We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 February 2015
In this article I pursue two interrelated goals. First, and more narrowly, I argue that the 
in Rom 5:1 plausibly refers to Christ's 
(conventionally translated as “faith” or “faithfulness”) and not to the 
of Christ followers; and certainly not to the 
of Christ followers that is specifically “in Christ.” To my knowledge no modern commentator identifies the 
in Rom 5:1 as Christ's own. Several scholars suggest it in passing, and one presents a partial argument turning on several claims of coherence with his broader reading of Paul. I offer a more thorough case for the plausibility of this suggestion, especially by demonstrating how my reading of Rom 5:1 makes sense as an encapsulation of Paul's emphases in Rom 3:21–4:25.
The members of the Spring 2010 “Issues in Pauline Studies” graduate seminar at Brown University provided valuable feedback on the paper that became this article, as did participants in the “Pauline Literature” session of the 2011 meeting of the New England SBL, where I presented an early draft. I am especially grateful to Stanley K. Stowers for his extensive suggestions and criticisms that immeasurably sharpened this article. I would also like to thank J.R. Daniel Kirk, Caroline Johnson Hodge, Dan G. McCartney, Stephen S. Taylor, and the anonymous HTR reviewers for their critical and helpful feedback. Finally, I am grateful to the Dolores Zohrab Liebmann Fund for its generous support that enabled completion of this article.
1 Though I would argue the same for 
in 5:2, due to text-critical issues, space constraints, and the ability to examine 
in 5:1 without treating 
in 5:2, I restrict my focus to 5:1. Greek text comes from the NA27; all translations are my own.
2 Hays, Richard B., The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11 (2nd Ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002) 151–52Google Scholar; Collins, Adela Y. and Collins, John J. reference Hays's suggestion in a footnote to support their translation of Rom 5:1 (King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008] 118 n. 70)Google Scholar. John Dunnill asserts that “the word 
[in Rom 5:1–2] has both senses [Christ's faith and the believer's faith] fully present” (“Saved by Whose Faith?—The Function of 
in Pauline Theology,” Colloq 30 [1998] 3–25, at 16). Campbell, Douglas offers a brief argument (The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009] 823–25)Google Scholar.
3 I use the label “the Judean god” to reinscribe in this article's historical description the “ethnic” nature of this deity from the point of view of Paul's audiences. This god is the god of the Judeans, just as, for example, Egyptians had their own ethnic god or gods. On why I choose the explicitly “ethnic” terminology of Judean instead of Jew for analysis of Paul's discourse, see Hodge, Caroline Johnson, “Apostle to the Gentiles: Constructions of Paul's Identity,” BI 13 (2005) 270–88, at 272–73Google Scholar. For arguments in favor of using the terminology of Judean for broader Hellenistic and early Roman period sources, see Kraemer, Ross S., Unreliable Witnesses: Religion, Gender, and History in the Greco-Roman Mediterranean (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011) 26, 180, 186–200Google Scholar; Mason, Steve, “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History,” JSJ 38 (2007) 457–512Google Scholar. For a counterargument to Mason, see Schwartz, Seth, “How Many Judaisms Were There?: A Critique of Neusner and Smith on Definition and Mason and Boyarin on Categorization,” Journal of Ancient Judaism 2 (2011) 208–38, at 221–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and for recent discussions that probe relevant assumptions across publications in the debate, see Baker, Cynthia, “A ‘Jew’ by Any Other Name?,” Journal of Ancient Judaism 2 (2011) 153–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Satlow, Michael, “Jew or Judaean?,” in “The One Who Sows Bountifully:” Essays in Honor of Stanley K. Stowers (ed. Johnson Hodge, C.et al.; Providence, R.I.: Brown Judaic Studies, 2013) 165–75Google Scholar.
4 See, e.g., Buell, Denise and Hodge, Caroline Johnson, “The Politics of Interpretation: The Rhetoric of Race and Ethnicity in Paul,” JBL 123 (2004) 235–51Google Scholar; Concannon, Cavan, “When You Were Gentiles”: Specters of Ethnicity in Roman Corinth and Paul's Corinthian Correspondence (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hodge, Johnson, “Apostles to the Gentiles”; idem, If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 See the oft referenced exchange between James D. G. Dunn (“Once More, 
,” in Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 249–71) and Richard B. Hays (“
and Pauline Christology: What Is at Stake?,” in Hays, Faith of Jesus Christ, 272–97) for the basic lines of the debate. See also Easter, Matthew C., “The Pistis Christou Debate: Main Arguments and Responses in Summary,” CBR 9 (2010) 33–47Google Scholar.
