New Testamenl

-1es
DV,P
111 BLTCT~C ~
AN INTER .ATIONALJOU R NAL-
PuBL1sHEn QUAR'TERLY UNDER THE AUSPICES OF
ST l JDIORU . f N O V I TESTAMENT! SO C I ETAS

VOlum.e 39 Numb« 3 )1l]y 1993

ARTICLES ,....
JOSEPH A. FrrzMYER, SJ. ~ JVashington DC, USA). The Consecutive .!\-leaning of £cp'<J> in
Romans 5.12
Al:GuSTix DEL AGUA (.Afadrid. Spain . The Narrative of the Transfiguration as a Derashic
Scenification of a Faith Confession ~fark 9.2- 8 Par.)
CERA.Im RocHAis .Afontrf,zl Canada). Jean 7: une construction litteraire dramatique, a la
rnaniere d'un scenario
fuv~ LARssoN (Uppstda. Sweden). Temple-Criticism and the Jewish Heritage: Some
Reflexions on Acts 6 7 379--:395
Cn.LIERS BREYTENBACH Bdin, Germany). Zeus und der lebendige Gott: Anrnerkungen zu
Apostelgeschichte 14. l l I 7
OrnuEn HoFics (Tiibingm. Germany). Das viene Gottesknechtlied in den Rriefen des
1'\euen Testamentes
JOH1' REt.JMA."llN (PhiladelpJWi, USA . Contributions of the Philippian Community to Paul
and to Earliest Christianitv
JrDITH ~1. LIEu (Londor:, Eng/mu/). \\'hat \'Vas from the Beginning: Scripture and
Tradition in the Jobannine Epistles

SHORT STUDY
B~ucE \V. LosGENECKER (Durham, England ). Ili.<Ttt<; in Romans 3.2j: ~eglected
Evidence for the 'Faithfulness of Christ'?
1'lew Test. Stud. vol. 39, 199.3, pp. 478-480

SHORT STUDY

Illl:Tll: IN ROMANS 3.25:

NEGLECTED EVIDENCE FOR THE 'FAITHFUL..~~ OF CHRIST'?

BRUCE \V. LONGENECKER

(St John's College, Durham DH1 3RJ, England)

Pauline scholarship has recently seen the resurgence of the rricrn<; Xp10Tou
debate, conside:-ing whether the phrase includes an objective ('faith in
Christ') or subjective .cfaith of Christ') sense. \Vithin the last ten or so years,
the issue has resurfae!ed with a new sense of urgency, with the subjective
reading of the phrase gaining a stronger foothold than has previously been
the case. 1 The d€bate has revolved largely around matters of style and syntax
(e.g., Paul's use of articles, proper nouns, prepositions, genitives, and the
like), 2 while theologic:t1 issues have also been conside1·ed.3 Within the debate,
however, one impor1ant piece of evidence continues t-0 be overlooked or
undervalued: the n{o1::<; of Rom 3.25.
It is well accepted that ·within Rom 3.24-6 Paul is citing an early Chris-
tian formula. Although it is not wholly clear where the formula begins and
ends, there is no doubt that Rom 3.25a is a part of this tradition: ov 1tpo£~h:i:o
o 0eoc; iA.cxoi:i\p1ov 8tct ['ti1<;] 7ttcvn:(!)c; ev 'tcp au'tou a.Yµcrtt. It is sometimes
suggested, however, that Ota [t:flc;) ittO'tEro:; is Paul's own insertion into the
formula. According to E. Kasemann, for instance, Paul added the 1ttcr-ru;
phrase in order to make the formula more in keeping with his message of
salvation by fai1h. Kasen1ann reaches this conclusion due to the syntactical
difficulties of finding a reference to the believer's faith between t,11v·o
references to the sac:·ificial death of Jesus; the 7ttonc; clause interrupts the

