Center for Biblical Theology and Eschatology
Justification and the Faith of Christ
by D. W. B. Robinson
"Faith of Jesus Christ"—a New Testament Debate
Many years ago, as a schoolboy, I gave my autograph book to a visiting preacher who wrote in it three Greek words from Mark xi. 22, echete pistin theou, with this rendering, "Reckon on God's fidelity." I knew that this was not the usual rendering of the text, which in most versions is "Have faith in God." But when in later years I came to the serious study of the Greek Testament I found myself wondering whether perhaps the text could indeed be about God's faithfulness. I transferred my curiosity to another phrase, more frequently found in the New Testament, pistis Iesou Christou, and wondered whether it, likewise, might be referring to a quality possessed by Jesus, his faith or his faithfulness, rather than our faith in him. After all, the Authorized Version regularly rendered the phrase in question as "the faith of Jesus Christ," not "faith in Jesus Christ," before modern versions, with one accord, opted for the latter interpretation. Then came the day when, as a student working through Sanday and Headlam on Romans, I was arrested by a note on the phrase pistis Iesou Christou where it occurs in Romans iii. 22: "Genitive of object, 'faith in Jesus Christ'. This is the hitherto almost universally accepted view, which has, however, been recently challenged in a very carefully worked out argument by Prof. Haussleiter, of Greifswald . . . Dr. Haussleiter contends that the gen. is subjective not objective, that like the 'faith of Abraham' in ch. iv. 16, it denotes the faith (in God) which Christ Himself maintained even through the ordeal of the Crucifixion, that this faith is here put forward as the central fact of the Atonement, and that it is to be grasped or appropriated by the Christian in a similar manner to that in which he reproduces the faith of Abraham. If this view held good," the commentators go on to say: "a number of other passages would be affected by it. But, though ably carried out, the interpretation of some of these passages seems to us forced; the theory brings together things, like the pistis Iesou Christou here with the pistis theou in iii. 3, which are really disparate; and it has so far, we believe, met with no acceptance."
Nothing daunted by this dismissal of a German scholar I had never heard of, I continued to toy with the possibility that there was more to Iesou Christou than was usually allowed. I was especially struck by the odd fact that in some places the phrase had alongside of it an additional reference to men believing in Jesus, using the word pisteuo. Rom. iii. 22 speaks of the righteousness of God being revealed through pistis Iesou Christou, "unto all who believe." If pistis Iesou Christou means "faith in Jesus Christ," why add "for all who believe"? Gal. 3:22 similarly speaks of the promise of God which proceeds from pistis Iesou Christou as being given "to those who believe." And what about Rom. i. 17, which says that the righteousness of God is revealed "from faith to faith"? Why two "faiths"? I began a more systematic study of the use and meaning of pistis in the New Testament.
In the early 1950s, Dr. Gabriel Hebert came to Australia, and in the course of an acquaintance with him I discovered that he was following a similar kind of inquiry. We discussed an article he was preparing with the title "'Faithfulness' and 'Faith'," which duly appeared in Melbourne in the "Reformed Theological Review" of June, 1955, and also in the English periodical "Theology" in October the same year. Hebert took the point that the genitive after pistis in a number of N.T. passages is, in fact, subjective, that the pistis is the pistis of Jesus (not faith in him). Hebert's special interest was in attempting to establish that the meaning of pistis in these phrases was "faithfulness" rather than "faith," and that the Greek word pistis was being used in the sense of the Hebrew 'emunah. But Hebert went further than that. In the Old Testament, he declared, 'emunah "is repeatedly used to mean 'the Faithfulness of God'. The phrase (sc. in the N.T.) will then mean 'the Faithfulness of Jesus Christ', God's Faithfulness revealed in Him" ("R.T.R.," June, 1955, p.33). His argument was that pistis was fundamentally something pertaining to God, not man, and that God's faithfulness was always part of the connotation of the word pistis and of all the various forms of nouns or verbs associated with 'emunah.
