Comments on: The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ, Pt. 2

By: July 2012 Biblical Studies Carnival « Reading Acts

July 2012 Biblical Studies Carnival « Reading Acts — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 16:02:28 +0000

[...] Gombis has two posts on The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ (Part Two) reflecting on the “lively exchange” between John Barclay and Richard Hays over the [...]

By: Ryan M. Mahoney

Ryan M. Mahoney — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:29:18 +0000

Reblogged this on Christus Victor and commented: This is why when I read scripture I often read the words "faith in Jesus" as "Jesus' covenantal faithfulness."

By: Around the Blogosphere (07.20.2012) | Near Emmaus

Around the Blogosphere (07.20.2012) | Near Emmaus — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:01:26 +0000

[...] Tim Gombis, Reconceiving Faith and Works in Paul ; The Faiithfulness of Jesus Christ, Pt. 1 ; The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ, Pt. 2 [...]

By: timgombis

timgombis — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:20:33 +0000

I’ll have to revisit that book, Jeff, but Preston and I kicked around some different proposals on this for a while and I know we were both happy with an adjectival genitive for a while.

By: Jeff Lash

Jeff Lash — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 03:04:21 +0000

If I remember correctly, Preston Sprinkle has been proposing a “third view” on pistis Christou for a few years. Since it has been a few semesters since I read Bird and Sprinkle’s book on this issue, how does your view compare to his? I believe he says that the phrase provides the root of the gospel and the message of the gospel. The faithfulness of Christ is the basis for any kind of good news. And faith in Christ is the application of the good news to people (or something like that).

By: timgombis

timgombis — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 19:07:09 +0000

I should probably clarify that–the phrase is used in these two ways in its several appearances, and Paul calls upon the concept of Jesus’ faithfulness to speak of it in its historical narrative concreteness and also to exhort the people of God to embody that narrative in their lives and communities. I think it’s used in both ways, but whenever it’s used, I’d say there’s more he’s alluding to than one singular usage. That is, when refer to the first usage, the second is kept in mind; and when he refers to the second, the first is in view, too.

The interchange was interesting between Barclay and Hays last week, over just that point. Does one or the other favor a vision of salvation that preserves God’s priority and initiative in salvation. Barclay says the objective, Hays the subjective. It was lively!

By: S Wu

S Wu — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:13:09 +0000

Like you, I like Gorman’s book. I find the “participatory” language very helpful in articulating Paul’s theology.

By: Michael Thomson

Michael Thomson — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:45:23 +0000

I’m just wondering how established it is grammatically speaking for a phrase to be both a subjective genitive and an adjectival genitive? I realize that greek grammar does not completely trump context and you make a good case for your argument here. Still I wonder if Paul would have been thinking of making the point your making grammatically…that is, would his intent to get his point about the faithfulness of Jesus be eclipsed if the grammatical construction failed to bear the weight? This is not a counter-argument so much as a genuine query…I don’t know how often these constructions were made to carry such weight in the literature of the time. Personally, I have long favored the pistis Christou camp as it seems to solve more problems than the reformed interpretation I grew up with. Any thoughts?