Hebrews 2:14–3:6; and Revelation 1:5; 3:14; 19:11. 69 See especially Hays, “PISTIS” 728, and Williams 443, as strong advocates of this view. 70 Williams 443. 71 I am thinking here of the evn Cristw|/ debate which Deissmann instigated, Schweitzer furthered, and Davies and (especially) Sanders fine-tuned. See Adolf Deissmann, Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History, trans. from the 2 nd German edition by William E. Wilson (1927; repr. New York: Harper Torchbooks 1957); Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, trans. William Montgomery (London: A. & C. Black, 1931; repr. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998); William D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London: SPCK, 1948); John Knox, Chapters in a Life of Paul, rev. ed. (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987); E. P. Sanders, op. cit. 72 Hays, Faith of Jesus Christ, 249. 41
Page 1: LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW publish
Page 4 and 5: 4 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII S
Page 6 and 7: LTR XII (Academic Year 1999-2000):
Page 8 and 9: 8 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII W
Page 10 and 11: 10 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
Page 90 and 91:
90 LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW XII
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
LTR XII (Academic Year 1999-2000):
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
LTR XII (Academic Year 1999-2000):
Page 110:
show all

LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Concordia Lutheran Seminary

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?