What's New in the Pistis Christou Debate?

What is the Debate?

The “pistis Christou” debate is a lively discussion that has taken place in biblical scholarship, especially since the 1980s and especially in the States, on the relationship between two crucial words in Paul, namely pistis (“faith” or “faithfulness”) and Christou (of Christ). The discussion can quickly become quite technical (and I, myself, have been accused of being too technical), but the foundational issues in the debate can be distilled to the following:

1. What is the meaning of pistis (normally translated “faith”)?
2. How does “Christ” relate to pistis?

To illustrate the different positions, consider the following (partial) translations of Galatians 2:15-16 (I use the NABRE except for the debated phrase, and I designate a “camp” to each group based on how the grammar of the phrase is normally described; emphasis added):

1. Group 1—Justified by something you do, not the law (objective camp): “We, who are Jews by nature . . . know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ” (NABRE).
2. Group 2—Justified by something Jesus does, not the law (subjective camp): “We, who are Jews by nature . . . know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” (NABRE*).
3. Group 3—Justified by the message of the faith about Jesus, not the law (content camp): “We, who are Jews by nature . . . know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through the Jesus-Christ-faith” (NABRE*).

The NABRE translates the phrase according to the first view, and most translations opt for something like this. The implication is that the fundamental contrast in justification (which is itself a very loaded term) is either doing works of the law or having faith in Jesus Christ. Many scholars, however, have argued for the second reading, which says that one is justified by Jesus’s faithfulness, particularly to his mission of dying on the cross, rather than by works of the law. In this view, what affects justification is an act of Jesus and not the Church itself, and this is contrasted with works of the law. Finally, a minority view is the third view, and it happens to be mine: justification comes about not by works of the law (specifically the Jewish Torah) but by the message of the Christ (that is, the long-anticipated Jewish Messiah). This view interprets “faith” similar to how we would understand it in the phrase the Christian faith. I use “Christ-faith” for this reading because it is the faith about the Jewish Christ/Messiah, that is, the Jewish King.

In what follows, I will touch on what is at stake in this debate, what some of the great theologians have said about it in the past (especially Origen, Chrysostom, and Aquinas), and the Jewish roots of the controversy. If you happen to be a grammar nerd, you can read my lengthy article on why I think the first two options are untenable in Greek, but my purpose here is more to show you the implications of my position, its historical plausibility, and why you should care.

What Is at Stake?

In chapter 8 of the Council of Trent’s decree on justification, the topic is outlined as follows: “In what manner it is to be understood, that the impious is justified by faith, and gratuitously.”[1] The short chapter is primarily concerned with establishing faith’s role in justification, and it follows a chapter on how faith must be accompanied by works:

For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision, availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by charity” (ch. 7).

In other words, faith must be accompanied by works and love, otherwise it does not make someone “a living member of His body.” Depending on how our text in Gal 2:15-16 is translated, this may or may not be a problem. In my reading of the Council of Trent, it appears that ch. 8 anticipates the objection that might be raised by verses like Galatians 2:15-16 (as well as Romans 4:1-8). The Council goes on to say, “And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood . . . [in the sense that] faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification . . . .”

The tension that the Council of Trent is grappling with is, in many ways, at the heart of the Protestant Reformation. Indeed, Luther himself said on Gal 2:16, “We know that we must also teach good works, but they must be taught in their proper turn, when the discussion is concerning works and not the article of justification.”[2] Both Trent and Luther agreed that faith and works were both important and necessary. However, Trent, on the basis of other biblical passages, attributed works some role in justification. Luther, on the basis of reading verses like Gal 2:16 in a particular way, said that works had nothing to do with justification. Herein lies one of the most significant controversies of the time (and one that still influences us today).

In my own reading of the Council, it seems that they do not define the “pistis Christou” phrase differently than Luther. Indeed, the Catholic translation of the NABRE accords with Luther’s understanding of the verse. If we translate the phrase this way, it would seem as though Paul does indeed reject works of the law as a means of justification. This, however, sets up an inherent tension within Paul himself because elsewhere he does say that justification is by doing the law: “For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified” (Rom 2:13). At this point, both Catholics and Protestants have to define in what sense we are justified by “faith in Jesus Christ” and in what sense we are justified by “observing the law.” This is what chapters 7-8 of the Council of Trent’s decree on justification attempt to do.

Now, let us pretend for a moment that group 3, the content camp, is correct. Does the apostle in this verse then distinguish between someone who might be justified by something they do (works of the law) or something they believe (having faith)? No. The weight of the contrast becomes not works vs. faith, but law/Torah vs. Christ/Messiah (Messiah and Christ both mean “anointed,” the former being Hebrew and the latter Greek—both normally refer to the “anointed King”; I use them interchangeably). Paul’s statement is not, then, about what a person must do to become justified, but which system would lead to justification, either the Jewish law/Torah or the Jewish King, namely the Messiah. Under this reading, at least some of the disagreements between Catholics and Protestants regarding faith and justification begin to crumble.

