Article

Journal for the Study of

the New Testament
Pistis as Relational Way of 2018, Vol. 40(3) 255­–275
© The Author(s) 2018
Life in Galatians
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0142064X18755933
https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X16XXXXXX
https://doi.org/

journals.sagepub.com/home/jsnt
Peter Oakes
Department of Religions and Theology, University of Manchester, UK

Abstract
Using the Septuagint as an example, this article supports Teresa Morgan’s recent
contention that πίστις is essentially relational. On the basis of the prevalence of
relationality, the article offers a critique of readings of Galatians that privilege other
concepts, such as Benjamin Schliesser’s emphasis on spatiality. The study then argues
that, instead of Morgan’s ‘pistis is a relationship’, it would be more accurate and
exegetically useful to bring out the action-reference of πίστις with an expression such
as ‘πίστις is a relational way of life’. The article will argue that the most likely relational
reading of πίστις in Galatians is one in which πίστις primarily represents trust, loyalty
and/or trustworthiness in the relationship between the current Christ and people. This
raises questions over the focus of πίστις on past events in the work of scholars such as
Richard Hays and John Barclay. If πίστις Χριστοῦ is to be read as involving an ‘objective
genitive’ it probably denotes people’s trust in and loyalty to Christ and also possibly
to God through Christ. If it is to be read as a ‘subjective genitive’, it would probably
primarily denote Christ’s current reliability and loyalty in his relationship to people, and
conceivably also to God. Various directions of πίστις between people, Christ and God
are possible in Galatians but the one most often clearly evidenced is between people
and Christ.

Keywords
Pistis, faith, trust, faithfulness, Galatians, Paul

Having mapped the development of the usage of πίστις through early Jewish
literature in Greek, culminating with the focus of πίστις on the Law, seen in texts

Corresponding author:
Peter Oakes, Department of Religions and Theology, Samuel Alexander Building, University of Manchester,
Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
Email: [email protected]
256 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40(3)

such as Ben Sira, Wisdom of Solomon and 4 Maccabees, Dieter Lührmann

concludes,

The horizon of understanding of the early Christian expression of ‘faith’ lies … in the
internal discourse of the Jewish tradition, not in confrontation with the pagan context
… It does not draw on a general religious-phenomenological category, nor on a
general anthropological phenomenon. Instead, the faith which has its ground in the
salvation brought through Jesus is proclaimed over against the Judaism determined by
Torah.1

At the level of detail, Teresa Morgan agrees with some of this, seeing the devel-
opment of πίστις language in Galatians as being affected by the context of Paul’s
struggle with a Torah-observant group who linked πίστις with the Law in a way
similar to the Jewish texts noted above.2 However, in more systemic terms, she
would see it as very wide of the mark. For Morgan, the NT texts, and even the
Jewish texts cited by Lührmann, are drawing on broader Greek usage.
Teresa Morgan’s ground-breaking study on πίστις and fides throws consider-
able ancient-historical weight and expertise behind the scholarly approach that
begins interpretation of Jewish or Christian texts in Greek by giving extensive
consideration to the linguistic and cultural context evidenced by other Greek
(and, in this case, also Latin) texts. For a term such as πίστις, the starting point is
the very large set of overall Greek usage, and the cultural practices encoded with
that term, rather than the much smaller set in, say, one or more New Testament
texts. Usage in the NT text is then seen as an instance of the wider Greek-
speaking culture; there can be development and innovation in the NT usage, but
it is developed from, and recognizable by people in, the Greek cultural base
(Morgan 2015: 4). So, in contrast with Lührmann’s conclusion, this approach
would say that, whether or not there was an Auseinandersetzung (‘confronta-
tion’) with the Greek context, the usage of πίστις in Paul’s letters should be seen
as culturally comprehensible within that context, irrespective of whether Paul
brings the term in because of his law-enthusiastic opponents. To put this in terms
of my own general approach to the NT: Paul’s πίστις language needed to make

1. ‘Der Verstehenshorizont für das frühchristliche Reden von »Glaube« liegt … in der internen
Sprache der jüdischen Tradition, nicht in der Auseinandersetzung mit der heidnischen Umwelt
… Es wird nicht auf eine allgemeine religionsphänomenologische Kategorie zurückgegriffen
auch nicht auf ein allgemeines anthropologisches Phänomen, sondern gegenüber dem von der
Tora bestimmten Judentum wird der Glaube verkündigt, der seinen Grund hat in dem durch
Jesus gebrachten Heil’ (Lührmann 1973: 38). All translations of texts are mine, unless other-
wise stated.
2. A review article of Teresa Morgan, Roman Faith and Christian Faith: Pistis and Fides in the
Early Roman Empire and Early Churches (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). See here
Morgan 2015: 273, 281.
Oakes 257

sense to the range of types of people in the Galatian house churches and, in fact,
the discourse of his opponents needed to make sense to those people too (Oakes
2015: 11-16).
There is notoriously a log-jam in the study of Paul’s idea of πίστις. The log-
jam coalesces around πίστις Χριστοῦ but involves a great deal of other theologi-
cal matter piled up behind the phrase. While many scholars think a consensus is
building for the meaning ‘faithfulness of Christ’ (e.g., Kugler 2016: 245), many
others see this translation as an aberration scarcely worth discussing, with ‘faith
in Christ’ clearly to be preferred (e.g., Schnelle 2003: 523). Several ‘third way’
scholars see neither position as entirely tenable.3 This article argues that Teresa
Morgan’s conclusions on the relationality of πίστις offer a compelling way for-
ward towards understanding the term, although I will suggest some modifications
to the expression of her conclusions. The study will then seek to use the idea of
relationality to ease the πίστις Χριστοῦ scholarly log-jam by refocusing discus-
sion onto issues other than the ‘subjective’/‘objective’ genitive debate. Instead,
as well as relationality, we will look at the action-reference of πίστις and the
time-frame of πίστις. In each of these there is, we shall see, a valuable element
of consensus among scholars even though these categories do pose sharp chal-
lenges to various scholarly expressions of position. The article will focus on
Galatians, which has been a key locus of this debate since Richard Hays’s, The
Faith of Jesus Christ (Hays 2002). A more complete account of πίστις in Paul’s
thought would clearly also need to include Romans and other texts. It would also
need to tackle more detailed grammatical issues and more issues about the argu-
mentative and thematic structure of Galatians. Many of these were approached
in my commentary on the letter (Oakes 2015: esp. 87-90).
The study will conclude, for Galatians:

•• that πίστις is relational;

•• that πίστις has an action reference that makes it something like ‘relational
way of life’;
•• that the time frame of πίστις is present: that πίστις primarily refers to a cur-
rent relationship rather than to a past event;
•• that most clearly attributable uses of πίστις probably include the idea of
people’s trust in Christ (and/or God through Christ);
•• that πίστις probably refers primarily to a way of life of current trust, loy-
alty and/or reliability between Christ and people (and God), whether the
focus is on the attitudes and actions of Christ (in the ‘subjective’ view) or
of people (in the ‘objective’ view) or both.