In the "Expository Times" of January, 1957, Professor T. F. Torrance, of Edinburgh, published an article entitled "One Aspect of the Biblical Conception of Faith." He followed much the same line as Hebert, whose article he acknowledged, but his special point was that "in most of these passages pistis Iesou Christou does not refer only either to the faithfulness of Christ or to the answering faithfulness of man, but is essentially a polarized expression denoting the faithfulness of Christ as its main ingredient but also involving or at least suggesting the answering faithfulness of man." I suspect that Torrance may have been influenced by Karl Barth, who, in his famous commentary on Romans, took the pistis of Jesus Christ in iii. 22 to be the faithfulness of God manifested in Jesus Christ, and "from faith to faith" in i. 17 to mean "from God's faithfulness to man's faith" ("The Epistle of the Romans," translated by Edwyn Hoskyns, Oxford, 1933, pp.96, 41).
Professor C. F. D. Moule, of Cambridge, reacted at once against the thesis of Hebert and Torrance, especially Torrance's version of it, with a note in the "Expository Times" the following month, February, 1957. Partly on theological, but chiefly on linguistic, grounds he expressed the opinion that it was "a false trail." Paul's usage, he felt, offered good parallels to an objective genitive in this sort of phrase; the verb pisteuo certainly is used with Christ as object, either explicitly or implicitly; pistis itself, at least with prepositions, is used of faith in Christ. Moule urged the force of Gal. ii. 16 in particular, where pistis Christou and the Christian's believing are set side by side. The onus pro bandi, he said, is on "anyone who interprets pistis differently from (the verb) pisteuo."
A similar reaction on linguistic grounds came in 1959 from Professor John Murray, of Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia, who added an appendix of 11 pages on the Hebert Torrance thesis to his large commentary on Romans 1-8. He also charged Torrance with "confusing a polarized situation with a 'polarized expression"' ("The Epistle to the Romans," Vol.1, Grand Rapids, 1959, pp. 363ff.). Murray did not deny that man's faith answers to the faithfulness of God, or that the faithfulness of God is exhibited in the mind and work of Christ; but he demurred at Torrance's claim to see this complex situation in the mere use of the term pistis Christou.
Then in 1961, Professor James Barr, of Edinburgh, got out his shotgun, and both Hebert and Torrance were among the noble army of martyrs who fell in the fusillade. Chapter 7 of "The Semantics of Biblical Language" (Oxford, 1961) is devoted to "'Faith' and 'Truth'—an Examination of Some Linguistic Arguments." The ground of Barr's attack is the misunderstanding by both Hebert and Torrance of the force of Hebrew words which (in their opinion) lay behind Paul's use of pistis and pisteuo. It can hardly be doubted that Barr is entirely correct in his particular criticisms. One cannot read into the mere phrase pistis Christou all the connotations of the 'emunah of God which Hebert and Torrance wished to read into it. Barr did not deny the influence of O.T. usage on Paul and, although he criticized even C. H. Dodd for paying too much attention to an alleged "basic idea" for the Hebrew root, he draws attention to Dodd's treatment of pistis in "The Bible and the Greeks" (Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1935, p. 65ff.).
Nevertheless, when full allowance has been made for Barr's criticism, Hebert and Torrance remain as scholars who have expressed their preference for seeing pistis in a number of passages as Christ's pistis (whatever that is to mean) rather than as the believer's pistis in Christ, and for regarding the noun pistis as patient of the meaning "faithfulness" rather than "faith" in these cases; and I do not think that Barr's case makes any necessary difference to these contentions, though the strength of Moule's and Murray's objections remains to be tested.
In any case, the matter has not rested with Barr's particular semantic caveats. In the "Harvard Theological Review" for 1967 George Howard brings forward further evidence of scholars favouring a pistis which is in some sense Jesus' own pistis rather than the believer's faith in Him. Apparently Gerhardt Kittel in 1906 argued that, since Paul certainly uses the subjective genitive in Rom. iii. 3 in reference "to the faith of God," and again in iv. 16 in reference to "the faith of Abraham," he is confusing his readers unless he intends the same grammatical construction in iii. 22 and 26 to refer to "the faith of Christ." Among recent scholars, E. R. Goodenough—in a posthumous essay published in 1967—also held that the faith of Jesus was closely parallel to Abraham's faith; he defined it as "his trusting that the cross would not be the end, and that God would save Him from death." (This interpretation reminds us of Bishop Westcott's interpretation of Heb. xii. 2, where he takes the phrase "the author and finisher of faith" to refer to that faith which "in its highest form was exhibited by Jesus in his human nature," that firm trust or hope which endured the present woes with eyes set on the glory of God beyond death.) Howard's own view differs from these: the pistis of Jesus is not, he thinks, his trust in this sense, but his faithfulness to the promise given to Abraham that all the Gentiles would be blessed through his seed.2
Let me now set out the question as I see it, in particular relation to pistis Christou. There are eight occasions in Paul's letters where the phrase pistis Christou or its equivalent occurs. These are all important passages relating to the central issues of God's salvation in Christ and of the participation by men in that salvation. If in these phrases, or in any of them, the faith or faithfulness of Christ is meant (as distinct from men's faith in him), it at once becomes likely that there are other occurrences of pistis by itself which should also be referred to the faith or faithfulness of Christ if the context allows this.