6 For other proposed options, see, e.g., Schenk, Wolfgang, “Die Gerechtigkeit Gottes und der Glaube Christi: Versuch einer Verhältnisbestimmung paulinischer Strukturen,” TLZ 97 (1972) 161–74Google Scholar; Sprinkle, Preston M., “
as an Eschatological Event,” in The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies (ed. Bird, Michael and Sprinkle, Preston; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2009) 165–84Google Scholar; Karl F. Ulrichs, Christusglaube: Studien zum Syntagma 
und zum paulinischen Verständnis von Glaube und Rechtfertigung (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007).
7 See Matlock, R. Barry's comments about this (often unhelpful) phenomenon: “‘Even the Demons Believe’: Paul and 
,” CBQ 64 (2002) 300–18, at 300–1Google Scholar.
8 Matlock, R. Barry's publications have led the way: “Detheologizing the 
Debate: Cautionary Remarks from a Lexical-Semantic Perspective,” NovT 42 (2000) 1–23Google Scholar; idem., “Even the Demons Believe;” idem, “
in Galatians 3:26: Neglected Evidence for ‘Faith in Christ?,’” NTS 49 (2003) 433–39; idem, “The Rhetoric of 
in Paul: Galatians 2.16, 3.22, Romans 3.22, and Philippians 3.9,” JSNT 30 (2007) 173–203; idem., “Saving Faith: The Rhetoric and Semantics of 
in Paul,” in The Faith of Jesus Christ, 73–89. Francis Watson's recent publications do the same, but from a more “intertextual” standpoint: “By Faith (of Christ): An Exegetical Dilemma and its Scriptural Solution,” in The Faith of Jesus Christ, 147–63; idem., Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (New York: T&T Clark, 2004) 71–77; idem, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007) 238–45, 322–25.
9 Space constraints preclude a detailed assessment of the evidence and arguments. For recent subjective-genitive treatments of particular relevance, see Douglas Campbell, “The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Romans 3:22,” in The Faith of Jesus Christ, 57–71; idem, “Romans 1:17—A Crux Interpretum for the 
Debate,” JBL 113 (1994) 265–85; Foster, Paul, “The First Contribution to the 
Debate: A Study of Ephesians 3:12,” JSNT 85 (2002) 75–96Google Scholar; Schenck, Kenneth, “2 Corinthians and the 
Debate,” CBQ 70 (2008) 524–37Google Scholar; Whitenton, Mark R., “After 
: Neglected Evidence from the Apostolic Fathers,” JTS 61 (2010) 82–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Young, Stephen L., “Romans 1.1–5 and Paul's Christological Use of Hab. 2.4 in Rom. 1.17: An Underutilized Consideration in the Debate,” JSNT 34 (2012) 277–85Google Scholar.
10 E.g., Dunn: “Once More,” 257–58.
11 A form of 
occurs 42 times in the seven recognized letters. Twenty-nine of those occurrences have Christ followers (or someone representing them) as the subject and fall into one or more of the following categories: 1) God as the object, 2) Christ as the object, 3) what God has done in Christ as the object, 4) an unclear object or focus that could be one or a mixture of the preceding three options, 5) doing whatever this verb means treated as decisive for being a Christ initiate and experiencing the blessings of the Judean god, 6) doing whatever this verb means treated as characteristic of Christ followers. The relevant attestations are as follows: Rom 1:16, 3:22, 4:11, 4:24, 9:33, 10:4, 10:9, 10:10, 10:11, 10:14 (x2), 16, 13:11, 15:13; 1 Cor 1:21, 3:5, 14:22 (x2), 15:2, 11; 2 Cor 4:13 (x2); Gal 2:16, 3:22; Phil 1:29; and 1 Thess 1:7, 2:10, 2:13, and 4:14. I have eliminated Rom 4:3, 4:5, 4:17, 4:18 and Gal 3:6 for reasons that will become apparent when I discuss Abraham in Romans 4 below.
12 Gal 2:16; Phil 1:29. Though a minority position, some deny Christ is the focus of the verb in Rom 9:33, 10:11, and 10:14 (e.g., Lloyd Gaston, Paul and the Torah [Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1987] 129).