3. E.g., Schliesser 2016: 278; Sprinkle 2009: 182-84.

258 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40(3)

Galatians 5.22 and 3.6, 9 conceptually fit into the ideas above, but πίστις is
among people and between Abraham and God, respectively. In Abraham’s case,
his πίστις is a current relationship in his own time-frame, even though it is a past
event as narrated in Genesis and Galatians.

1. The Relationality of πίστις in the Septuagint and Other

Greek Sources
Πίστις has a considerable range of meanings. It can be an attribute of objects,
ideas or sentient beings. In Galatians it is always an attribute of beings. Even in
1.23, which speaks of proclaiming or destroying τὴν πίστιν, the πίστις is proba-
bly that of people. Even if it referred to a message or a system of beliefs,4 the
reason it would be called πίστις is probably because it was communally believed,
rather than because the ideas were something such as a ‘proof’. In any case, the
rest of the texts in Galatians refer to the πίστις of people or of Christ (viewed as
a person) or of God.
Morgan demonstrates that, across a range of Graeco-Roman Gentile and
Jewish corpora of sources, πίστις is a relational term. She previews her conclu-
sion: ‘We shall find pistis, fides and their cognates constantly treated as simulta-
neously cognitive and affective, active and relational’ (2015: 19). Pushing this
further, Morgan concludes that πίστις, ‘is, first and foremost, neither a body of
beliefs nor a function of the heart or mind, but a relationship which creates com-
munity’ (2015: 14). More specifically,

[P]istis, in linguistic terms, is an action nominal, encompassing both active and

passive meanings of its cognate verb (such that, for instance, both ‘trust’ and
‘trustworthiness’, ‘credit’ and ‘credibility’ are always implicated in it) … too … the
multivalency of pistis/fides language is constantly exploited wherever it is used …
(2015: 273)

If we take the Septuagint, probably the mostly sharply relevant corpus, and focus
specifically on the noun, πίστις (which is the lexical form mainly at issue in study
of Galatians), then we can see that the argument for a focus on relationality is
strong.
There are about 53 occurrences of πίστις in the singular. Of these, about 35 are
clearly as an attribute of people or their actions. At least three others are of God.
Several others could be of people or God, or may present πίστις as an abstract
virtue. One text refers to something written (Neh. 10.1) and a few refer to offices
(e.g., 1 Chron. 9.26).

4. On our preferred, relational reading, see below.

Oakes 259

In 1 Maccabees Demetrius writes to the Judaeans urging them συντηρῆσαι

πρὸς ἡμᾶς πίστιν (1 Macc. 10.27), ‘to keep πίστις towards us’. Πίστις here appears
to carry mainly the sense of ‘loyalty’. A more homely example (although with a
very self-interested edge) is Sir. 22.23

πίστιν κτῆσαι ἐν πτωχείᾳ μετὰ τοῦ πλησίον,

ἵνα ἐν τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς αὐτοῦ ὁμοῦ πλησθῇς·
ἐν καιρῷ θλίψεως διάμενε αὐτῷ,
ἵνα ἐν τῇ κληρονομίᾳ αὐτοῦ συγκληρονομήσῃς.

Gain the πίστις of your neighbor in his poverty,

so that you may rejoice with him in his prosperity.
Stand by him in time of distress,
so that you may share with him in his inheritance.5

The parallel between lines 1 and 3 indicates how the relationship is being built.
In ten other texts where the sense of πίστις is reasonably clear, the degree of clar-
ity comes from the πίστις being indicated as relational towards other people.6
Many of the 20 or so other texts that definitely refer to people’s πίστις are prob-
ably also relational towards other people, but that is not so clearly signalled.
The relationship can also be with God. The mother in 4 Maccabees showed
fortitude διὰ τὴν πρὸς θεὸν πίστιν (4 Macc. 15.24; also 17.2) and can be imagined
by the writer as having reminded her sons of Daniel and his companions, encour-
aging her sons to have τὴν αὐτὴν πίστιν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν (4 Macc. 16.22). This must
carry some sense of ‘the same trust in God’ as the Danielic group showed in the
face of lions and fire, but also appears to involve loyalty to God, since Daniel and
the others are brought into the argument because they ὑπέμειναν διὰ τὸν θεόν
(16.21), ‘endured on account of God’. In any case, the key point for our discus-
sion is that πίστις is being used to denote attitudes and actions in relationship
with God. Wisdom of Solomon 3.14 commends πίστις which is evidently towards
the Lord. Again, several of the other πίστις texts could also indicate relationship
to God. Conversely, in several texts it is God who displays πίστις. In Ps. Sol.
8.28, the psalmist says, ἡ πίστις σου μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν, ‘your πίστις is with us’. Also on
God’s relationship to people is the promise to Israel in Jer. 39.41 (MT 32.41),
ϕυτεύσω αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ γῇ ταύτῃ ἐν πίστει καὶ ἐν πάσῃ καρδίᾳ καὶ ἐν πάσῃ ψυχῇ, ‘I
shall plant them in this land with πίστις and with all heart and with all soul’.
God’s actions ἐν πίστει, commended in Ps. 32.4 (MT 33.4), are probably also in
relation to people since the stanza 32.4-5 ends with a reference to the earth and
God’s mercies.