The eight basic occurrences are:—Gal. ii. 16 (twice): "we... knowing that a man is not justified from works of law but only through pistis Iesou Christou, even we believed (episteusamen) on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified from pistis Christou and not from works of law."
Gal. ii. 20: "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I that live, but Christ lives in me, and that life I now live in the flesh I live by pistis which is of the son of God who loved me and gave himself up for me.
Gal. iii. 22: "but the scripture shut up everything under sin so that the promise from pistis Iesou Christou might be given to those who believe (pisteuousin)."
Rom. iii. 22: "but now the righteousness of God has been manifested... the righteousness of God through pistis Christou unto all who believe (pisteuontas)."
Rom. iii. 26 (which concludes this same section): "to display his righteousness at this present season, that he himself might be just and the justifier of the man who is from pistis Iesou."
Phil. iii. 9: "that I may gain Christ, and be found in him, not having my own righteousness which is from law, but that which is through pistis Christou, the righteousness of God on the ground of (that) pistis."
Eph. iii. 12: "according to the eternal purpose which he determined in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through the pistis autou."
The renderings given above are not, of course, intended to beg the question of a proper translation, which must wait for a decision as to interpretation. I have simply preserved as far as possible the Greek constructions, and I have rendered ek by "from" and dia by "through."
Now the student may distinguish three problems here:—
1. the grammatical or syntactical problem: what is the force of the genitive after pistis? Is it objective ("faith in Christ") or subjective ("Christ's exercise of faith")? Or is it a less precise possessive ("faith belonging to Christ") or vaguely adjectival and descriptive ("Christian faith")?
2. the semantic problem: what is the meaning of the word pistis? Is it here the noun corresponding to the active and transitive force of the verb pisteuo ("I believe" or "I trust")? Or does it mean, as more usual in Greek, "that which can be trusted," "reliability," "faithfulness," perhaps even "a pledge" or "an assurance"?
3. the theological problem: what is Paul talking about? Is he telling us about the work of Christ, or the response of man (or, as Hebert and Torrance would have liked it, about both in the same breath)? Does the general balance of Paul's teaching about atonement and salvation shut us up to one or other of the various grammatical or semantic alternatives? What will follow for our estimate of Christian truth by a shift in emphasis in our usual understanding of these verses?
With regard to the semantic problem, the meaning of pistis in the N.T., two possibilities at least must be kept in mind. First, there may have been such distinctions in the uses of pistis that you could not know, until the word was used in a particular context, which meaning was intended. For example, there may have been a real distinction between pistis = "belief" and pistis = "fidelity," and in this event only the usage in a particular context could convey even to a Greek which sense was meant. But the other possibility is that, where we think we see a distinction through applying a test based on our own language and its distinctions, none existed for the native user of pistis. In this event, pistis did not convey to Paul either precisely what we mean by "faith" or precisely what we mean by "fidelity," but something else, a tertium quid, some notion, say, of fixity or firmness, which was suitable for use in a variety of contexts, but which did not, as a constant semantic marker, require any differentiation in significance. But where this sort of thing may be the case, it will probably baffle us to grasp the true state of things.
Before returning to our eight texts, let us observe Paul's use of pistis in the two earliest letters of his which we possess. Perhaps this will give us a tentative idea of what the meaning of the word was for him. We know, of course, even before we look at Paul, that the predominant use of pistis in ordinary Greek was not to indicate what we indicate by the word "faith" or "trust" directed to someone, but rather what we indicate by the word "reliability" or "fidelity," or, in a more concrete way, an "assurance" or "pledge." the Septuagint, for example, probably never uses pistis in our sense of "faith" or "trust." So at least we can say that pistis by itself would not primarily suggest the idea of "faith" or "trust." We should not, therefore, be surprised, in opening the Thessalonian letters, to find that pistis, though it is chiefly something pertaining to the Christians at Thessalonika, does not clearly refer to their faith or believing (as we think of these attitudes), but rather to the firmness of their stand or of their attitude in relation to the Christian gospel. We cannot exclude their faith or belief from the area to which the term pistis is applied, but insofar as these notions are implied in the context, the word pistis denotes the firmness of the Thessalonians' attitude; and the reference seems to extend equally to the firmness exhibited in the Thessalonians' behaviour and endurance under pressure.