1
\Vithout attempting b> be comprehe'lfrve, I have noted the follov\ling scholars who have
favoured the 'faith of Chrfat' reading since 1982: L. T. Johnson, 'Romans 3:21-26 and the
Faith of Jesus', CBQ 44 (1982) 77-90; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ (SBLDS 56;
Chico, CA: Scholars, 19E3); B. Chilton, Beginning New Testament Study (London: SPCK,
1986) 68; B. Byrne, Recki>nirtg with Romans (Wilmington, DE : 1.Vlichael Glazier, 1986) 79-
80; S. K "\Villiams, 'Again Pistis Christozi', CBQ 49 (1987) 431-47; L. Gaston, Paul and th~
Torah (Vancouver: University of British Columb:ia, 1987) 103, 113, 117; L. Keck, "'Jesus" in
Romans', JBL 108 (1989) 4:43-60, 452-7; 1\1. D. Hooker, 'nicnt.;)(picr-m~',NTS 35 (1989) 321-42;
S . Stowers, "EK 7t:tcnc:ro<; and 8ux ~Tis 1tfo-cc:cos in Romans 3.30', JBL 108 (1989) 665-74; G.
:-.l'. Davies, Faith c..nd O?edience in Ror.ians (JSNTS 39; Sheffield: JSOT, 1990) 107-12;
H. l\>1accoby, Paul 7nd Hellenism (London: SCM, 1991) 76. Most recently, see the excellent
study of D. A. Campbell The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3.21-26 (JSNTS 65;
Sheffield: JSOT, 1992).
2
See, for instan:e, A. J". Hultgren, '-The Pistis Christou Formulat:ions in Paul', NovT 22
(1980) 248-63, and the r~sponse article by \Vi11iams, 'Pistis Christou'.
3 See, for instance, Ha·rs, Faith, 164-7; J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-B (Dallas: \Vord, 1988)
166-7.
 nn:Tn: I~ ROl\Lt\NS 3.25 479
smooth flow from l./..cxcr-rf,ptov to i:v -re¥> c:dnou a\'µccn. Accordingly, it must be
Paul's own :rough interpolation' and 'should be treateci as a parenthesis' .4
Although Kasemann's ca~e is typical of many, it seems to rest upon a
curious vie'v of Paul's techn.ique. Quite siinply: it needs to be asked ·w hy
Paul would have inserted rdo'tt<; so awkwardly into the natural phrase
\Acxcr'tfipiov rv 'tip a.u'tou o:'lµ.a.'tt. If Paul had intended to introduce a reference
to the believer's faith into the formula, would he have done it in such a
clumsy manner? One would expect Paul to include a reference to the faith of
the Christian in a way which would not interrupt the flow of the imagery
describing Christ's death. For this reason, I find the insertion theory to be
founded on suspicious grour.ds, misleading in its simplicity, and ultimately
unconvincing. Instead, the nfon<; phi.·ase in Rom 3.25 should be undeistood
to be an original part of the quoted formula.
\Vith this in view, it is fairly clear what 7ttcri:t; is describing. It ~·ould seem
problematic if 7ttO'tt<; described the faith of the Christian, for precisely the
same reason as was suggested above: it would break apart the otherwise
cohesive unit, l.Aacr't~pwv i:v r<t> cdnou a'{µccn. Similarly, it is difficult to think
that n ta'ttc; should be thought of as God's own faithlulness. Such would
disrupt the flow, l.1-.acr'!fipwv referring to Christ, Jttcnt<; referring to Ge>d, and
E:v 't@ o:\rtou o:'{µa'tl referring again to Christ. 5 Instead, it would appear that
7ttcr'tl.<;, being original to the formula, describes a charc.cteristic of Jes us, all
three terms of Rom 3.25a (\Ac.xc;Tftp1ov, 7ttcrnc;, alµ.a) being descriptive of Jesus'
death on the cross. To understand nio-rt<; as referring to anything othel' than
a characteristic of Jesus is to suspect Paul of tampering rather feeblJ with
the formula. Such a conclusion is not necessary, and only adds mistake
upon mistake. When nio-rt; is identified as Jesus' own, however, the formula
stands as a coherent unit, vrithou t disruption from Paul. Accordingly, Rom
3.25a should read something like: 'whom God put forward as an atoning
sacrifice, through (Jesus') faithfulness by means of his blood'.6
If this is the case, the dilemma concerning Paul's 7ttO'tt<; Xpto1ou for-
mulation disappears. Paul seems to have incorporated the early Christian
formula into his letter, knovring it to speak not only of the righteousness of
God, to which Paul refers in 3.21-2, but also of the faithfulness of Christ. It
becomes clear from this that Paul's own nto'tL~ 'I11oou XpLcnou formulation in
Rom 3.22 and the nio'tu; 'Iriaou formulation in Rom 3.26 both include the
subjecti\re sense, and that the same must be true for all other occurrences of
7ttcr·ns Xpiawu (and its variants) throughout the Pauline corpus.
This simple suggestion would seem to point to a \Vay forward in the :don.c;
Xpto'tou debate while avoiding the jungle of stylistic and syntactical intri-
cacies which, despite their value, normally €nsnare the issue. -:\1oreover,
the reading of Rom 3.25a advocated here highlights certain dynamics
within Rom 3.21-6 which, I suspect, require the reconsideration of some
aspects of Paul's theological perspective. In biief, there lies in this section of