5. Translation NRSV, adapted.

6. People’s loyalty, reliability or trust towards other people: 4 Kgdms (2 Kgs) 12.16; 22.7;
2 Chron. 31.15; 1 Macc. 14.35 (× 2); 3 Macc. 3.3; 5.31, 44; Sir. 27.16; Hos. 2.22.
260 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40(3)

Morgan’s histoire des mentalités approach (2015: 3, 33) means that her study
of the Septuagint is not so much a lexical study as a tracing of the cultural story
of the πίστις-relationship as it develops across the set of texts, from the dynamic
interaction between God and Abraham to the more distanced and static relation-
ship between people and God via the law (2015: 211), characteristic of the texts
cited by Lührmann, above. Morgan also carries her story using all forms of the
πιστ- word group, showing convincingly the fairly persistent overlaps in concep-
tual usage. However, all this does somewhat restrict the work’s potential impact
on the fraught and highly detailed current debate about πίστις in Galatians, in
which the usage of πιστεύω and of πιστός are relatively uncontroversial, but there
is sharp disagreement about how πίστις relates to either of them. However, the
more limited and detailed brief analysis above shows that drilling down into the
evidence can give strong support for a relational reading of πίστις. In the
Septuagint, where πίστις is used of people or God, and when the context of use
signals how the term is to be understood, it is consistently used of πίστις as an
element of relationship. Some texts signal πίστις as predominantly about trust,
some as about loyalty, some as about trustworthiness. Many probably combine
two or all of these, although Morgan does appear to be over-stating in saying that
the multivalency ‘is constantly exploited’ (2015: 273).
A limited caveat is needed here. There are some Greek texts that use πίστις of
people with reference to things said or allegedly done, rather than being used of
relationship with another being or beings. Dennis Lindsay gives the example
from Josephus, War 1.485 of the effect of a large number of informers presenting
themselves to Herod:

ὡς … εἰς πίστιν ὑπαχθῆναι τῶν λεγομένων καὶ δέος

so … that he was brought to belief in and fear about the things that were being said
(1993: 78, my translation).

For Lindsay, such Josephan usage is not pertinent to NT usage of πίστις in what
Lindsay calls a ‘religious sense’: he sees such usage in the NT as following the
Septuagint and not Josephus.7 The present article in effect queries Lindsay’s use
of his ‘religious’/‘profane’ distinction. However, we can argue that none of the
uses in Galatians of πίστις of beings falls into the kind of non-relational category
above. The most arguable case would be of Abraham (Gal. 3.6) because, in Gen.
15.6, Abraham’s ἐπίστευσεν may be trust in God’s speech, rather than trust in
God per se. However, Paul reads Abraham’s πίστις relationally, as can be seen in

7. Lindsay 1993: 188-89. A Septuagintal case that could possibly resemble these Josephan ones
is 3 Macc. 5.44, if the confidence of the friends and officers of Ptolemy Philopator is in the
expected unfolding of events, rather than in him.
Oakes 261

the linked characterization of him as πιστός (3.9) and in the link between his
πίστις and that of Christian Gentiles (3.7-9).

2. The Relationality of πίστις in Galatians

There would be broad agreement among current Pauline scholars that πίστις is a
relational term, even though, in some cases, this raises questions over where the
emphasis in the scholar’s approach lies.
Karl Friedrich Ulrichs sees relationship with Christ as crucial to Paul’s con-
cept of πίστις: ‘With πίστις Χριστοῦ Paul seeks to formulate, in justification con-
texts, the fellowship with Christ that is conceived of in a participatory way’.8
Zeba Crook draws on comparison with a range of Graeco-Roman and Jewish
patronage material to argue that πίστις is prominent in Paul’s thought because the
issue of loyalty was a key driver of actions in his world (Crook 2004: e.g., 213).
Crook, unlike Ulrichs, reads πίστις Χριστοῦ in ‘subjective genitive’ terms but still
does so in relational terms: ‘Christ remained loyal to God despite having to face
death’ (Crook 2004: 213-14).
Benjamin Schliesser suggests that, for the genitive in πίστις Χριστοῦ,

the category of ‘relational genitive’ (genitivus relationis) should … be considered. It

acknowledges both that faith relates to Christ, insofar as it only exists in relation to
Christ (‘Faith came with Christ’) and it establishes a relationship with Christ (‘We
come to faith’) (2016: 290).

The second of these takes Schliesser beyond just grammatical relationality to

actual relationality. This is in line with his view that πίστις for Paul has a ‘social-
communal (‘inter-subjective’)’ dimension (2016: 278).
However, there are limits to the prominence that many scholars give to ideas
of relationality in their handling of πίστις. For instance, Schliesser’s main stress
lies on the ‘apocalyptic-eschatological (‘trans-subjective’)’ dimension of faith:
faith as ‘eschatological event’ (2016: 277) and faith viewed in locative terms, as
a particular space.

Paul conceives of both πίστις and Χριστός in terms of spheres of influence which, for
him, represent the ‘real cosmos’ created by God at the fullness of time (2016: 283).

Christian existence, that is, ‘life in faith’ signifies participation in the ‘newly created
faith-place’, in the ‘space of life-giving power’ (Martyn 1997: 259) which was
established by God in the sending of his son.9

8. ‘Mit πίστις Χριστοῦ versucht Paulus in Rechtfertigungskontexten die partizipatorisch gedachte

Gemeinschaft mit Christus zu formulieren’ (Ulrichs 2007: 251).
9. Schliesser 2016: 286, citing Martyn 1997.
262 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40(3)