Let us look at the letters in detail. Pistis is used eight times in the first epistle. First, Paul gives thanks for the Thessalonians' work of pistis along with the labour of love and endurance of hope. This phrase does not define pistis. The "work" is somehow related to pistis, and the phrase could be expounded according to any meaning of pistis. The definition comes as the passage proceeds. The gospel has come to the Thessalonians not only in word but in power, and they have become imitators both of Paul and of the Lord himself, presumably in their endurance under affliction. In every place, says Paul, "your pistis which is in relation to God (he pistis humon he pros ton theon) has gone forth." Can we distinguish "faith" and "faithfulness" here? I do not think so. Certainly, a trustful response to the gospel is involved. But also involved is the firmness of the Thessalonians' stand, despite pressure to dislodge them. The report said, not only that they had turned to God from idols, but had turned so as to serve a living and true God and to wait for his son from heaven. The epistle continues on the theme of the steadfastness of the Thessalonians, and their pistis is the central subject of chapter 3. Timothy had been sent from Athens to know their pistis and to exhort them in regard to it (verses 2-5). He returned to Paul with the news of their pistis and love (v.6). Paul is comforted by this. In the midst of distress and affliction, he says, he was comforted because of them, through their pistis (i.e., the pistis of which Timothy had brought the tidings). "For now we live," Paul goes on, "if you stand fast in the Lord" (ean humeis stekete en kurio). It thus appears that the pistis of the Thessalonians is their firmness. This firmness is set by the context in relation both to their initial response to the gospel, and also to their continuance of adherence and to their consistency of behaviour. It remains only for Paul to express the hope of seeing them shortly so as to complete or perfect what is lacking in their pistis. What he means by this is perhaps reflected in the prayer which follows, in which he prays that they will abound in love, and that God will make their hearts firm (sterixai) so that they may stand before God holy and blameless when the Lord Jesus comes (v.13).
The second epistle, written soon after the first, uses pistis similarly. Again there is thanks that their pistis is increasing mightily (v.3), and then Paul says how he boasts among the churches about the Thessalonians because of what he calls "your steadfast endurance and pistis under all your persecutions and the troubles you endure." Hupomone and pistis are linked with a single definite article. Once again, pistis looks like firmness, and the letter continues on the theme of standing fast (ii. 15-17) and not being wearied in well doing (iii. 13). (The reference to pistis ale theias in ii. 13 raises special problems, and will be dealt with later in this paper.) Pistis occurs once more in iii. 2. Paul prays that his friends may be delivered from unreasonable and evil men, "for all," he warns, "have not pistis. But the Lord is trustworthy (pistos) and will establish you (sterixei) and guard you from evil." Does this mean that not all men have faith (in the sense of belief), or that not all have firmness, in the sense that they cannot be trusted, in contrast to the Lord who is trustworthy, i.e., firm (pistos) and who will continue to confirm those who hold to him?
I have discussed these letters at some length to give us a preliminary idea of how we might expect Paul to use pistis in Galatians and Romans. The impression of Thessalonians is that pistis is used without too much specialized Christian connotation. It is not necessarily to be expected that this would remain for ever the case; but it provides a good starting point for what follows.
As we return to the eight instances in which pistis is used in relation to Christ, I wish to make clear that I am suggesting no more than that there is a good case for considering these all to refer to the pistis of Christ, and for considering that this pistis of Christ is his firmness, exhibited in his self-giving and his passion. The varying contexts may reflect different aspects of this, whether his firmness in adhering to the path appointed for him, or his firmness of attachment to the Abrahamic promise, or to the righteousness of God. It would be difficult to distinguish absolutely between "faith" and "faithfulness" as applied to Christ in such situations.
