Galatians 2:16

16 and we have always known that someone is not pronounced righteous by works of the Law but through the faith of Jesus Christ, and we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order that we shall be declared righteous on the basis of Christ’s faith and not from the works of the Law, since by the works of the Law no one will be pronounced just. 

16 εἰδότες [δὲ] ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ. 

Subjective Understanding

Paul has justification/righteousness as the final result of this verse with two different understandings of how this righteousness is procured. Paul begins by pointing out the three things that the Jews know (ἔργων νόμου, πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, and δικαιοῦται) and he uses three subordinate clauses to show their relationship. The use of close wording and content may sound redundant, but instead of using a triple emphasis, de Boer observes a positive and negative contrasting structure. 

Whereas the main sentence has a positive thrust (‘we too have come to believe in Jesus Christ’), the subordinate clauses all contain a sharp negation: Works of the Law are irrelevant for justification. That the emphasis falls on this negation is further indicated by the structure of these clauses in relation to one another. The first clause begins with the negation of works of the Law as the source of justification and the third clause ends emphatically with that negation. The second clause has been structured to provide a transition to the last clause.

For the sharp distinction to remain the subjective genitive is to be preferred for clarity. Two further pieces of evidence de Boer highlights are worth mentioning.

[1] If Paul wanted to say “faith in [Jesus] Christ,” he would have used an expression such as pistis eis Christon (found in Col 2:5), corresponding to the verbal construction pisteuein eis, “believe in,” in Gal 2:16b. [2] The formulation pistis Iēsou Christou has an exact parallel in pistis Abraam in Rom 4:16; the latter undoubtedly means “the faith of Abraham,” not “faith in Abraham” (also 4:12, “the faith of our father Abraham”).

πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Gal 2:16) and πίστεως Ἀβραάμ (Rom 4:16) are identical, yet no one translates Romans 4:16 as faith in Abraham. Furthermore, πίστεως is the genative form of πίστις and should naturally be translated as such.

J. Louis Martyn presents the prepositional phrases in a chiastic form:

The human being is not rectified

(a) by observance of the Law, but rather

(b) by the faith of Jesus Christ.

Thus, even we Jewish Christians have placed our trust in Christ Jesus, in order that we might be rectified

(b ՛) by the faith of Christ and not

(a ՛) by observance of the Law;

For not a single person will be rectified

(a ՛՛) by observance of the Law.

Martyn continues by writing that “Paul uses the preposition ek in all of these cases except (b), where he writes dia. The result is a compact expression focused on the means of rectification, including perhaps some concern with the source as well.” 

If the contrast between ἐξ ἔργων νόμου and ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ are understood, with the latter as an objective, we would be left with the idea that righteousness comes, not by the work(ing) of the Law (a human effort) but by the faith(ing) in Christ (a human effort). Would Paul say that our righteousness does not come from believing in and doing what is required concerning God’s Word (Law), but instead our righteousness comes from our believing in and doing what is required concerning God’s Word (Christ)? This zero-sum statement does not advance or contrast a positive statement against a negative, but instead, pits God against himself. A concept which cannot be seriously entertained. “While there is clearly an important difference between the two,” Matera states, “both are human actions: one active, the other passive.” 

Richard Hays summarizes the interpretative decision within a theocentric construct. 

Rather than defining the debate as a dispute between subjective genitive and objective genitive readings, we would be better to speak… of a distinction between christological and anthropological interpretations of πίστις Χριστοῦ. The christological reading highlights the salvific efficacy of Jesus Christ’s faith(fulness) for God’s people; the anthropological reading stresses the salvific efficacy of the human act of faith directed toward Christ.

Therefore, in order to ensure a defined contrast, the (christological) subjective genitive should be utilized and translated as “faith of Christ,” “Christ’s faith,” or “faithfulness of Christ.” 

Objective Understanding

In understanding what Paul is doing in this verse, one must pay close attention to his particular turn of phrase within the Pauline corpus. James Dunn is quick to point out the absence of the definite article in the phrasing; πίστις Χριστοῦ rather than ἡ πίστις Χριστοῦ shows that the objective genitive is what Paul has in mind. Examples abound in other Pauline texts where the article is used to signal when the subjective genitive is employed. A few of the examples Dunn gives from Paul’s letters are Romans 3:3, τὴν πίστιν τοῦ Θεοῦ (the faithfulness of God) and Colossians 2:12,  διὰ τῆς πίστεως τῆς ενεργειας τοῦ Θεοῦ (through the faithfulness of the working of God). “Pauline usage is so consistently anarthrous,” Dunn writes, “[it is] a recognized way of signaling that the accompanying genitive is objective.” πίστις Χριστοῦ then became Paul’s shorthand for faith in Christ as all the “deutero-Paulines seem to have developed the formula, ‘faith in Christ Jesus (πίστις [anarthrous] ἡ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ)’ (1 Tim 3:13; 2 Tim 1:13; 3:15).” While this is a strong identifier, it is not without exceptions to the rule. Dunn then concludes that πίστις Χριστοῦ “would not be understood in earliest Christian circles as ‘the faith of Christ’; and the relative absence from the undisputed Paulines of other phrases denoting ‘faith in Christ’ may indicate that πίστις Χριστοῦ filled that function for Paul.” 