However, if relationship is central to πίστις, then ideas such as ‘spheres of

influence’ become only secondary explanations. On the other hand, Schliesser
draws attention to what he sees as the cosmological and eschatological charac-
teristics of πίστις in Galatians (2016: 283). He could argue that to make relation-
ship the central issue makes πίστις too small-scale, too individual and
consequently too closely linked to the sequence of events in a person’s life, in
contrast to the decisive eschatological events described especially in Gal.
3.23–4.5.
Morgan does not attempt an analysis of the above passage. However, her view
of πίστις is reasonable in eschatological terms because she sees a novel three-
layer πίστις relationship, between people, Christ and God, as having come about,
according to Galatians (2015: 272). This works well as something seen to have
arrived at the eschatological point of the Christ-event. Whether πίστις needs to
be on a cosmic scale to fit the rhetoric of Galatians depends on the extent to
which one sees the letter as operating in that way. My commentary takes a rela-
tively sceptical line on that, arguing that in 6.14, the cosmos being crucified ‘to
me’ (Paul) is not the same as saying that, objectively, the cosmos was killed, and
that even ‘new creation’ of 6.15 might be of people rather than of the world.10
Moreover, even though 6.11-18 is extremely valuable for understanding the set-
ting and aims of the letter, there are limits on how much those verses should
determine our reading of phraseology earlier in the letter. The Galatian hearer,
encountering the block of πίστις terminology in 2.16-20, appears much more
likely to take it relationally rather than cosmologically, given 1.1–2.15 (pace J.
Louis Martyn who reads considerable cosmological content in the early part of
the letter11). In any case, Morgan could argue that the arrival of a new people–
Christ–God relationship was an event on such a scale as to merit cosmological
language.
An advantage that Morgan’s prioritizing of a relational sense of πίστις has
over Schliesser’s prioritizing of a locative sense lies in her fundamental meth-
odological principle, set out in her introductory critique of Bultmann. She writes
that, in his radical understanding of πίστις,

he violates a basic principle of cultural historiography. New communities forming

themselves within an existing culture do not typically take language in common use
in the world around them and immediately assign to it radical new meanings. New
meanings may, and often do, evolve, but evolution takes time. This is all the more
likely to be the case where the new community is a missionary one. One does not
communicate effectively with potential converts by using language in a way which

10. Oakes 2015: 190, cf. Hubbard 2002: 133-232.

11. Martyn 1997: 98-99, 152. See also de Boer 2011: 75, 81-82. For my responses, see Oakes
2015: 45, 56-57.
Oakes 263

they will not understand. In its earliest years, therefore, we should not expect the
meaning of Christian pistis (or fides) language to be wholly sui generis. We should
expect those who use it to understand it within the range of meanings which are in
play in the world around them, and our study of it should be equally culturally
embedded (2015: 4).

Galatian hearers, who have seen πίστις language on epitaphs and heard it in sto-
ries and general conversation, are much more likely to think of it in terms of trust
and/or loyalty in a relationship than in terms of something such as Schliesser’s
‘sphere of influence’. A further argument that we can add from the text of
Galatians is that even though the ἐν Χριστῷ language of 2.17, etc., is, as Schliesser
argues, more likely to be quasi-spatial than instrumental, the complementary ἐν
ἐμοὶ Χριστός language of 2.20 should engender caution about whether spatial
concepts, even in ἐν Χριστῷ language, predominate over relational ones.
Returning to Ulrichs: he launches an argument against any purely ‘subjective
genitive’ view that loses the vital element of relationship between Christ and
people:

A soteriology conceptualised by exponents of the ‘subjective genitive’ for πίστις

Χριστοῦ runs the risk of a christological deficit, insofar as Christ is indeed thought of
as the bringer of faith, but becomes unnecessary, as soon as we have attained his ‘faith’.
For Paul, on the contrary, faith is thought of as a continuous in-Christ-relationship.12

For Paul, whether the relationship of Christ is with people or God or both, it
continues and is of continuing significance. We will return to the time reference
of πίστις Χριστοῦ below.
There is, paradoxically, a question-mark that the relationality of πίστις raises
over Ulrichs’s strongly relational reading. The quote with which we began the
section sees Paul as using πίστις Χριστοῦ to relate together two of three soterio-
logical models that Ulrichs considers Paul to be using, justification and participa-
tion, the third being the gift of spirit.13 He sees ‘in the linguistic unit πίστις
Χριστοῦ an integrating factor between the various soteriological models’.14 In his
summary he writes that with the use of it ‘Paul achieves a certain integration’ of
these models (2007: 254). Paul might indeed be achieving something like this by

12. ‘Eine von Vertretern des genitivus subiectivus bei πίστις Χριστοῦ entworfene Soteriologie
birgt die Gefahr eines christologischen Defizits, insofern Christus zwar als Bringer des
Glaubens gedacht wird, der aber entbehrlich wird, sobald wir seinen „Glauben“ erreicht
haben. Bei Paulus dagegen ist Glaube als eine kontinuierliche ἐν-Χριστῷ-Beziehung gedacht’
(Ulrichs 2007: 250).
13. Ulrichs 2007: 248. The English phraseology is from his summary, p. 254.
14. ‘[I]m Syntagma πίστις Χριστοῦ ein integrierendes Moment zwischen den verschiedenen sote-
riologischen Modellen’ (Ulrichs 2007: 251).
264 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40(3)

the way in which he combines πίστις Χριστοῦ with other terms. However, to say
that the expression itself is how this is achieved is probably to overload it and to
distract from the relational nature that Ulrichs rightly sees as central. The expres-
sion itself refers to the mode of action in the relationship: to some combination
of trust, loyalty and trustworthiness. It is the combination of πίστις Χριστοῦ with
other terms that conveys soteriology.

3. The Action-Reference of πίστις in Galatians

Morgan repeatedly states that πίστις is a relationship.15 However, πίστις was not
a term that denoted the state of being related, either in general or in a particular
way (although Sir. 22.23 comes quite close). In another mode, Morgan writes
that πίστις (when attributed to people) ‘is always … a virtue’ (2015: 76). This
does almost always appear to be true of the noun. In the Septuagint the only
exception is of the friends and officers of King Ptolemy Philopator, whose πίστις
in 3 Macc. 5.44 is misplaced confidence. The adjective πιστός is also generally a
virtue, but the verb πιστεύω is, in quite a number of cases, used of credulous
belief (e.g., Prov. 14.15) or in instructions not to believe (e.g., Sir. 19.15).
We might even be safe in saying that πίστις was the fundamental virtue of
relationship. Many ancient relationships lacked, for instance, love, but were
viewed as proper. However, the participants in a proper relationship were
expected to have πίστις. They were expected to act within the relationship faith-
fully (in the general sense, rather than the technical sense of monogamy, although
that was often involved). Πίστις as trust, loyalty and/or trustworthiness was a
virtue expected in every proper relationship. We can go further and say that
πίστις was not only the basic virtue in a relationship, it was also an essential
mechanism of relationship. It meant engagement in the deferral essential to rela-
tionship. A relationship is interaction over time. That is only possible with a
mechanism for deferring exchanges across time: trust and reliability provide
this.16
Although πίστις is a virtue, texts that describe someone as having πίστις are
actually describing something observable: they are effectively describing an
action or series of actions. In her epitaph, Ammia is πίστη.17 The thought is effec-
tively of a series of actions (or inaction such as chastity), a way of life. This
brings us back round to Morgan’s original definition because, in this sense, she
is right that πίστις is a relationship. It is a relationship in the sense that it refers to
an event or series of events that are the processes of the functioning of a