We are, however, justified, in my opinion, in giving first option to the view that the genitive after pistis is not objective, on the ground of general Greek usage. No case of pistis with an objective genitive is cited in the ninth edition of Liddell and Scott. (Two examples in earlier editions are rightly reclassified in LS9 as belonging to the sense of "pledge" or "fidelity," with subjective genitive.) No case is cited in Moulton and Milligan's "Vocabulary." There is no case of such a usage in the Septuagint. Where pistis is clearly in active relation to an object (i.e. = "faith" or "belief"), this is expressed with eis or en. For what it may signify, pisteuo in its transitive form is never used with an objective genitive, but always with the prepositions eis, en or peri, or with tini, or occasionally with the accusative object.
In regard to Paul's own usage, Howard claims that pistis followed by a genitive of a person or of a personal pronoun occurs 24 times not counting the places where pistis Christou and its equivalents appear, and that in all 24 cases the phrase refers to the faith of the person, never faith in the person. Outside the Pauline corpus, we may first look at the four instances where pistis is followed by a genitive of the person of Christ or God. We discover that none of them is so unequivocally objective as to provide certain evidence for the usage we are looking for. (1) Mark xi. 22 could well be "God's pistis," either subjective or adjectival. Nowhere else in the gospels does the expression "have faith" either have, or even imply, an object. It could mean "be firm," and in Mark xi. 22 "be firm as God is firm," notwithstanding C. E. B. Cranfield's complaint: "The suggestion that the genitive is subjective—'have the sort of faith God has'—is surely a monstrosity of exegesis" (Commentary on Mark in bc). Rom. iii. 3 certainly speaks of God's pistis, his fidelity which is contrasted with the infidelity of Israelites. The subject matter is closely parallel to that of the incident of the withering of the fig tree. "God's pistis" must be kept as a live option for Mark xi. (2) James ii. 1 ("Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons" RV) is taken, by W. E. Oesterley for instance, as "the new religion which Christ gave to the world, i.e., the Christian faith" ("Expositor's Greek Testament" in bc.), where the genitive is broadly adjectival. (3) The same may be true of Rev. ii. 13 ("you did not deny my faith"), and (4) Rev. xiv. 12 ("here is the patient endurance of the saints, they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus"). Apart from these four instances, there are yet another 24 places outside the Pauline corpus where pistis is followed by a genitive of the person or a personal pronoun, and all these cases refer to the pistis of persons, not pistis in them.
There remain only three other instances of any significance involving a genitive after pistis. (1) In Acts iii. 16, "the pistis of his name" may mean "the assurance, or pledge of his name," with the genitive practically appositional. The whole verse is very confused in syntax, but "pledge" or "assurance" is worth considering for both places where pistis occurs. (2) In Col. ii. 12, "through the pistis of the working of God" is likely to refer to God's pistis, with pistis again approximating to "pledge" or "assurance" as definitely in Acts xvii. 31 in reference to the resurrection. (3) II Thess. ii. 13 is a problem. It could mean "belief in the truth," though the genitive in the parallel phrase (hagiasmopneumatos) is not objective. On the other hand, the pistis of God could be meant, with aletheias an adjectival or qualitative genitive.
All in all, a non-objective genitive for pistis Christou is at least a live option, in the light of other usage of pistis with the genitive.
Let us then finally look at the possible theological significance of the theory that the pistis of Christ is what our eight occurrences are talking about. Gal. ii. 15-end introduces us to an already formulated doctrine of justification in which pistis Christou has a thought-out place. We do not know the stages of thought by which Paul arrived at this formulation. Jesus Christ is he "who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us out of this present evil world, according to the will of our God and Father" (i. 4). The response of men is to "believe on Christ Jesus" (ii. 16), and so to be "justified in Christ" (ii. 17). But "justified in Christ" points to some ground of justification for the believer within the life or work of Christ, and in fact the phrase "justified in Christ" is parallel to "justified as a result of pistis Christou and not of works of law." The whole verse may be taken as relating Paul's believing to Christ's firm adherence to the will of God in the work of atonement and redemption: "a man is not justified by performing the law, but only by means of the faithfulness of Christ. So even we Jews believed on Jesus Christ so that we might be justified 'in Christ,' i.e., as a result of his faithfulness to God's will, and not as a result of our law keeping" Verse 20 amplifies this. To be "justified in Christ" is to be crucified with him, and to live by, or in, that quality or attitude of constancy by which the Son of God loved me and gave himself up for me.