13 1 Thess 1:8 (
); 1 Cor 2:5 (
). In Philemon 5 Paul mentions the 
of Christ devotees towards the Lord Jesus. He also, however, includes 
alongside 
that Philemon has towards (
) not only Jesus, but also “into” (
) all the holy ones.
14 As subjective-genitive advocates often point out (e.g., Hays, “What Is at Stake?,” 276–77). Obviously this claim either presumes a subjective-genitive reading or brackets the disputed seven passages.
15 Pace Dunson, Ben C., “Faith in Romans: The Salvation of the Individual or Life in Community?,” JSNT 34 (2011) 19–46, at 21, 25Google Scholar.
16 For the passages relevant to this article, I translate 
with “faithfulness,” “trust,” or “faith” and 
with “be faithful to,” “trust,” or “believe” – depending upon context. This contextual differentiation is simply to acknowledge the basic lexical-semantic point of scholars such as Matlock (“Detheologizing the 
Debate,” 3–6) that each word does not have some undifferentiable “general, amoebic sort of sense that could ooze in the direction required,” but that they have different senses that are properly selected and recognized based upon practical-linguistic context. Also, in the passages relevant for this study 
and 
do not necessarily connote private, passive, purely internal, and non-action/deed entities. In fact, the opposite often seems to be the case: e.g., Campbell, Douglas A., The Quest for Paul's Gospel: A Suggested Strategy (New York: T&T Clark International, 2005) 178–207Google Scholar; Stowers, Stanley K., A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1994) 199, 228–29Google Scholar; and Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, 122–24, 147–50, 212–13, 244–45, 345–46.
17 The following commentators at least mention that they understand the 
in Rom 5:1 as the Christ follower's: Byrne, Brendan, Romans (Sacra Pagina 6; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1996) 162–63, 169Google Scholar; Dodd, C. H., The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (New York: Long & Smith, 1932) 72–73Google Scholar; Dunn, James D. G., Romans (2 vols.; WBC 38; Dallas: Word, 1988) 1:246, 248, 262Google Scholar; Fitzmyer, Joseph, Romans (AB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993) 393–94Google Scholar; Jewett, Robert, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2007) 348Google Scholar; Schreiner, Thomas, Romans (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1998) 253Google Scholar; Wilckens, Ulrich, Der Brief an die Römer (3 vols.; Zürich: Benziger, 1978–82) 1:288–90Google Scholar.
18 E.g., Black, Matthew, Romans (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989) 74–75Google Scholar; Cranfield, C. E. B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1975–1979) 1:255Google Scholar; Hodge, Charles, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Philadelphia: Martien, 1864) 203Google Scholar; Käsemann, Ernst, Romans (trans. Geoffrey Bromiley; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1980) 132–34Google Scholar; Moo, Douglas, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996) 298Google Scholar; Murray, John, The Epistle to the Romans (2 vols.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997 [1959–1965]) 1:58–64Google Scholar; Talbert, Charles, Romans (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2002) 131–34Google Scholar; and Wright, N. T., The Letter to the Romans (ed. Keck, Leander; NIB 10; Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 2002) 393–770, at 509, 514Google Scholar.
19 Dunn, Romans, 1:246.
20 E.g., “
is the one whose life has been determined by an act of faith (commitment) to Jesus (as Lord) and continues to be characterized by the attitude of trust in Jesus” (Dunn, Romans, 1:176).
21 Keck, Leander, Romans (ANTC; Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 2005) 135–36Google Scholar; Talbert, Romans, 108–9, 131–34; Wright, Romans, 509, 514.
22 E.g., Richard H. Bell, “Faith in Christ: Some Exegetical and Theological Reflections on Philippians 3:9 and Ephesians 3:12,” in The Faith of Jesus Christ, 111–25, at 120–21; Hultgren, Arland J., “The PISTIS CHRISTOU Formulation in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980) 248–63, at 258, 262Google Scholar; Schreiner, Romans, 184–85.
23 For example, the following commentators articulate such positions about faith and righteousness in Paul and Romans: Byrne, Romans, 124–25, 162–63, 169; Cranfield, Romans, 1:203–4; Dunn, Romans, 1:166, 246, 248, 262; Fitzmyer, Romans, 345–46, 393–94; Käsemann, Romans, 101; Moo, Romans, 224–26, 298; Murray, Romans, 1:110–11, 158–64, 363–73; and Schreiner, Romans, 181–86. Though Murray's commentary is more overtly theological than most engaged here, his comments on Rom 3:21–23 helpfully illustrate this kind of underlying consideration: “It is hardly necessary to show that Jesus Christ is the object and not the subject of the faith spoken of. It would be alien to the whole teaching of the apostle to suppose that what he has in mind is a faith that is patterned after the faith which Jesus himself exemplified, far less that we are justified by Jesus’ own faith” (Romans, 1:110–11).