What has the Church said?

Thomas Aquinas

Here is what the luminary Thomas Aquinas (thirteenth century) said about some of the issues raised above in our verse in his commentary on Galatians:

Therefore the apostolic life rested on the faith of Christ and not on the works of the Law. The reason for this is that although we were Jews by nature and were nourished in the works of the Law, yet knowing for certain that man is not justified by the works of the law, i.e., through the works of the Law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, for that reason we have left the Law and are living according to the precepts of the faith: “For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the Law” (Rom 3:28); “For there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

Aquinas seems to understand “faith” in line with group 3. It would not make sense to speak of “precepts of having faith in Christ” (group 1) or “precepts of Christ’s faithfulness” (group 2), but it makes perfect sense to speak of the “precepts of the Christ-faith,” the body of teaching associated with the Christ. The Christ-King gave his people certain precepts to carry out. Aquinas appears to contrast these precepts with those of the law, and he says that we are justified not by works of the law, but instead we are living according to a different set of precepts by which we might be justified.

John Chrysostom

Both Chrysostom (late fourth century) and Origen (whom I discuss below) are especially valuable commentators because they were native speakers of Ancient Greek. Both, I have argued, understand the pistis Christou phrase according to group 3. Here is what Chrysostom says about Gal 2:15-16:

But what is it to be “Jews by nature”? We are not proselytes, but from the first age were trained in the law, leaving that way of life which one is raised in, we fled to the faith, namely the one in Christ. “Knowing that man will not be justified from works of the law, but through the Jesus-Christ-faith, we, too, trusted in Christ.”[3]

In this sermon, Chrysostom contrasts two different ways of life. One is according to the law, and the other is what Peter and Paul fled to—the faith, namely the one in Christ. Again, the fact “faith” is here characterized as a lifestyle suggests that it is best interpreted according to the third view. It is also compatible with faith as a principle that believers hold to (group 1), but nothing is said about Christ’s faithfulness (group 2).

Origen

Origen (early third century) was a remarkable scholar. He has received a bit of a bad reputation in some circles today because of his “allegorical” interpretations, but he was also a very careful interpreter of Scripture. Here is one instance in which he uses the pistis Christou phrase in his commentary on John:

Again, if we know the one who became life in the word, the one who said, “I am the life,” we will say there is no life for the ones outside of the Christ-faith, or all are dead who do not live for God.[4]

In this use of the phrase, the “Christ-faith” is something that you can be a member of. Again, the other two interpretations of the phrase do not work here. One cannot be a member of “faith in Jesus” or of “Jesus’s faithfulness,” but one can be a member of a faith, namely “the Christ-faith.” Origen says for anyone who is not a member of the Christ-faith, they do not have life.

Summary

More examples could be given to demonstrate that many of the most influential and important interpreters of Scripture understood the phrase in the way I have suggested. At the very least, this reading is not an unknown reading in the life of the Church, but I suggest that the roots of Paul’s justification controversy with his opponents go back even further to a Jewish polemic.

The Jewish Roots of the Controversy

Paul was a Jew arguing with other Jews in Galatians. As we have said, the issue surrounded the means of justification—did the Jewish law, the Torah, lead to justification (or righteousness), or was it the Christ-faith? I would argue that Paul did not invent these two options. We find both in the Jewish literature of Paul’s day.

Psalms of Solomon 17

Despite the name, it is generally recognized that the Psalms of Solomon were not written by Solomon. Psalm of Solomon 2:30 seems to reference the death of the Roman general Pompey in Egypt in 63 BC, suggesting a date for the mid-late first century BC. Chapter 17 contains a lengthy description of the Messiah and what he was expected to do. Over and over again the Psalm speaks of the Christ-King as establishing righteousness:

28 And he shall gather a holy people whom he will lead in righteousness
29 And he will not allow unrighteousness to dwell among them
35b And he who is over them is a righteous King and taught by God
36 And there is no unrighteousness among them in his days because all are holy and their King is Christ the lord
42b . . . God made him mighty in the holy spirit and wise in the counsel of his understanding, with strength and righteousness
45 [he] shepherds the flock of the lord in faithfulness and righteousness (translation my own).

More could be given that speaks of the same theme. These verses directly mention the word “righteousness.” Why is this so important for our discussion? The words translated “justification” and “righteousness” come from the same Greek root. Indeed, some have alternatively understood “justification” to mean not to “declare just/innocent” but to “make righteous” (the classic Catholic position is the latter). From these verses in Psalms of Solomon 17, it would appear that some Jews were anticipating the Christ-King to come and make people righteous.

Indeed, this sheds light on Paul’s statement in Romans 3:21-22, which also contains the debated “pistis Christou” phrase. Paul says, “But now, God’s righteousness has been manifested apart from the law . . . God’s righteousness through the Jesus-Christ faith for all who believe.” This is remarkably similar to the perspective of the author of Psalm of Solomon 17 where the Christ-King coming brings a new era of heightened righteousness. Paul simply calls this “God’s righteousness.”