4 E. Kasernann, Commenta.ry on Roman.s (trans. G. W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids: Eerd-

mans, 1980) 93.
5 Moreover, the concept of God's covenant fidelity is m entioned h.ter in the formula by the
term bt>emcxn'>...-r1, rather than nioru:; (3.25b-26).
6 Cf. Gaston, Torah, 113, 1 72.
480 :BRUCE W. LONGENECKER

Romans a convergence of covenantal ideas, revolving around the covenant

fidelity of God (81Kcxt0c:n)V11 9£ou) in relation to the covenant fldelity of Jesus
(rtf.crtt; Xptcnou). For Paul> the faithfulness of Christ is the basis through
which covenant relationship with God is established. God>s covenant grace
cperates through Jesus to those who believe because Jesus embodied the
kind of faithfulness which w·as pleasing to God, in contrast to the people of
!srael "\vho, according to Paul in Romans 2-3> had proven themselves to be
anything but faithful (cf. his talk of their unfaithfulness, ci:itto-r{a, in Rom
3.3). 7 Paul is not suggest:ng by this that God had abandoned his covenant
:-elationship with Israel; Paul argues against such an understanding
especially in Romans 9-11 . The point, instead, is that where Israel failed to
be Israel, Christ succeeded - that is, succeeded in being Israel; 8 whereas
Israel was expected to be holy just as their God is holy (e.g.> Lev 11.44), Paul
inds that Jesus has met that expectation. The immediate consequence of
this is that Jesus has also fulfilled Israel's commission to be a light to the
6entiles (e.g. Isa 49.6; contrast Paul's depiction of Israel in Rom 2.19-24);
~alvation is now available to all through the one who embodies \Vhat Israel
was intended to be. In all this, then, Paul maintains the tension inherent
within his scriptures between particularism and universalism, between
Israel-centredness' and "world-interestedness'> a tension which he recasts
in terms of the covenant fidelity of God and of Jesus.
I have moved rather quickly from an exegetical point to a brief recon-
struction of Paul's theological perspective in order to demonstrate the
significance that 1ttcrn~ Xpto-cou as 'the faithfulness of Christ' might have for
our understanding of Paul and of the early Christian movement in its
attempt to define itself within the diversity of Early Judaism.

7 Paul's charge, of course, is the product of a hjghly polemical argument, and has little
substance outside of that arena. For Paul's argument to work, the success of Jesus Tequires
the failure of Israel as a necessary preconditicn. For fu11er treatment of Paul's dialogue
with 'the Jev/ of Romans 2-3 , see my Eschatol-Jgy and the Covenant: A Comparison of 4
Ezra and Romans 1- 11 (JS~TS 57; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991) 172-202.
8 Cf. C. F. D. ~Ioule: in Paul7s presentation, 'Jesus Christ epitomizes Israel - indeed, is
Israel' ('Jesus, Judaism and Paul', Tradition and I11terpretation in the New Testament [ed.
G. F. Hawthorne, 0. Betz; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Tiibingen: ~lohr, 1987)) 43-52, 45. I
have been influenced h ere expecially by the work of N . T. Wright. '\Vith reference to Paul's
thought, see his The Climax of the Covenant (Edinburgh: T. & T . Clark, 1991); with
reference to Jesus' ministry, see his 'Jesus, Israel and the Cross', SBL 1985 Seminar Papers
(ed. K H. Richards; Atlanta: Scholars, 1985) 75-95. To my knowledge, \Vright has yet to
advocate the reading 'faithfulness of Christ'.