24 The following are several commentators who bring up their understanding of Abraham in Romans 4 as an example of Christ followers’ justification by faith, in connection with their discussions of Rom 5:1: Byrne, Romans, 162–63; Dodd, Romans, 72; Dunn, Romans, 1:246, 262; and Jewett, Romans, 350.
25 I understand 
in Paul as a reference to the Judean god's eschatological saving righteousness, merciful faithfulness, and/or covenant faithfulness—often relating to his including Gentiles: e.g., Campbell, Douglas A., The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3:21–26 (JSNTSup 65; Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992) 138–65Google Scholar; Hays, Richard B., “Psalm 143 and the Logic of Romans 3,” JBL 99 (1980) 107–15Google Scholar; Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 170–72, 195–202; and Williams, Sam K., “The ‘Righteousness of God’ in Romans,” JBL 99 (1980) 241–90Google Scholar. For convenience I translate 
with “righteousness” and 
with a neologism, “(to) righteous” (for the latter, see E.P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People [Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1983] 13 n. 18). Paul does not assume a dichotomy between righteousing as meaning the Judean god's including someone (especially a Gentile) within his eschatological people and righteousing as meaning this god's reckoning people righteous such that their sins are not (or will not be) counted against them. I do not understand 
and 
for Christ followers in Paul as referring functionally to the same thing (pace, e.g., Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, 235–38, 328).
26 I take Christ's faithfulness, especially when serving as a means of effecting the Judean god's righteousing and other aspects of his eschatological rescue for Christ followers, as Christ's faithful death and faithfulness in going to his death: Campbell, Deliverance of God, 610–19, 641–42, 647–56; Hays, Faith of Jesus Christ, 161–62; and Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 213–26.
27 I use the ambiguous term “the people” of the Judean god since Paul does, in certain qualified ways, equalize Judeans alongside Gentiles, even though he still fundamentally maintains this ethnic distinction. For discussion of how Paul envisions the relation of Judeans and Gentiles in Christ, and how Paul maintains this ethnic distinction, see Johnson Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs, 55, 117–35, 145–48.
28 As scholars such as Johnson Hodge and Stowers have demonstrated, ethnic matters pertaining to Gentile Christ-initiates in relation to the Judean god get at the core of Paul's self-representation and “mission,” and are the context for his discourse about 
and 
: e.g., Johnson Hodge, “Apostle to the Gentiles;” eadem, If Sons, Then Heirs; Buell and Johnson Hodge, “The Rhetoric of Race and Ethnicity in Paul,” 235–51; and Stowers, Rereading of Romans. Though still inhabiting certain traditional theological concerns and presenting a largely de-ethnicized Paul, much recent “New Perspective” scholarship has foregrounded Paul's “Jew and Gentile” concerns, arguing that they do not occupy an ancillary and merely background place in comparison with supposedly different and primary concerns of “salvation” and questions of generalized faith versus works: e.g., Dunn, James D. G., Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1990) 89–264Google Scholar; and Kirk, J. R. Daniel, Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008) 1–13, 57–58Google Scholar. Numerous scholars who advocate more-traditional Protestant readings of Paul have contested such New Perspective work and reasserted the centrality of, for example, generalized faith versus works, while urging that “Jew and Gentile” matters are merely background or secondary: e.g., Beale, G. K., “The Overstated ‘New’ Perspective,” BBR 19 (2009) 85–94, at 90, 92–94Google Scholar; Moo, Douglas, “Israel and the Law in Romans 5–11: Interaction with the New Perspective,” in The Paradoxes of Paul (ed. Carson, D. A., O’Brien, Peter T., and Seifrid, Mark A.; vol. 2 of Justification and Variegated Nomism; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2004) 185–216Google Scholar, at 188; idem, Romans, 27–29, 243–44; and Westerholm, Stephen, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2004) 441–45Google Scholar. For my purposes, the upshot of work by scholars such as Johnson Hodge and Stowers (and, to a lesser extent, various New Perspective scholars) is that, as I will illustrate below, within the ethnic mechanics of Paul's discourse(s) in Romans, the Judean god rescues only his people. As such, positions about and contestation over how to identify the Judean god's people, Gentiles in relation to the Judean god's promises to Israel, and how Gentiles may have access to the power and blessings of the Judean god are (if you will) “salvation” issues, not separate “ecclesiological,” “merely sociological,” “secondary,” or “background” concerns.
