It’s always nice, when we check out a dogmatician, to find that what they are saying actually correlates to scripture. I’ve been doing a little checking on TF Torrance, and his vicarious view of faith in Galatians 2:20 (in my past life I actually received a couple of degrees that involved an in-depth focus in NT Greek ;-). Here is a summary of how Torrance read Galatians 2:20, and the “faith of Christ:”
iv) faith involves living by the faith of Christ — Torrance points out the significance of the Greek wording of Galatians 2:20, ‘I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.’ We have been brought to know God. Our old way of living in which we did not know God has been put to death with Christ. We now live, we have faith, we interpret the scriptures and do theology, and yet it is not us but Christ who lives in us. The real believer is Christ and we live by and out of the human faith of Christ. (Robert T. Walker, ed., Thomas Torrance, “Incarnation,” xlv)
Torrance was simply following the King James’ rendering of this passage which says:
“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” ~Galatians 2:20
And the KJV translated the “genetive” under question as a Subjective Genetive, which simply makes the “faith” the possession of the Son of God. “More modern translations” have opted for the Objective Genetive which translates this passage accordingly:
“I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me.” ~Galatians 2:20 (New American Standard)
So you see the difference, one has the “faith” as the possession of the Son, the other has “faith” as the possession of us. The question, then, is which is the best reading? I checked the standard Greek Grammar for our day, Dan Wallace’s “Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics,” and he implies that he (and in fact many Grammarians of our day are actually in favor of the KJV’s rendering — which is atypical [which also means the textual evidence here is not variant or under scrutiny]) favors Torrance’s reading; or the KJV’s, here’s what he says on this structure in the Greek New Testament:
Older commentaries (probably as a Lutheran reflex) see Christou as an objective gen., thus, “faith in Christ.” However, more and more scholars are embracing these texts as involving a subjective gen. (thus, either “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness”). Without attempting to decide the issue, we simply wish to interact with a couple of grammatical arguement, one used for each position.
1) On behalf of the objective gen. view, it is argued that pistis in the NT takes an objective gen. when both nouns are anarthrous; it takes a subjective gen. when both are articular. In response, the data need to be skewed in order for this to have any weight: most of the examples have a possessive pronoun for the gen., which almost always requires the head noun to have an article. Further, all of the pistis Christou texts are in prepositional phrases (where the object of the preposition, in this case pistis, is typically anarthrous). Prepositional phrases tend to omit the article, even when the object of the preposition is definite. The grammatical arguement for the objective gen., then, has little to commend it.
2) On behalf of the subjective gen. view, it is argued that “Pistis followed by the personal genetive is quite rare; but when it does appear it is almost always followed by the non-objective genetive. . . .” This has much more going for it, but still involves some weaknesses. These are two or three clear instances of pistis + objective personal gen. in the NT (Mark 11:22; Jas 2:1; Rev 2:13), as well as two clear instance involving an impersonal gen. noun (Col 2:12; 2 Thess 2:13). Nevertheless, the predominant usage in the NT is with a subjective gen. Practically speaking, if the subjective gen. view is correct, these texts (whether pistis is translated “faith” or “faithfulness”) argue against “an implicitly docetic Christology.” Further, the faith/faithfulness of Christ is not a denial of faith in Christ as a Pauline concept (for idea is expressed in many of the same contexts, only with the verb pisteuw rather than the noun), but implies that the object of faith is a worthy object, for he himself is faithful. Although the issue is not to be solved via grammar, on balance grammatical considerations seem to be in favor of the subjective gen. view. (Daniel B. Wallace, “Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics,” 115-16)
This should illustrate, at least, a couple of things:
1) Translation of the biblical languages involves “interpretive decisions;” and those decisions are informed by a prior commitment to a theological grid (which has hopefully taken shape by a spiraling process of inductivly studying both Christ’s life and scripture).
2) Again, to reiterate, even at the level of translation (let alone exposition and commentary), we are all involved in theological exegesis; this is probably the most gapping whole in “Evangelical scholarship,” and one that needs to be corrected.
Summary
It is nice to know that TFT checks out, that his theology has substance; and the vicarious faith of Christ for us is something that we find weaved throughout the New Testament (and even OT) text — Galatians 2:20 just happens to be one of the most explicit passages. Even if we settle for “just the grammar,” the vicarious faith of Christ for us is an exciting prospect. It grounds ‘our’ faith in His, as He serves, truly, as our mediator and High Priest! Hope you have found this encouraging . . . I have :-)!