The contrast Paul is making is between the works of the Law (which no one can be justified) and trusting in Christ. The verb ἐπιστεύσαμεν is a first plural aorist active indicative describing what we (Paul, Peter, and Jewish Christians) have done to be made righteous. Regarding this passage Thomas R. Schreiner’s commentary, Galatians, states, “... Paul emphasizes a point that is crucial for the argument so that the readers will not fail to miss it.” What some mistake for redundancy is Paul’s way of emphasizing the point to contrast the old covenant works of the Law and faith in Christ as having been raised from the dead. F. F. Bruce’s Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians highlights this point:

R. Bultmann (TDNT VI, 203, s.v. πίστις) points out that πίστις Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ is tantamount to believing ‘that Jesus died and rose’ (1 Thes. 5:14). ‘Paul never defines faith. The nature of faith is given in the object to which faith is directed…Faith always means faith in… or faith that…’ (G. Bornkamm, Paul, 141). ‘Faith in…’, one should say, as well as ‘faith that…’: it is the personal faith that unites one to Christ along with all fellow-members of the new covenant community--all those who, in Paul’s idiom, are ‘in Christ’.

Faith in Christ is central to justification because it is a trust in someone and not something.

Dunn, Schreiner, and Bruce are not alone in this understanding. Jonathan Linebaugh writes in his article, The Christo-centrism of Faith in Christ: Martin Luther’s Reading of Galatians 2.16, 19-20, 

As Luther reads Gal 2.16, he notes that Paul does not present faith as an abstraction; he presents it in an antithesis: ‘a person is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ’ (οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ)... For Luther this syntactical structure becomes theologically significant at Gal 2.16: justification is both ‘not by works of law’ and ‘through faith in Jesus Christ’, and therefore, as Luther puts it, Paul ‘is contrasting the righteousness of faith with the righteousness of the law’.

Using Luther’s understanding, we should focus on the subjects in which the change is taking place. The Law and Christ are a constant with their effects relating to the outcome of righteousness. Aaron Michael Jensen in his Master of Divinity thesis, Faith In Christ: An Answer To The ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ Debate, notes a clear progression of thought in this verse that he credits to R. Barry Matlock. The Law is paired with generic terms for humanity (ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου and ἐξ ἔργων νόμου … πᾶσα σάρξ) while faith in Christ is paired with a specific plural “we” (ἡμεῖς and δικαιωθῶμεν). Therefore, the relation of the subject to either the Law or Christ is the determining factor for righteousness. Since the Law is unable to make someone righteous, anyone found doing the Law will remain unrighteous, whereas we who are found believing in Christ are righteous as he is righteous.

Having faith in Christ alone for salvation is a running theme throughout the New Testament, and this should not come as a surprise that Paul emphasizes this point. Jews and Gentiles both needed to understand that faith in Christ is faith in his work, and any work other than Christ’s work is insufficient.

My Summary

Both positions make a strong case in how we should translate and understand this verse. Because there is merit in both views, I see the problem of insisting that only one is to be preferred. Our theological backgrounds will poison the well when making decisions about what is necessary for a good translation. What message do we wish to convey to those in which we are translating? If we are under the opinion that we should clarify scripture to make our doctrines easily found, then we will be tempted to translate in like manner. I admit, I wrestled with this translation more than the other verses (with verse 20 coming in a close second). William O. Walker, Jr. wrote in his short (but very good) article, Did Martin Luther Get It All Wrong about Faith in Christ, the “Exegetical arguments appear to support the objective genitive interpretation, while arguments based on Paul’s overall theological perspective appear to support the subjective genitive interpretation.” I tend to agree with Walker on this point. I ignored my traditions and theological presuppositions to translate Paul’s soteriological mindset in light of the syntax and emphasis.

I began with the three elemental subjects that relate to each other as well as their functions. The first subject is the believer, our faith is in Christ (καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν) as is universally attested to in both perspectives above as a result of having been justified with ἐπιστεύσαμεν in the aorist tense. The second is the Law (or law), as either the formal Law of God or as an indication of our own works, posited by Paul as a negative. The negative is so strong with the use of the word οὐκ that it becomes clear that the literal impossibility of righteousness through the Law is to be contrasted by the use of ἐὰν μὴ to πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The second point is why I could not choose the faithfulness of Christ over the faith of Christ, nor do I see them as interchangeable concepts. I agreed with Dunn when he wrote, “The failure to be clear on whether Paul meant the ‘faith of Christ’ or the ‘faithfulness of Christ’ is a good deal more critical than has been appreciated by the proponents of the subjective genitive thesis.” I attempt to reconcile this observation in my third point below.

The faith of Christ (or Christ’s faith) should be favored here because of the anthropological significance of the hypostatic union. As our representative and our Redeemer, Jesus Christ assumes all we are for our justification. Including our relationship to God through a perfect eternal faith. It is in his faith by which we are justified as he relates to God, not to the Law. To adopt the faithfulness language is to lend credence to our redemption coming through the Law, not merited by us, but by Christ, and we in Christ by proxy. Therefore, to speak of our righteousness coming through the works of the Law by Christ turns Paul’s argument on its head.

Paul has a fully completed salvation in mind as he writes this pericope. The past aspect is the faith of Christ having righteous(ed) us as the evidence of our faith as presently expressed in him attests. His faithfulness to God and his fulfillment of the Law should be categorically set within sanctification as the present justifying aspect for Paul (see verse 20). With this in mind, we may say that justification is a progression we experience while an actual reality with God through his declaration (Rom 4:5). To summarize, we are justified by the faith of Christ in order to receive a faith that has the potential to justify like Christ’s faith, i.e. for the justification of others and not ourselves, that joins with our broken faith in order to have faith in Christ thus proving the virility and efficiency of Christ’s faith alone.