29 Though Paul explains the Gentile situation of sin in terms of mastery by the passions and a malfunctioning mind due to the punishment of God (Rom 1:18–32), he does not so explain and intensify Judean faithlessness and sin: Stowers, Stanley K., “Paul's Four Discourses about Sin,” in Celebrating Paul: Festschrift in Honor of Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, O.P., and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. (ed. Spitaler, Peter; CBQMS 48; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 2011) 100–127, at 110–19, 121, 125–26Google Scholar; idem, Rereading of Romans, 83–100, 255–56, 273–84; and Wasserman, Emma, The Death of the Soul in Romans 7: Sin, Death, and the Law in the Light of Hellenistic Moral Psychology (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2008) 119–26Google Scholar. I have elsewhere attempted to elucidate Paul's different underlying history or logic of Judean sin (“A Judean Claims that Judeans are ‘Under Sin’? Paul's Judean-Eschatological Logic and Rom 3:9” [paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Atlantic Region of the SBL, New Brunswick, N.J., March 15, 2012]).
30 Scholars debate the extent to which our extant sources indicate that some Judean intellectuals and teachers held that non-Judeans must adopt some or all Judean ancestral customs (i.e., the law) in order to affiliate at varying levels with Judeans and/or to participate in the Judean god's eschatological blessings – just as ancient Judean cultural-producers apparently took different and contesting positions on these matters. For scholarship that addresses these topics in relation to Paul, and that emphasizes the potential difference between required practices for Gentiles to affiliate at varying levels with Judeans versus positions in Judean sources about Gentile law observance in the eschaton, see, e.g., Donaldson, Terence, Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism (Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; idem, Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle's Convictional World (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1997); Fredriksen, Paula, “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2,” JTS 42 (1991) 532–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; eadem, “Judaizing the Nations: The Ritual Demands of Paul's Gospel,” NTS 56 (2010) 232–52.
31 On taking 
(3:24a) with the preceding clauses (3:22–23) and not with the following 
clause starting in 3:24b, see Campbell, Rhetoric of Righteousness, 90–95.
32 Paul refers again to Christ's faithfulness with 
in Rom 3:25: Campbell, Deliverance of God, 640–56; and Longenecker, Bruce W., “
in Romans 3:25: Neglected Evidence for the ‘Faithfulness of Christ’?,” NTS 39 (1993) 478–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Campbell argues that an epanaphoric construction (Campbell, Rhetoric of Righteousness, 93–95) of three successive 
clauses rhetorically structures the passage, with each one explicating how 
(3:21, 22): Campbell, Rhetoric of Righteousness, 83–101, 177–203.
33 Johnson Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs, 79–91.
34 Though the following differ between themselves, they approach Rom 3:21–26 with similar understandings of Paul's concerns, what he means by 
, and the decisiveness of Christ's faithfulness in Paul's logic: Campbell, Deliverance of God, 639–714; idem, Rhetoric of Righteousness; Hays, “Logic of Romans 3”; idem, “Three Dramatic Roles: The Law in Romans 3–4,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law (ed. James D. G. Dunn; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001) 151–64; and Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 194–226.
35 Pace Gathercole, Simon, Where is Boasting?: Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul's Response in Romans 1–5 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002) 222–51Google Scholar; Moo, Romans, 246–47, 250; and Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, 246–52, 253. Given that Paul apparently thinks he is still talking about ethnic issues pertaining to Gentiles in relation to the Judean god in 3:27–28 (see 3:29–30), Watson's attempts to dissociate Paul's discourse about 
in 2:17–24 from that of 3:27, to distinguish Paul's concerns in 3:27–28 from 3:29–30, and to relocate Paul's concerns in 3:27 to the realm of general principles about boasting in “achievements” to the exclusion of boasting in “status” seem unfounded (ibid., 246–52; 253 n. 68). Watson thus reverses the positions on 
and 3:27–30 he took in the 1986 version of his book, though without dealing with his own prior arguments (Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach [New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986] 132–35).
36 For arguments that these instances of 
refer to Christ's faithfulness, see Stowers, Stanley K., “
and 
in Romans 3:30,” JBL 108 (1989) 665–74Google Scholar; idem, Rereading of Romans, 238–41.