In Gal. iii. 22 the pistis Iesou Christou is the means by which the ancient Abrahamic promise overcame the obstacle posed by the interlude of the law and was made available to all who should believe, i.e., it is not man's faith but Christ's faithfulness. In support of this interpretation we can cite Rom. xv. 8: "Christ became a servant of the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers, and that the gentiles should glorify God for his mercy." This "firmness" of Christ, in this case his faithful servitude to the will of God, is the pistis Christou which is the ground of men's confidence and trust as they seek a standing before God.
Rom. iii. 22 and 26 only repeat this exposition of the economy of salvation. The chapter begins with an assertion of the pistis theou, the faithfulness of God without doubt, over against the unfaithfulness of his people. But then, in the center of that divine operation by which God works salvation for a guilty world, the faithfulness of Jesus Christ is said to be the means through which the justification or righteousness of God has been manifested to those who believe. This interpretation is to be preferred to the usual interpretation, for it makes much better sense to say that God's righteousness has been manifested by the character of Christ's work than to say it has been manifested by man's faith in Christ, for how can man's faith be said to have demonstrated God's righteousness? Rather, Christ's faithfulness, in death itself, makes possible an atoning sacrifice which redeems lost men, and thus God's way of righting wrong has been demonstrated in this age.
In Phil. iii. 9 Paul seeks a righteousness, not his own but of God, which is through the faithfulness (pistis) of Christ. That "firmness" of Christ was established in his sufferings and in his resurrection, and Paul's answering faith is in "knowing" Christ by sharing in his sufferings and in the power of his resurrection. Eph. iii. 11 also places the faithfulness of Christ at the heart of the eternal purpose of God for the reconciliation of men, and as the ground of men's boldness and access to God with confidence.
All this means that the term pistis designates a quality of firmness or fixity or constancy which, as Paul discerns it, exists at three vital points in the scheme of salvation. First, there is the pistis of God himself, his eternal, immutable character, displayed in his word and his action, notably in his righteousness and salvation. Secondly, there is the pistis of Christ, seen in his unflinching obedience to the will of the Father, and in his faithfulness to the promise of blessing through the seed of Abraham and to the loving purposes of salvation even in suffering and death. We do not have to say that this is God's faithfulness in Christ; it is Christ's own pistis, peculiar to his role. Finally, there is the pistis of believers, evoked, no doubt, by the pistis of God and the pistis of Christ, yet a quality in the believer himself, and therefore properly distinct from God's and Christ's. The believer's "firmness" is expressed both in his trust in the word of God and in the work of Christ for him, and in the steadfastness with which he endures the trials of his life.
The one word pistis will do for all these things because it means something like "firmness" in each case. Paul sees this quality as of high significance, in whatever set of relations it is thought of. In Gal. iii. the era of Christ can be called the era of pistis, and in Rom. i. 17 the righteousness of God, by the gospel, is revealed from pistis to pistis, in accord with the prophetic scripture which says that "the righteous man will find life as a result of pistis." Perhaps Paul means that salvation proceeds from God's faithfulness and is offered to the answering faith of man, as Barth proposed. The Hebrew of Habakkuk ii. 4 has "the righteous will live by his faithfulness," while the LXX has "the righteous will live by my faithfulness." Paul omits any personal pronoun. For him the principle of pistis is seen in both God and his Christ, and also in the believing man. Each of these three settings of pistis has its own connotations. Man's apistia cannot negate the pistis of God, and man's pistis only has significance in the end because it stands in relation both to the pistis of God and the pistis of Christ. Christ is the immovable rock established by the immutable God, upon which he invites men to take their stand without flinching. And "he who puts trust on him will never be confounded" (Isa. xxviii. 16, Rom. ix. 33).3
1 D. W. B. Robinson, "'Faith of Jesus Christ'—a New Testament Debate," The Reformed Theological Review 29, no.3 (Sept.-Dec. 197O~, pp.71-81. Reprinted by permission.
2 A second article by Professor Howard has now appeared. "Romans 3:21-31 and the Inclusion of the Gentiles," in the Harvard Theological Review for April, 1970. Pages 228-31 are relevant to our subject, especially the references in footnote 29.
3 Presidential address to the Fellowship of Biblical Studies, Sydney, 26th June, 1969, slightly abridged.