[B-Greek] Re: Romans 1:17 EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN --> hO DE DIKAIOS EK

Laurence Schell laurenceschell at yahoo.co.uk
Wed Apr 28 17:17:39 EDT 2004


Fred,

I consider myself something of an amateur. Yet I have
looked at these verses and the whole issue of
faith/faithfulness in some depth.

I have looked at several of the postings on Rom. 1:17
in the archives for February '96. I think your
questions are addressed there.

Not being expert in Greek, I can't give all the
reasons for the difficulties in understanding Paul's
meaning in this passage. However, I have noticed a
tendency in some of the past posts to say, in effect,
"Paul could not possibly have meant...," when talking
about this verse. There are a great many occurences of
the word PISTIS in the NT, and I would venture that
the argument supporting the translation as "faith"
rather than "faithfulness" in the overwhelming
majority of cases might often boil down to, "Paul
could not possibly have meant..." 

This represents some degree of theological bias. If we
are going to preserve our most cherished beliefs,
then, for heaven's sake please, let's not monkey
around with the banner verse of the Reformation. But,
if we are going to learn the meaning of the language,
let's not first interpret Paul and then translate
accordingly. Of course, I realize there are a lot of
nuances I don't yet comprehend, and a lot of
possibilities; and I know that I am not immune to
theological bias.

I think there is a cultural issue involved that we in
the modern western mindset don't understand the way
Paul did. The idea of covenant was central to Hebraic
thought and religion. As a rabbi, Paul would have
understood words like "faith/faithfulness" and
"righteous" in the context of covenant.
Faith/faithfulness would have been what he understood
as the requirement of walking in covenant with God.
The "righteous" would be the one who obligates himself
to and does live within the boundaries of a covenant
relationship. I think Paul saw faithfulness, not as
works of the law as people often imply, but as being
opposed to the works of the law. Faithfulness was
walking in covenant relationship with God and
fulfilling the spirit of the law. 

Well, there I have gone and spilled the beans, that
is, my interpretation of Paul. Having some bias makes
me human after all. But I haven't seen the covenant
angle addressed in the archives I have read. So
perhaps it could shed some light. And I would like to
know if there is any merit in it from those who are
more knowledgable than me.

In the case that it does merit some further
consideration, I should like to add that Paul would
seem to mean that faith/faithfulness is the mode in
which a covenant-keeping righteous person will live.
This faithfulness arises out of God's faithfulness.
But Paul may be deliberately vague as to whose
faithfulness is in view, because in covenant both
parties obligate themselves to faithfulness, even if
it originates first with God. His faithfulness leads
to the faithfulness of those who truly believe; and
they live their lives out of His faithfulness. And, of
course, I am talking about faith/faithfulness. They
are two sides of the same coin, and, in my opinion,
should not be considered apart from each other here.
Interestingly, this faith/faithfulness was a
requirement in both the Old (Hab. 2:4) and New (Rom.
1:17) Covenants.

I hope I have not overstepped the bounds on theology
too much here. But I think by nature it is a weighted
discussion when it comes to this verse. And perhaps
this could be a balance that leads to productive
discussion of the meaning, grammar, and other aspects
of the language. I hope this could shed some light for
some people on the mysteries of a verse which gets
discussed from time to time with an ambiguous outcome.
Thinking that Paul could not have meant something
doesn't get me very far in discovering the meaning,
and so now here is something else he could have meant.
I don't believe I have read this in past posts.

Sincerely,
Laurence Schell

<Up to now, I've just been reading the postings. 
Being a real amature, 
it's
sometime difficult enough just to do that! ;)  But the
final clause of 
Rom.
1:17 has been one of interest to me, so here are my
thoughts/questions:

I think the meaning of PISTEWS would depend on what
intent of DIKAIOS 
and
PISTEWS are in terms of ZHSETAI.  Do they refer to how
the just will 
live
life now (faithfully or based on their faith), or to
life as the reward 
of
those who are just?  If it is the latter, are they
just because of 
their
faith (or maybe their faithfulness)?  Certainly Paul's
theology would 
not
support anyone being counted just based on their
faithful living.  Is 
there
anything in the Greek that would help clarify the
intent?

Fred Day






	
	
		
____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" 
your friends today! Download Messenger Now 
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html



More information about the B-Greek mailing list