37 This is still a common understanding of the significance of Abraham in Romans 4: e.g., Gathercole, Simon, “Justified by Faith, Justified by his Blood: The Evidence of Romans 3:21–4:25,” in Paradoxes of Paul, 2:147–84, at 164Google Scholar; idem, Where is Boasting?, 232–49; Moo, Romans, 255–64; and Tobin, Thomas H., “What Shall We Say that Abraham Found? The Controversy behind Romans 4,” HTR 88 (1995) 437–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
38 See Richard B. Hays's suggested re-punctuation and translation of Rom 4:1 (“‘Have We Found Abraham to be Our Forefather According to the Flesh?’: A Reconsideration of Rom 4:1,” NovT 27 [1985] 76–98, at 76–81). It has met with much approval: e.g., Kirk, Unlocking Romans, 60. Even so, dissent remains: e.g., Dunn, Romans, 1:195–99; Jewett, Romans, 307–9; and Tobin, “What Shall We Say,” 443.
39 One should understand 
in 4:2a alongside how Paul discusses the topic in 3:20–31. He does not write of general “works” but of whether one is righteoused from works of the law. On 4:2 having works of the law in view, see Cranford, Michael, “Abraham in Romans 4: The Father of All Who Believe,” NTS 41 (1995) 71–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 77; Kirk, Unlocking Romans, 61–62; and Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, 128.
40 I acknowledge the controversial nature of my claims about Rom 4:2–8 and plan to treat the issue at length in a forthcoming study. For other discussions that, in differing ways, decenter the traditional believing vs. doing principle from being the primary point of Rom 4:2–8 and, instead, treat the passage in connection with Paul's ethnic concerns, see Cranford, “Abraham in Romans 4,” 77–83; Kirk, Unlocking Romans, 60–65; Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 225–31, 241–43; and Wright, N. T., “Paul and the Patriarch: The Role of Abraham in Romans 4,” JSNT 35 (2013) 207–41Google Scholar. See, however, the numerous recent publications contesting any denial that the traditional concern of faith vs. general works constitutes the focus of these verses: e.g., Das, A. Andrews, “Paul and Works of Obedience in Second Temple Judaism: Romans 4:4–5 as a ‘New Perspective’ Case Study,” CBQ 71 (2009) 795–812Google Scholar; Gathercole, Where is Boasting?, 216–51; Kim, Seyoon, Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul's Gospel (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002) 54–66Google Scholar; Moo, Romans, 262–64; and Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New, 307–12.
41 Johnson Hodge, If Sons, then Heirs, 79–91; see also Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 237–50; and idem, “What Is ‘Pauline Participation in Christ’?,” in Redefining First-Century Jewish and Christian Identities: Essays in Honor of Ed Parish Sanders (ed. Fabian Udoh; Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008) 352–71, at 357–66.
42 See, e.g., Cranfield, Romans, 1:250; Dunn, Romans, 1:239–40.
43 Hays, “Have We Found Abaraham,” 94 [italics in original].
44 See Hays's seminal article for this reappraisal of Abraham in Romans 4: “Have We Found Abraham.” See also other publications adopting a similar approach: e.g., Cranford, “Abraham in Romans 4”; Eisenbaum, Pamela, “A Remedy for Having Been Born of a Woman: Jesus, Gentiles, and Genealogy in Romans,” JBL 123 (2004) 671–702Google Scholar, at 686–95; Gaston, Lloyd, “Abraham and the Righteousness of God,” HBT 2 (1980) 39–68, at 57–59Google Scholar; Heliso, Desta, Pistis and the Righteous One: A Study of Romans 1:17 against the Background of Scripture and Second Temple Jewish Literature (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2007) 231–39Google Scholar; Johnson Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs, 80–84, 86–91; Jipp, Joshua, “Rereading the Story of Abraham, Isaac, and ‘Us’ in Romans 4,” JSNT 32 (2009) 217–42Google Scholar; Kirk, Unlocking Romans, 59–83; Schenck, “2 Corinthians,” 534–35; Stowers, “Romans 3:30,” 671–74; idem, Rereading of Romans, 221–50; and Wright, “Role of Abraham.”