Hey Bobby!Yes, I have found this exciting, as I read it in "Incarnation", it reignites the excitement I felt before Christmas, when I read in Participatio (as recommended reading in your sidebar) "THE PRACTICAL THEOLOGY OF THOMAS F. TORRANCE" by Ray S. Anderson, Ph.D. He argues "…Thomas Torrance can be understood as a practical theologian offering a nondualistic and praxis [practice] oriented theology based on the selfrevealing God in Jesus Christ." In other words TFT was concerned with theology, not just in the realm of ideas, concepts, and dogma, but also in how that would work out in our lives practically. This began December 21st at 9:40 a.m at Rose's blog. It went over like a lead balloon (that's the metal lead atomic symbol Pb, not a "leader"). That's when I cried out for help. Tonight, right here, I typed a 500 word essay about my need for a practical side. I just don't have the heart to post it.Thank you for your prayers Bobby.So Brother Bobby, I am in earnest: Other than my eternal destiny, what are the practical implications for what you discussed above?In Him
LikeLike
Hey Bobby, I have a sermon on Gal 2.2 insired by TFT that tries t apply some of these – want to post it?
LikeLike
Myk, do you have an audio recording? Perhaps at the BCC website?
LikeLike
Myk,That would be great! Send it my way, and it'll be posted, I think it will benefit everyone here.Duane,Why don't we and see what Myk's post has to say, and then we can get into your question further.One practical implication is that "your faith" is grounded in Christ's faith; which means that you can just look at Him instead of yourself. I think this has all kinds of applicational points tied to it that will be specific to each one of our lives (there is a sense of security in this this, which is the perfect environment to cultivate relationship).
LikeLike
Looking squarely AT Christ and trusting in what He's already done means I don't have to be distracted by dozens of rules or kill myself trying to find (and follow) the most pleasing system of obedience. He is the true "bread" that came from heaven to feed the starving souls of His lost sheep.Brother Paul Washer once likened it to being given a free pass on a really difficult test…and then getting to study your favorite subject for fun. Learning Who God is becomes a soul-nourishing pleasure because there is no longer fear of failure. I don't have to be "right" about everything and can appreciate being corrected because I'm loved by my Father for His Son's sake.Finding "good deeds" to do becomes almost like a treasure hunt.Sharing Christ with people isn't simply a duty to preach about "getting saved" but can become an offered invitation to join God's family.The paradigm shift from "I hope I have enough faith to get in" to "I can't lose because the faith I'm trusting isn't really mine" changes a lot of things, I think.It definitely keeps me on my knees.Heather
LikeLike
Bobby and Myk:Yes, and thank you in advance. Myk, I just read your Article in the Princeton Theological Review, Memorial Issue, on the Sui Generis TF Torrance. It was very interesting, and I learned a little about theosis, which very much excites me. Thank You both for continuing to illuminate the Word and the Trintiy.Duane
LikeLike
Trinity. This spellung thing is katchy. :>
LikeLike
Heather,Nicely said!Duane,That is a good one by Myk, huh, Duane? Myk's book on Theosis in the theology of TFT is excellent; I think I'll have to share more of that in the days to come (and a review, eh Myk ;-).
LikeLike
Yes Heather, I like your post above too. It's like an appetizer to Bobby's next post by Myk.Blessings!
LikeLike
Hey Bobby, Hows it going? I may have asked this before but have you thought about any of this in relation to the New Perspective on Paul? I wrote an essay on vicarious faith in TFT last year and I really wanted to chase that a bit further but never did. It seems that if NT Wright and co could come to grips with a bit of the way TFT conceives of the vicarious humanity of Christ it might solve a few issues that he has around imputation. Maybe, dunno. Im far from being a NT scholar 🙂
LikeLike
Hi Scott,Thank you for the prayers, I'm doing okay, a little weak still.I'm not really sure, to be honest, off the top, how that might effect NT Wright. Although their theories on ontology/epistemology seem to be in step (see Myk's most recent post on "Behind The Back") — viz. TFT and NT Wright — the thing is, I don't see TFT jettisoning substitution and legal stuff, per se; although when it comes to TFT's theosis, as Myk has pointed out, an underdeveloped segment within TF's construal would be on "partcipatory" language (i.e. like "our response"). Which this then might be easily appropriated by folks who follow NT WRight; but probably not by folks who follow TFT (they just need to help apply some of the TFs latent points relative to participation/response/and the Holy Spirit. There's the long answer for: I don't know ;-).
LikeLike