15. Morgan 2015: e.g., 260, 282.

16. Morgan 2015: 20-21, also discusses ‘deferral’ but this is a Derridean sense of the term and is
not the same as above.
17. Peek 1955: 64 nr 243; cited by Morgan 2015: 48 n. 52.
Oakes 265

r­ elationship. As Crook writes, ‘loyalty was an action’. It ‘could be accompanied

by feelings’ but it was ‘measured … externally’ (2004: 244).
The point of this discussion is to argue for a slight but significant distinction
from Morgan’s expression ‘pistis is a relationship’. In the sense that πίστις is
indeed a relationship, it is the mode of action in a relationship. Over a period of
time it is a relational way of life: a way of life of trust, loyalty and/or reliability.
Morgan does not in the least question the idea that πίστις has an action-reference.
The fact that it has such a reference, rather than being purely cognitive, is actu-
ally one of the main thrusts of her study: ‘We shall find pistis, fides, and their
cognates constantly treated as simultaneously cognitive and affective, active and
relational’ (Morgan 2015: 19).
However, moving from Morgan’s ‘πίστις is a relationship’ to ‘πίστις is a rela-
tional way of life’, making the action reference explicit, moves us closer to the
epigraphic and literary evidence. The texts praise the person’s loyalty, etc., rather
than the relationship itself. This move also builds further on the advances that
Morgan’s relational approach provides in making sense of the term’s use in
Galatians.
For Paul, πίστις is the relational way of life characteristic of the early house
churches. It is the way of life observable in the relationship between Christ and
his people. Sam Williams writes, ‘In the Jesus-movement, the way of living in
relationship with the God who justifies is pistis’ (1997: 65). Schliesser approv-
ingly quotes Francis Watson that faith includes ‘not just “belief” or “trust” in a
narrow sense, but the acceptance of a new way of life, with all the beliefs, ethical
norms and social reorientation which this entails’.18 Douglas Campbell sees
faith, for Paul, as ‘comprehensive, ethical, and ecclesial’ (2014: 39).
For Paul, πίστις Χριστοῦ is the new way of living that has appeared in the
world with the arrival of Christ (cf. Oakes 2015: 126). It is characterized by
people’s trust in and loyalty to Christ. Paul may also be thinking of it as char-
acterized by continuing acts of Christ done in loyalty to people: providing
strength and inspiration, working miracles (Gal. 3.5), interceding with God on
their behalf (cf. Rom. 8.34). Paul may also draw the picture wider and see
God providing these things through Christ and the action of the Spirit.
An instance of how ‘relational way of life’ can work as a reading of πίστις can
be seen if we consider Gal. 1.23. This is a text that causes considerable difficulty
to many interpreters, who struggle to find a meaning of ἡ πίστις which fits with
other uses of πίστις in the letter and which represents something that could be
‘proclaimed’ or ‘destroyed’.
Paul writes about the assemblies in Judaea:

18. Watson 1986: 78. Quoted in Schliesser 2007: 409.

266 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40(3)

μόνον δὲ ἀκούοντες ἦσαν ὅτι ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτε νῦν εὐαγγελίζεται τὴν πίστιν ἥν ποτε
ἐπόρθει.

Only, they were hearing, ‘The person who was previously persecuting us is now
proclaiming the πίστις he was previously destroying’.

Martin de Boer offers two linked alternatives for ἡ πίστις here. Comparison with
1.11 suggests ‘“the faith” appears to be a virtual synonym for “the gospel”’ (de
Boer 2011: 103). A parallel with 1.16 suggests ‘“the faith” in 1.23 may refer to
“the faith of the Son of God” (2.20) or “of [Jesus] Christ” (2.16), which would
mean that Paul is using the word “faith” in 1.23 as a metonym for the Son of God
or Christ, as he does in 3.23-26’ (de Boer 2011: 103).
Morgan argues that interpreting ἡ πίστις in 1.23 as ‘trust’, ‘belief’, ‘argument’
or ‘proof’ makes little sense (2015: 266). She also argues that taking it as a syno-
nym for τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, as she sees Michael Wolter as doing,19 as de Boer more-
or-less actually does, and as Preston Sprinkle definitely does (2009: 177-78),
represents an implausibly radical development from Graeco-Roman usage.
Morgan is correct that this is quite a distance from common Greek usage of
πίστις, although she may slightly overstate her case, given the use of expressions
such as Josephus’s praise of Moses as discoverer ‘of the most correct faith about
God’, τῆς δικαιοτάτης περὶ θεοῦ πίστεως.20
Morgan particularly sees the occurence of ἐπόρθει as supporting the relevance
here of her relational reading of pistis: ‘Porthein would be an odd word to use of
disputing a viewpoint or the content of a proclamation, but it could be used of
destroying a relationship’ (2015: 266). Morgan translates 1.23 (with her brack-
eted expanding paraphrase) as ‘the one who was persecuting us is now proclaim-
ing the relationship of trust [between God and human beings] which he once
tried to destroy’.21 For Morgan, what the text does here is that it ‘reifies … the
trust which the faithful practise towards God … into “the relationship of trust” or
“the bond of trust” between God, Christ, and the faithful’ (2015: 267). Both of de
Boer’s options do work well as something proclaimed, but neither seems to
directly fit with the danger of being destroyed. De Boer’s commentary simply
avoids discussing πορθεῖν, as do those of Martyn (1997: 177) and Hays (2002:
217). One could mount a defence by speaking of the gospel or Christ being in
some indirect sense ‘destroyed’ through the destruction of Christian communi-
ties. However, this would be rather indirect and would only work because of
πίστις being somewhat tied back into the faith of Christian communities. Πίστις