45 As touched upon above, in some ancient ethnic sensitivities descendants are like their ancestors because they share in the characteristics of their ancestors—they are considered to have been “in” their ancestors (e.g., Johnson Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs, 19–43, 68, 93–107; and Stowers, “What is ‘Pauline Participation’,” 357–66). Thus Paul can depict Abraham as an ancestral representative figure, whose trust causes the righteousing of others and the inclusion of Gentiles, and as an exemplar of trust for his descendants. These ideas are not dichotomous for Paul (e.g., Hays, “Have We Found Abraham,” 94–95, though Hays does not draw upon such ancient ethnic ideas).
46 E.g., Hays, “Have We Found Abraham,” 97–98; Johnson Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs, 90–91, 139–40; Jipp, “Rereading the Story,” 229–33, 237–39; Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 199–202, 225–30, 243, 248, 252–56; and Wagner, J. Ross, “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile: A Fresh Approach to Romans 15:8–9,” JBL 116 (1997) 473–85, at 477 n. 21Google Scholar.
47 Many commentators stress that Rom 5:1 marks a new section, with the first clause encapsulating a primary point of the preceding section and connecting it to what follows: e.g., Cranfield, Romans, 1:257; Jewett, Romans, 348; and Wilckens, Römer, 1:288.
48 My reading prefers the 
variant instead of 
. For a discussion of the textual issues and argument for the subjunctive, see Jewett, Romans, 344. Regardless, my overall point does not turn on this text-critical decision.
49 Campbell likewise draws attention to this clause of 5:9 in his case for taking 
in 5:1 as a reference to Christ's faithfulness (Deliverance of God, 825). As indicated in n. 2 above, Campbell (ibid., 823–25) is the one example I have found of someone arguing for this reading of 
in 5:1. Most of the rest of Campbell's suggestive argument turns on claims about 1) coherence with his broader (to use his terminology) non-“Justification Theory” and, instead, “Apocalyptic” or “Liberative” reading of Paul, and 2) contextual fit with where Paul's argument goes from 5:1 on through Romans 8. In this article I have offered more specific exegetical arguments, which focus on a concrete contextual framework from the immediately preceding passages in Romans, for reading 
in 5:1 as a reference to Christ's righteousing faithfulness. Such additional exegetical arguments are further necessitated by, for example, recent critiques of Campbell's non-“Justification Theory” framework: e.g., Matlock, R. Barry, “Zeal for Paul but Not According to Knowledge: Douglas Campbell's War on ‘Justification Theory,’” JSNT 34 (2011) 115–49Google Scholar.
50 Easter offers both a list of subjective genitive advocates who have made this argument and a brief discussion of it (“Pistis Christou Debate,” 38–39).
51 Matlock urges that scholars must justify claims of emphasis and repetition by inquiring “closely into the structure” of the passages in question. “Any assertion of ‘redundancy’ implicitly raises two, related, questions: whether there is a pattern to the repetition, and whether there is a rationale for it—whether there is any rhyme or reason either for the repetition” (“Rhetoric of 
,” 177; italics in original).
52 Paul's possible “redundant” focus on Christ in each clause of 5:1 may require no more explanation than Paul's “repetition” in 5:9, where he writes 
and immediately follows with 
.
53 Though not a line of argument I can explore in detail here, Matthew Novenson draws attention to the potential relevance of 2 Kgdms 23:1 for the 
debate, with its “connection . . . between the virtue of 
and David's role as the 
” (Christ Among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism [New York: Oxford University Press, 2012] 132). Novenson notes this association, the possibility of its reuse by later readers of Judean sacred writings in Greek, and how Rom 5:1 is a passage that shares this close contextual connection between 
(actually, 
in 2 Kgdms 23:1), 
, and 
seen in 2 Kgdms 23:1 (Ibid., 133, 133 n. 162). To the extent one finds this specific textual background plausible for Paul's language in Rom 5:1 (whether a “conscious” background or not, note Paul's Davidic association of Christ in 1:3; see also 15:12), a christological understanding of 
in 5:1 gains plausibility.
54 See n. 22 above for examples of such advocates of the objective genitive.
55 Dunson levels these charges at subjective-genitive readings of Romans (“Faith in Romans,” 21, 25). It is worth noting that my brief comments about the significance of Christ followers’ faith in Rom 3:21–22, 4:11, and 24–25 map onto Dunson's claims, albeit about other passages: “vitally important believing appropriation of salvation” (25); “personal believing response” (33); “faith is the vehicle through which the individual attains a righteousness” (38).
