Christ's faithfulness

[percho]

If I may reyurn to the OP, I want to warn against the translation of pistis Christou by 'faithfulness of Christ.' The Greek genitive has up to a dozen different meanings, which have to be decided upon by the context. One of the most popular is the 'Ablative genitive.' When the KJV speaks of 'Brethren beloved of the Lord,' the use is obviously ablative: 'brethren loved by God,' and so it is correctly rendered in most modern translations. So when we speak of the 'fear of God,' we do not mean that God is afraid of something, we mean man's fear towards God.

It is delightful to be ble to agree with my dear brother, Skandalon, for once when he says on another thread that faith is absolutely necessary for salvation. If we start translating pistis Christou by 'faithfulness of Christ' instead of 'Faith in Christ,' we are in danger of ending up in a ghastly, sterile hyper-Calvinism. Or, if we translate Eph 2:8 as 'By grace you are saved through faithfulness' (and why not? The word is pistis), we shall end up with works salvation.

Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6). The faith that pleases God is faith towards or in respect of Christ. Pistis Christou.

Steve

Gal. 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.


Now the promise in that verse is the Holy Spirit. And that it might be given, is predicated upon something.

Jesus told his disciples that if he did not go away the Holy Spirit could not come. Why could it not come?
It was to Abraham and his one seed Christ, the Word made flesh that the promises were made. Why would any kind of promise have to be made to God, the Word made flesh the Christ? The Holy Spirit could not cone because the Christ had not yet received it. Christ is Faith what he did was faith. Once Faith came this applied: Acts 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, This verse says the exact same thing: Titus 3:5 by the washing of regeneration, (Faith) and renewing of the Holy Ghost; That is received it from the Father. Then the balance of Acts 2:33 can take place as he told his disciples: he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. Titus 3:6 says the exact same thing: Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
Eph. 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith;
For by grace are he saved through Christ.
For by grace are ye saved by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
For by grace, if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Which should shed light on Romans 3:25-31

 

[Van]

Reply to Percho

One of the difficulties in trying to discuss the best translation of a verse or verses, if that those with a particular viewpoint will take the discussion to justification of the viewpoint.

As my revised post indicated, I think the best translation of Romans 3:22, Galatians 2:16, Galatians 3:22 and Philippians 3:9 is Christ's faithfulness.

But this in no way supports the idea that our faith in Christ does not provide our access to God's saving grace. Note that it is our faith, not Christ's that is credited as righteousness, Romans 4:5.

Galatians 3:26, for we are all sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

And as pointed out my Martin, Revelation 14:12 should be translated as faith in Jesus.

On the other hand, I do not think we should avoid the best translation of some verse or verses because of fear that unsound doctrine might be supported. We must stick to the truth even if others misuse the truth.

May God Bless

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Steve,

You confound me & so therefore you must be a churchman.....always quoting Greek & affiliating themselves with Arminians who are a muddled lot.

If by 'churchman' you mean a member of the Church of England, you could hardly be more insulting. Consider my nom de Plume, Mar-prelate- one who mars or opposes the prelates. The original Martin Marprelate wrote anonymous tracts against the bishops during the reign of Elizabeth I.
To be sure, a knowledge of Greek is not a guarantee of orthodoxy, but I am not the only person on the board to comment on the Greek; why pick on me?
Finally, I have opposed Skandalon on sevaral occasions on my short time on this board, but he is undoubtedly right when he speaks of the absolute necessity of faith in Christ.

This takes you out of the realm of the common man struggling to interpret Scripture.

I hope it may qualify me in a small way to help those who are struggling to interpret Scripture.

But I digress. Please explain to me your understanding of Christ's dying for you. Yes I know Christ needed to be obedient to the Father....so are you saying He died in obedience to the Father?

I'm not sure that you have any right to question my orthodoxy on this board. However, to oblige you, certainly Christ was obedient to the Father (Phil 2:7-8), but what I think you are looking for is His active obedience being imputed to those who believe. On the cross, all our sins were laid on His sinless shoulders and His perfect righteousness and obedience is credited to us who believe.
However, we do not need to mess about by turning our faith into His faithfulness in order to establish this doctrine. It is amply proved by such verses as Rom 5:18-19; 1Cor 1:30, and 2Cor 5:21.

Also, please explain (in simple direct words) both your interpretation of His Divinity & His being human & feel free to you use Scripture. I await your explanation.

The simplest way of explaining this is with reference to the stilling of the storm (Matt 8:23-27 etc.). Our Lord was tired and needed to sleep. Elsewhere we read of Him being hungry; doubtless He suffered occasionally from headaches and needed to use the bathroom etc. He was a man; man as if He were not God. But when the disciples awoke Him, 'He arose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm.' Only God controls the weather with a word. Jesus is God; God as if He were not man.

Thanks,
Steve D

You're welcome.

Also is your chosen name a derivation from a Welsh Puritan if memory serves? Perhaps your of our Welsh Clans? Ach chan 'r Cymraeg boblogi ai jyst arall Sais?

It is thought that the original Martin Marprelate was John Penry, who was executed under Elizabeth I around 1590. Penry was a Welshman, but I'm not, so I'm afraid your Welsh is wasted on me.

Steve

 

[Van]

Why not "faith of Jesus?"

The KJV translates several verses as faith of Christ (or Jesus) and four of them contain (in the Greek grammar) genitive-genitive construction. These constructions can be translated (based on grammar and not necessarily on divine insight) as subjective genitives, which Christ is the actor. If on the other hand, the translators choose "objective genitive", then it can be translated as us humans trusting in Christ.

As I said before, I think based on context, the best translation for these four verses is "Christ's faithfulness." Why Christ's faithfulness and not "faith of Christ." First because of context, what is in view is Christ's unblemished sacrifice, the Lamb of God, and therefore includes His obedient sinless life and His obedience even unto death. So based on context, it should be translated either faithfulness of Christ or Christ's faithfulness. Since the second rendering sets it apart from "faith in Christ" (objective genitive construction) I think it provides the most clear presentation of the message.