19. Morgan 2015: 266 n. 17, citing Wolter 2011: 74 = Wolter 2015: 72-73. But see further on
Wolter below.
20. Josephus, Against Apion 2.163, cited by Lindsay 1993: 89, with some further examples.
21. Morgan 2015: 266. Addition in square brackets is by Morgan.
Oakes 267

as ‘relational way of life’ works even better as a reading of 1.23 than does
Morgan’s ‘relationship’, in terms of fitting with Greek usage, making sense in
context and relating well to use of πίστις elsewhere in the letter. In 1.13, it was τὴν
ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ (‘the assembly of God’) that Paul ἐπόρθουν. The link that Paul
makes to this in 1.23, by his reference to his previous destructive action, suggests
that πίστις, in 1.23, is something of a metonym for the house churches of the early
Jesus movement. In fact, Wolter makes this very point, using the argument about
destruction (2015: 83; and actually only sees πίστις as metonymically linked to
the gospel, 2015: 72-73). The parallels to the proclaiming of ‘the gospel’ and
God’s son, in 1.11 and 1.16 respectively, do suggest a link between these and the
proclaiming of ἡ πίστις in 1.23, a point strengthened by Paul’s message or its
reception being characterized as ἀκοὴ πίστεως (‘hearing/message of faith’) in 3.2,
5. Morgan’s argument that 1.23 talks of proclaiming or destroying ‘the relation-
ship of trust [between God and human beings]’ fits all this reasonably well.
However, there is a better fit if πίστις in 1.23 is something like ‘way of life of trust
and loyalty between people and Christ’. This would both be easily metonymic for
‘the assembly of God’ and could also work metonymically for proclaiming the
gospel or proclaiming Christ, in that a key element of Paul’s practice in doing so
was offering and calling people to the life of the house churches, as a way of life
of loyalty to Christ (in which Christ also showed loyalty to them). Calling the
message or its reception ἀκοὴ πίστεως would fit with this.
On Gal. 2.16, Morgan writes,

Paul uses the language of pistis here … to capture his sense of the doubly reciprocal
relationship of Christ with God and humanity, his sense of the place of Christ in the
overarching relationship between God and humanity, and his sense of the quality of
Christ, his faithfulness, trustworthiness, and trustedness by God and human beings,
which makes his saving activity possible. (2015: 272)

This is much more in tune with general Greek usage than is a reading of πίστις
Χριστοῦ as purely cognitive belief in Christ. However, again, ‘relational way of
life’ is a better fit to the Graeco-Roman evidence than ‘relationship’. Morgan is
also drawing in so many directions of relationship (see below) that it makes the
sentence conceptually more complex than it was probably meant to be. Paul’s
argument reads more compellingly if we focus on one or two aspects of the rela-
tional way of life centred on Christ. For instance, ‘knowing that a person is not
considered righteous on the basis of works of the Law except through trust in and
loyalty to Jesus Christ’ or ‘except through the loyalty of Jesus Christ [to people]’
or ‘except through the life of reciprocal trust and loyalty between Jesus Christ
and people’. Πίστις could mean ‘trust’ or ‘loyalty’ or ‘reliability’ but could also
hold all of these together. Paul would effectively be saying that he and Peter
know that righteousness for Jews comes only through joining the Jesus-
268 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40(3)

movement, adopting the life of loyalty to Christ and/or of depending on his loy-
alty to them.
To fit into Paul’s argument in a way that is in line with normal Greek usage,
πίστις in Gal. 2.16 needs to be conveying something about trust, loyalty, faithful-
ness or reliability, or some combination of these. Even though Paul is indeed
precisely arguing, in effect, that being considered righteous depends on relation-
ship between people and Christ, or between Christ and God, or some combina-
tion of these,22 the πίστις part of this is not the relationship itself but the trust,
loyalty or reliability characteristic of that relationship.

4. ἐν Χριστῷ and the Time-Frame of πίστις in Galatians

Again, there is broad consensus on the principle of linking πίστις to the present.
There is wide agreement that δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ, in 2.16, is more-
or-less synonymous with δικαιωθῆναι ἐν Χριστῷ in 2.17. There is also agreement
that all this involves relationship in the present. For instance, John Barclay
writes,

As the following verses make clear, ‘to be considered righteous by faith in Christ’
(2:16) is ‘to be considered righteous in Christ’ (2:17): faith is the evidence that one’s
life is incorporated into the saving, transformative dynamic of the Christ-event, which
is nothing less than the death of the self (2:19) and the emergence of a new life more
properly described as ‘Christ in me’ (2:20) … ‘faith in Christ’ is not just an alternative
orientation or a different pattern of life: it is the mode of a new life, suspended from
an event that has created what is humanly impossible, life out of death (2:19-20).23

However, as with Schliesser and relationality, John Barclay and other writers
such as Richard Hays, while very much acknowledging the present reality of
πίστις in Galatians, in fact put what is probably a heavier weight on the past as
the main focus of πίστις. Barclay paraphrases 2.16a:

But we know (through conviction and experience) that a person (whether Gentile or
Jew) is not considered of worth (‘righteous’) by God through Torah-observance
(‘living Jewishly’), but through faith in (what God has done in) Christ.24

For Barclay, πίστις Χριστοῦ is primarily faith in the gift inherent in the past
Christ-event. Hays too sees 2.16 as primarily looking backwards. He ‘­ understands
pistis Iēsou Christou to mean “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” as manifested in
his self-sacrificial death’ (Hays 2002: 240).