56 To clarify, I am not claiming that one should take every opportunity to affirm the presence of both in Paul's letters; i.e., unlike some proponents of the subjective-genitive, I consider 
in Phil 3:9 still to refer to Christ's faithfulness just as does the preceding 
(see Matlock's critique of subjective-genitive readings that posit that one refers to Christ's faithfulness and the other to that of his followers: “Rhetoric of 
,” 177–84; idem, “Saving Faith,” 73–78).
57 I use the label “christological” for convenience to designate interpretations of 
that take it as a reference to Christ's faithfulness, not to imply that such readings are “more Christ-centered” or “less man-centered” and thus supposedly more valid readings of Paul. As Matlock (“Detheologizing the Debate,” 21–23; idem, “Even the Demons Believe,” 309–14) and Watston (“By Faith (of Christ),” 159, 162–63) point out, that is disingenuous and anachronistic “theological” logic.
58 For arguments that Paul uses Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17 Christologically, discussion of some issues in this debate, relevant bibliography, and a reading of Rom 1:17 in connection with 1:1–5 and 3:21–26, see Young, “Romans 1.1–5.”
59 See 3:22: 
. For discussion of the possible nuances of 
in 1:17, see Young, “Romans 1.1–5,” 281.
60 Paul only uses 
in the two letters in which he deploys Hab 2:4, Galatians and Romans; 
seems to be a variant of 
, though it also appears in Phil 3:9. For arguments that Paul's use of Hab 2:4 controls and thus clarifies his use of 
and that 
serves as a variant of 
, see Campbell, “Romans 1:17”; Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, 239–44; and idem, “By Faith (of Christ).” Stowers (“Romans 3:30”) has argued that 
refers to Christ's faithfulness and its results for the Gentiles, while 
can refer to how both Judeans and Gentiles share in the blessings of Abraham, though in different ways.
61 Dunson, “Faith in Romans,” 33. Of course, Dunson and I take opposing views in the 
debate.
62 I bring up 9:30–10:21 not only for its relevant clustering of faith (including 
), righteousness, and law language, but also since advocates of the objective genitive have recently published readings of parts of the passage whose specific points await detailed response from proponents of the subjective genitive: e.g., Dunson, “Faith in Romans,” 27–34; Matlock, “Rhetoric of 
,” 185–87; idem, “Saving Faith,” 79–81; and Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, 322–25. For a subjective-genitive treatment of aspects of the passage, see Campbell, Deliverance of God, 781–807.
63 Choi, Hung-Sik, “
in Galatians 5:5–6: Neglected Evidence for the Faithfulness of Christ,” JBL 124 (2005) 467–90Google Scholar, at 471–72; Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 229–30.
64 On this, see Johnson Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs, 80–86, 90–100; Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 229–30; and idem, “What is ‘Pauline Participation’,” 359–64. In Gal 3:15–29 Paul spells out these points in greater detail and differently than in Romans 4. Though I do not agree with all of J. L. Martyn's points, especially his consistent de-ethnicizing of Paul's claims about Christ's significance and many of his mirror-readings, see Martyn's discussion of the various differences between Paul's deployment of Abraham in Galatians 3 and in Romans 4 (Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul [Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1997] 37–45, 161–75).
65 Campbell, Deliverance of God, 866–67, 874–75, 879–86; Choi, “
in Galatians 5:5–6,” 475–78.
66 For recent subjective-genitive arguments both about Gal 3:22 and the “coming of faith” language in 3:23–26, see Campbell, Deliverance of God, 867–75; idem, Quest for Paul's Gospel, 208–32; and Choi, “
in Galatians 5:5–6,” 472–79.
67 See 3:6–4:7, esp. 3:29. I do not mean to erase the differences between how Paul discusses Christ, Abraham, faith, law, and Gentiles in Romans and Galatians. He relates and frames their significance somewhat differently in each letter (see also n. 64 above). In each letter, however, Paul still discusses the inclusion of people, especially Gentiles, into the Judean god's Christ-associated eschatological blessings using ethnic logic involving Christ, Abraham, and Abraham's promise inheriting lineage (on this see Johnson Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs, 67–107; Stowers, Rereading Romans, 227–50).
68 Matlock, however, has recently argued against the subjective-genitive reading of 
in Gal 3:22, urging that “the two 
phrases [in 3:22] must be equivalent” (“Rhetotic of 
in Paul,” 187–93, 192; italics in original).
69 One could also examine how Gal 5:5–6 attests to similar positions about the phrase 
, as Christ's faithfulness, and righteousness for his followers, especially given Choi's recent arguments (“
in Galatians 5:5–6”).
