Faithfulness of Jesus or Faith in Jesus NET Bible

[Anselm]

I'm a huge fan of the NET Bible. But I have to admit one thing bothers me. The NET bible occasionally translates a passage in non-traditional way because of the scholarship of today. This is great. What bothers me is that if the scholarship used in the NET is so solid why do other modern translations not follow their lead, especially when some of the same people worked on both the NET and others such as the HCSB and the ESV.

My favorite example is Romans 3:22. The NET Bible translation seems to really nail the meaning (pardon the pun) at least in my humble layman's opinion, whereas all the others (ESV, HCSB) stick with the traditional interpretation and thus the meaning of the passage is completely missed, if not misleading. Here is the NET Bible:

...namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe.(Subjective Genitive)

Who's faithfulness is it? Jesus', not ours!

Here is the ESV and the traditional view:

the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. (Objective Genitive)

Who's faithfulness is it? Sounds like Our' not Jesus'!

Question 1: How should this passage be understood?

Question 2: So while I like the ESV and HCSB and am not trying to knock them, which translation in your opinion is really based on the most solid scholarship?

Another example would be Isaiah 7:14, again I think the NET gets it right, and everyone else goes for tradition over scholarship.

[Lisa Robinson]

Hi TC, I just checked my greek NT. Now I'm just a lowly first year greek student, but it does appear that faithfulness is modifying Jesus Christ in the attributive position. Since its genitive, which is possessive, and followed by the genitive preposition meaning through, I think the phrase could be translated as "through Jesus Christ' faithfulness". If the phrase was saying "in Jesus Christ", I think it would be in the dative case, which its not. Interestingly, my greek prof is the asst project director for the NET Bible, so now I'm going to have to ask him just to make sure I'm seeing it correctly :-)

[T.C. Judd]

I would opt for the objective genitive understanding for a number of reasons...all of which will have to wait until I have time to write them down here--although in all fairness, you only asked us to clarify what translation we preferred, not why (ha!). In the meantime, however, Mark Seifrid has an excellent section on just this topic in Christ, Our Righteousness...he interacts with both sides (including many of those cited in the NET footnotes) and makes a compelling case for the objective genitive understanding. Interestingly enough, even the NET footnotes ultimately state that most commentators translate it as an objective genitive.

I do agree with you and the NET on Is 7.14, however. While the LXX uses the term for virgin, translating the Hebrew as 'young woman' (or something similar) seems most correct to me, lest we rob Isaiah's prophecy of any relevance to Ahaz. I think using 'virgin' here is not the best option unless we are 1) willing to accept two virgin births or 2) are not concerned with the original intent of the vision. Unfortunately, I think we tend to ignore the original audience and view this passage solely through Christological lenses based on Matthew.

[Char]

Where's mem?? This is like his cosmic dog whistle!

[Anselm]

T.C. Judd said:

I would opt for the objective genitive understanding for a number of reasons...all of which will have to wait until I have time to write them down here--...I do agree with you and the NET on Is 7.14, however.

Hey no picking and choosing! You have to agree with me on everything! ;-) LOL

Ok, I'm definatly wanting to here the objective genitive (OG) argument. Please post when you get time.

Oh and yes I read the NET footnotes where they said most commentaries go with the OG view, though that leaves me scratching my head as the SG view just seems to me to fit so much better. While i'm no expert, nor am I even really well read on the subject, to me the most obvious problem with OG view is that it seems redundant. Why would Paul write "our faith" followed immediatly by our belief? Seems to say the exact same thing twice right next to each other. Just seems odd to me.

[mem]

It's worth noting that the King James suggests a subjective genitive in some of these passages, too, though they retain "faith of Christ" rather than "faithfulness of Christ." The International Standard Version (ISV) also uses the translation, and the RSV, if I recall correctly, also notes it as a possible translation.

Grammatically, as I understand it, it's a viable translation. There is a thesis by Richard B Hayes written on the subject; you can see some of the work at Google Books. It's not terribly accessible, I don't think—at least I've never felt that way about the parts I've read—but he makes some arguments for understanding it as the subjective genitive from grammar and narrative structure.

Personally I find the subjective genitive more natural in most of these cases (Ro 3.26 is a notable exception). There are several places where we clearly put our faith in Jesus (the intervening clause of Ga 2.16, for example), and the means by which this is expressed is grammatically different (EIS CRISTON IHSOUN EPISTOUSAMEN—we put our trust in Christ Jesus).

And the translation of the phrase "faith in Christ" is in some ways exceptional (that is, the genitive is rendered objectively because Christ is the object); it cannot be done this way in Ro 3.3 for example (the ESV renders the genitive "faithfulness of God" where the KJV says, "faith of God") and is not done often elsewhere.

All that said, the objective rendering is not a wrong translation, neither do I think it's ruined any theology. The difference may be explained by different objectives and/or parameters in the translation. The translators may also have resolved disputes differently, too. Some of them may have simply changed their opinions, who knows? Translation isn't at all cut and dry, and it's extremely difficult.

If I were to make any argument about it, I would probably base it on the LXX rendering of Hab 2.4 and the fact that the subjective genitive helps explain "from faith to faith" in Ro 1.16,17.