22. As noted above, for Morgan it is all three levels at once (2015: 272).
23. Barclay 2015: 378-79, his emphasis.
24. Barclay 2015: 371, his parentheses.
Oakes 269

Each writer is fully committed to seeing these past events as creating a present
situation, about which Paul writes. However, for each of them, πίστις is primarily
oriented towards a past event. They do this to differing degrees: for Barclay,
πίστις is current faith in the effects of a past event; for Hays, πίστις is primarily
a past event of faithfulness: Christ’s death on the cross. In fact, I now realize that
I too gave πίστις an orientation to the past. My commentary on 2.16 includes
‘Like him [sc. Hays], I would construe 2.16 precisely as speaking about that
relationship of dependence on the cross (cf. 2.16 with 2.21…)’ (Oakes 2015: 88).
Morgan’s work makes such an orientation harder to maintain. Her emphasis
on the present relationality of πίστις reinforces the effect of the parallel with ἐν
Χριστῷ which drives πίστις in 2.16 firmly towards being an expression of current
relationship. Morgan herself probably remoulds subtly Hays’s ‘subjective geni-
tive’ approach, as well as then seeking to draw in ‘objective genitive’ readings in
a manner inspired by Morna Hooker.25 Morgan begins by describing the ‘subjec-
tive’ reading, characterizing it as ‘the faithfulness of Christ in his self-giving’
(2015: 270). This appears to be a pointing backwards to the cross. However, by
the time Morgan is summing up, her focus is on her thematic idea of πίστις as
essentially a current relationship:

Christ is … at the centre of a nexus of divine-human pistis. His pistis is simultaneously

his faithfulness or trustworthiness towards both God and humanity, and his trustedness
by both God and humanity.26

Common Greek usage and the parallel to ἐν Χριστῷ ought to push us towards
seeing πίστις, in 2.16 and elsewhere in Galatians, as probably being an expres-
sion of current trust, loyalty and/or reliability, all of these being towards another
being or beings. If it is Christ’s faithfulness to God or to people, it is probably
primarily current faithfulness. If it is people’s trust in and/or loyalty to Christ, it
is primarily expression of a relationship to the current Christ rather than trust in
a past event. Galatians 2.20 does then turn towards the past event of the cross:
Paul lives ἐν πίστει ‘which is of the son of God who loved me and gave himself
for me’. However, the πίστις in which Paul lives is the life in a current relation-
ship with the same Christ who also currently lives ἐν Paul. The Christ of 2.20 is
the present Christ, even though his love is attested by past events. Πίστις Χριστοῦ
primarily expresses current relationship and is only secondarily an orientation
toward a past event.
Πίστις as something currently in operation fits with its regular presentation in
Galatians as a factor in current life: δικαιοῦται … διὰ πίστεως (2.16); ἐν πίστει ζῶ
(2.20); οἱ ἐκ πίστεως … εἰσιν (3.7); ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοῖ (3.8); ἐκ πίστεως εὐλογοῦνται

25. Morgan 2015: 273, citing Hooker 1990: ch. 14. Now see also Hooker 2016.
26. Morgan 2015: 272. See also longer Morgan quote on this, above.
270 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40(3)

(3.9); ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται (3.11, ongoing); ἐλθούσης δὲ τῆς πίστεως οὐκέτι … ἐσμεν
(3.25; arrived and is now here, as a continuing entity); ἐστε διὰ τῆς πίστεως
(3.26); πνεύματι ἐκ πίστεως … ἀπεκδεχόμεθα (5.5); πίστις … ἐνεργουμένη (5.6);
τοὺς οἰκείους τῆς πίστεως (6.10). Galatians 5.6 is particularly compelling evi-
dence of currently operative πίστις. Galatians 6.10 is very suggestive of a com-
munity characterized by the way of life in current relationship with Christ: the
way of life of trust and loyalty directed towards, and possibly also implied to be
emanating from, him.27

5. Probable Relationship(s)
The quotes from Morgan, above, see πίστις Χριστοῦ in Gal. 2.16 as being ori-
ented in six directions: God to Christ and back, Christ to people and back, God
to people and back through Christ’s mediation. All these are directions in which
πίστις could be oriented. We are not bound by historic theological fears that
ascribing πίστις to Christ would compromise his high status. Morgan also dem-
onstrates that both directions of divine–human πίστις are quite possible in Greek
discourse, a point we have seen above in the Septuagint evidence. The question
is, what is the probability of any or all of the six directions being represented in
any given text in Galatians?
Many scholars have engaged this issue by use of grammatical arguments or by
appeal to usage in Christian texts from late antiquity. Readers will be split on the
cogency of the various arguments. Here we will focus on the extent to which
some of the texts in Galatians signal the presence or absence of one or more of
Morgan’s six directions of relationship.
In 1.23, the destructibility of πίστις implies that human πίστις is at least part
of what is implied. The parallel with the destruction of τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ
(1.13) somewhat favours the πίστις of 1.23 as being towards God. God is cer-
tainly involved in 2.7. God exercises trust towards Paul and Peter in handing
them responsibilities for the gospel. In 2.16, Christ is linked to πίστις three times.
At least the central one refers to human πίστις towards him, εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν
ἐπιστεύσαμεν. The πίστις Χριστοῦ references must also somehow involve πίστις
towards him, or exercised by him, even if, as Wolter and others argue, the geni-
tive is to be taken as a ‘genitive of quality’ (Wolter 2015: 76). In 2.20, Paul lives
ἐν πίστει, which is τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ. As Schliesser argues, this is primarily
locative (2016: 287). This implies involvement of Paul’s πίστις towards Christ,
or his towards Paul, or both, especially given its immediate proximity to Paul
asserting that Christ lives ἐν ἐμοί.

27. Cf. Morgan 2015: 267, on Gal. 6.10.

Oakes 271

It is not obvious which relationship is involved in the ἀκοὴ πίστεως of 3.2, 5.