The Dead Sea Scrolls (particularly 4QMMT)

One text of the Dead Sea Scrolls called 4QMMT offers a different perspective on the means to righteousness: (translation is my own; emphasis added):

We have written to you about some of the works of the law which we thought would be good for you . . . and that he may expel from you evil thoughts so that you will rejoice at the end of time when finding some of our words to be true. And it will be counted to you as righteousness when you do what is upright and good before him for your good and for the good of Israel (translation my own).

The phrase “works of the law” is explicitly mentioned in this letter, and righteousness is a result of doing what is upright and good (particularly the works of the law advocated for in the letter). This is remarkably similar to how Paul describes his opponents who seem to advocate for justification through works of the law.

Summary

Jewish texts around Paul’s time suggest that at least some envisioned two different paths to justification/righteousness: doing the Jewish Law or obeying the commandments of the Jewish Messiah-King. These alternate paths are not contrasted in either 4QMMT or Psalm of Solomon 17, so Paul would be unique in his juxtaposition of the two. Crucially, however, he was also unique in supposing that the Messiah had already come in Jesus of Nazareth, so he had to deal with the tension between the Messiah and the Torah in a way that other writers only imagined. More broadly though, that some Jews would think justification would come through doing the Law and others would think it would come through the Christ is perfectly reasonable historically. When Paul is arguing with other Jews, then, he is probably not arguing about “worKing” vs. “having faith,” which was at least part of the controversy that the reformers and the Council of Trent were engaging in, but which we have no Jewish evidence for. Rather, Paul’s argument was that there were two alternate paths to righteousness on offer in Judaism, Torah and the Messiah, but only the latter would lead to true righteousness. And indeed, this is the way many interpreters in the Church before the Reformation understood Paul as well.

Why You Should Care

On my walk up to Hebrew University, I could see the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (where Jesus was crucified) across the Kidron Valley to my right, and to my left, I would pass a cemetery with an enormous cross. The cemetery was the final resting place of some World War I soldiers who fought in the land. Most of the tombstones had names, but a significant number of them read “An unknown soldier of the Great War.” To my left lay men who died fighting one of the most terrible wars of human history, and to my right down the valley was buried the only man who ever conquered death.

Yes, how we read the Bible matters, but how we live out the Bible is far more important. The prophets envisioned a day in the messianic era when “They will not hurt or destroy in any part of my holy mountain, for the earth has been filled with the knowledge of Yahweh, as the water covers the sea” (Isa 11:9). The Messiah has come, and all Christians are obligated to be faithful to him as their King. This means following the precepts of the Christ-faith. It means to love as Jesus himself loved and gave up his life for his friends. It means to usher in an era of peace and righteousness. This is the war we are fighting in 2025. When so much of the world is divided and fighting over who is right and wrong, we must be fighting for righteousness within ourselves first and peace with those around us. That is what the Christ-faith is all about, and it is what Calvary is all about.

To close, I want to tell the story of Ulrich Zwingli’s death which I learned about in a new book by my friend Matthew Bates called Beyond the Salvation Wars: Why Both Protestants and Catholics Must Reimagine How We Are Saved (excerpted here). Bates’s bold book is an attempt to unite Protestants and Catholics around a different interpretation of salvation, one that finds both truth and error in each tradition’s formulation of “how we are saved.” Bates opens the book with the story of Zwingli’s death. Zwingli was himself supportive of open war with Catholics, but he was killed by them in a battle waged between the Protestants of Zurich and the Catholics of five surrounding Catholic states in Switzerland. There are two accounts of the story, one Protestant and one Catholic, and they both agree on the essential details: Zwingli was killed after the battle was over when Catholics recognized who he was. Each side was fighting a “great war” for their own theological position, and the Catholics seemed to have won the day.

But to kill over theology is bad theology. The Christ-faith places Christ’s message of sacrificial love at the center of Christian theology. Adherents are commanded by their King to usher in the Messianic era, the era of peace and righteousness. Although Bates and I do not agree on all the details, we certainly agree that things need to change, and it is humility and closer attention to Scripture that will get us there. Far from splitting over the relationship between works and faith, the Christ-faith is a call to unite over what we have in common, namely that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead and is now reigning as King. All of Christendom recognizes that it is the precepts of Jesus the King that we must fight to uphold as Christians.

Through the inevitable passage of time, we will all become unknown. The question is: what “great war” are we going to fight? Will it be a war among family members who disagree over issues of doctrine or a war for the good and peace of humanity, the war against the evil forces of death that Jesus Christ of Nazareth started 2,000 years ago? More than any other symbol, Jesus’s cross is tangible evidence of the war he was engaged in and how he chose to fight. We, too, must fight the same great war.