[Lisa Robinson]

Hi Mem, so you're saying that even though the linguistic rendering would yield an subjective genitive, this verse serves as an exception for the objective and "faith in Christ" is acceptable? I don't have any firm conclusions, especially since my NASB says "faith in Christ" even though a natural translation would seem to be "through the faithfulness of Christ".

However, I can't help but see how the subjective genitive fits nicely within the context of vs. 23-26, especially placing an emphasis on the work of Christ rather than the requirement of faith for us.

[T.C. Judd]

Linguistically: As has been pointed out, either the objective or subjective readings is grammatically possible.

Contextually: In its context, I really don't see how the subjective genitive fits here at all. This entire section (3.20-4.25) speaks of the people of God being justified by faith, drawing especially on the example of Abraham. Of course, faith ultimately justifies because of the accomplished work of Christ (let there be no doubt), but Paul isn't writing about that here. To narrow the focus even more, in the immediate context (vv. 21-22), Paul is contrasting righteousness through the works of the Law (Jewish misconception of the day) versus righteousness through faith in Christ (the truth). A third contextual argument in favor of the objective genitive comes in the beginning of the next section (5.1), where Paul sums up what he just wrote in the prior section by beginning, "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith..." This seems to weight pretty strongly in favor of an objective reading.

Objections: With respect to the objection that "for all who believe" is redundant with an objective reading...I think this is not so much redundant as it continues Paul's back and forth discussion in the prior section, where he contrasts Jews and Gentiles. Here "all who believe" is as much "both Jew and Gentile" (i.e., inclusive of the world) as it is "every person without exception." I take the same read on 3.23-24 and understand the primary meaning to be "both Jew and Gentile" (yeah, my evangelism profs hated me on this one!).

Again, I'd point anyone interested to Seifrid's work referenced above or Moo's work in the Romans NICNT commentary. They both interact with Hays et al., and in my opinion, do a good job arguing for the traditional interpretation. Quite honestly this is not someplace I would want to "go to the mat" over one translation versus another. Just as Mem doesn't think the objective understanding has ruined any theology, I don't think the subjective understanding has either, haha. I simply think it works better with the context of Paul's argument. There are plenty of texts in the NT that teach justification by faith and plenty that teach that our righteousness is ultimately based on Jesus' accomplished work for us...neither doctrine is jeopardized here, so I'm not going to expend too much energy arguing either way.

...all that said, I think Mem is right on a subjective genitive in Rom 1.16-17 to best understand Paul's use of Hab 2.4. I think he's on to something there...but that's another thread altogether, eh?

[Anselm]

TC,

Thanks for the post. Funny that you think the context supports the OG better, whereas I think the SG is much more in context. Oh well. I didn't mean to imply, if I did, that any doctrine was in actual jeopardy by how you translate this.

I do believe that the Faithfulness of Christ being imputed to us though belief in this passage makes for one of the clearest places in the bible teaching on how "it's not all about me." IMO the heresy of the day is the teaching, intentional or not, that Christ died so that I could have all "my" felt needs, and "my" life worked out, because of "my" faith. Of course there is "some" truth to that (Christ did die for us, and our need for salvation not His) but fully blown that makes "us" the "object" of who the stories about and not about the working of God which is who I believe the story is really supposed to be about.

[Lisa Robinson]

Anselm, I agree. The context of the passage is related to the work of Christ and therefore the subjective reading is reasonable. And while I am aware that the language wields exceptions, I don't think we can completely ignore the what the language is doing in this instance. Just my 2 cents.

[T.C. Judd]

Amen, brother. You are spot on with your observations... Thanks!

Anselm said:

IMO the heresy of the day is the teaching, intentional or not, that Christ died so that I could have all "my" felt needs, and "my" life worked out, because of "my" faith. Of course there is "some" truth to that (Christ did die for us, and our need for salvation not His) but fully blown that makes "us" the "object" of who the stories about and not about the working of God which is who I believe the story is really supposed to be about.

[Anselm]

Well Lisa, Jack, TC and others this was fun.....but we never did answer the question

What translation actually makes better use of the scholarship of the day? NET, ESV, HCSB, or dare I say TNIV?

Currently I'm a fan of NET text notes and an ESV study bible fan. Perfect combo would be the text and notes of the NET with the color, intro, and cross references of the ESV. Of course it would also be 10,000 pages long! But I carry my HCSB with me places because of it's size and general form factor.

[Charles Williams]

This was a great response and I agree especially with what you say about context. This isn't about us, it's about the sufficiency of Christ. Thanks for a great post.

Anselm said:

TC,

Thanks for the post. Funny that you think the context supports the OG better, whereas I think the SG is much more in context. Oh well. I didn't mean to imply, if I did, that any doctrine was in actual jeopardy by how you translate this.

I do believe that the Faithfulness of Christ being imputed to us though belief in this passage makes for one of the clearest places in the bible teaching on how "it's not all about me." IMO the heresy of the day is the teaching, intentional or not, that Christ died so that I could have all "my" felt needs, and "my" life worked out, because of "my" faith. Of course there is "some" truth to that (Christ did die for us, and our need for salvation not His) but fully blown that makes "us" the "object" of who the stories about and not about the working of God which is who I believe the story is really supposed to be about.