However, the link to the giving of the Spirit (3.2) and the working of miracles (3.5)
could suggest that these provisions are acts of πίστις by God (or possibly Christ)
towards people. In 3.6, the ἐπίστευσεν is that of a person, Abraham, towards God.
The genetic link made between him in doing this and the Gentiles who are ἐκ
πίστεως (3.7, 8, 9) strongly suggests that the πίστις in those verses is theirs, pre-
sumably (although not certainly, given the similarity to 2.16) towards God, as
Abraham’s was; 3.9 returns to Abraham being πιστός, no doubt again towards God.
In 3.11, the person in the Hab. 2.4 citation either is righteous on the basis of
πίστις or lives on that basis. Usage of δῆλον ὅτι (and its compound equivalent
δήλονοτι) makes it now look highly probable that Gal. 3.11 should be read as
‘Because no one is considered righteous before God by means of law, it is clear
that “the righteous one will live on the basis of trust”’ or ‘“the one who is right-
eous on the basis of trust will live”’. In commentating, I expressed a preference
for the former, on the grounds of more common Greek word order.28 However, I
now suspect I was wrong. Galatians 3.11 begins by effectively citing Gal. 2.16c,
in which Paul reads Ps. 143.2 (142.2 LXX) as excluding the possibility of right-
eousness coming from works of law for ‘all flesh’. Galatians 3.11 then contrasts
a ‘no one’ with the figure in Hab. 2.4. ‘No one’ can be considered righteous ‘by
means of law’, so Hab. 2.4 must be correct in saying that a person who is right-
eous is ‘righteous on the basis of πίστις’.29 In any case, whichever term in the
Hab. 2.4 citation is linked by Paul to the πίστις, that person appears to be con-
trasted to the οὐδείς of 3.11a. All this means that the πίστις of 3.11 probably
includes that of a person towards Christ (following the link with 2.16) and pos-
sibly God (from the Habakkuk citation). If 2.16 also involves reciprocal πίστις of
Christ (and possibly God) to people, that could also be involved here too. The
πίστις in Gal. 3.14 is probably the same as in 3.7-9.
The five occurrences of πίστις, and one of πιστεύω, in Gal. 3.22-26, take us
into the eschatological issues. In 3.22, the ‘promise’ is given to the πιστεύουσιν
in connection with πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The implication is that these are not
‘believers’ in general but people whose πίστις is towards Christ or, possibly,
towards God through Christ. The πίστις under consideration in 3.23-26 is some-
thing that arrives at a certain point of time, undoubtedly a time associated in
some way with the arrival of Christ. Again, an implication of this is that the
πίστις is specifically πίστις involving Christ: either of people towards him or of

28. Oakes 2015: 110-11, including examples of use of δῆλον ὅτι (e.g., 4 Macc. 2.7) and δήλονοτι
(e.g., Apocryphon of Ezekiel 1.14 AT). See also de Boer 2011: 202-203 and further references
there.
29. Cf. Francis Watson’s argument for linking δίκαιος and πίστις in Paul’s Habakkuk citation,
although with a different reading of the overall structure of Gal. 3.11: Watson 2009: esp.
159-62.
272 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40(3)

him towards people and/or God or, conceivably, of a πίστις between people and
God that was newly brought about through the arrival of Christ. The passage also
makes a range of links back to 2.16 and 3.6-14. In particular, 3.26 reiterates the
two formulae in 3.14a, b: ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ … διὰ τῆς πίστεως. This links to the
Abrahamic blessing and the Spirit coming to the Gentiles and also reinforces the
links between πίστις language and being ἐν Χριστῷ that we saw in 2.16-17. One
upshot of the coordination between πίστις language and participation language in
2.16-17, 3.14 and 3.26 is that they must all involve people’s relatedness to Christ.
In Gal. 5.5, the current eager waiting of the house churches is on the basis of
πίστις. In 5.6, existence in Christ centres on πίστις δἰ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη, πίστις
working through love. Both the love and hence the πίστις are probably those of
people, with the πίστις presumably towards Christ, expressive of their participa-
tion in Christ. The same is probably true also of 5.5, especially since πίστις, both
as trust and loyalty, is a characteristic that fits well with the concept of eager wait-
ing. In 5.22, πίστις is presumably among people, given its apparently incidental
position in the list of fruit of the Spirit. In the expression τοὺς οἰκείους τῆς πίστεως
(6.10), as discussed above, the reference is probably to the community whose life
is characterized by trust in and loyalty to Christ, although it would also be possi-
ble for there to be an implication of a community that experienced what were seen
as acts of loyalty from the living Christ. The πίστις would undoubtedly also extend
to God, and that thought could be implied in the expression.
The πίστις of people towards either Christ or God or both occurs at least very
probably in 1.23, 2.20, 3.7, 8, 9, 11, 14 (by link with 3.7-9), 26 (by link with 3.14),
5.5, 6 and 6.10. Πίστις that involves Christ – directed towards him or by him to
others – occurs in 2.16, 20, 3.14, 22, 24, 26 and 5.6. The only texts that absolutely
exclude reference to certain directions of πίστις are those using the verbal or adjec-
tival form. In 2.7 God (or conceivably Christ) entrusts roles to people. In 2.16
Christian Jews trust in Christ. In 3.6 and 3.9 Abraham exercises πίστις towards
God. In 3.22 people believe in Christ (and possibly in God through Christ). Each
of these texts draws attention to a single direction of πίστις and not others. In con-
trast, although many of the noun πίστις texts may prioritize certain directions of
πίστις, none completely excludes the possibility of others. Morgan’s six-way nexus
of relationship between Christ, people and God is possible. However, the πίστις of
people towards Christ or God does have the strongest set of attestations in the let-
ter, which suggests that being the most probable element in any mix.

Conclusions
Teresa Morgan’s work on πίστις as relationship leads her to very inclusive con-
clusions: in being relational, πίστις is both cognitive and action-oriented; in
Galatians, πίστις, including πίστις Χριστοῦ, relationally encompasses ‘objective’
and ‘subjective’ readings. Ironically, opposition to exclusively one-sided
Oakes 273

readings of πίστις actually means opposing most scholars currently engaged in

the debate. However, there are also many scholars who favour Morna Hooker’s
inclusivism in reading πίστις Χριστοῦ and will welcome Morgan’s far more fully
worked out inclusivist reading of the expression.
There is a provisionality in the present article in that it considers neither Paul’s
other letters nor detailed grammatical or broader thematic factors within Galatians
(although many of these are considered in the commentary). However, the con-
cept of relationality does appear to offer a significant way forward in the study of
πίστις in Galatians. The present article, in exploring this, argues for a modification
of Morgan’s ‘πίστις is a relationship’ to ‘πίστις is a relational way of life’. It also
concludes that a relational reading of πίστις has rather more ‘bite’ to it than is
seen in Morgan’s reading of Galatians. The general run of Greek evidence sug-
gests that πίστις, whether among people or between people and deities, was seen
as way of life in a current relationship between beings that were viewed as cur-
rently existing: current trust, current loyalty, current trustworthiness. This read-
ing works well throughout Galatians but calls into question much of the past 40
years of scholarship, on both sides of the Atlantic, on πίστις in this letter.

References
Barclay, John M.G.
2015 Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Bird, Michael F. and Preston M. Sprinkle (eds.)
2009 Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies (Milton
Keynes: Paternoster; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
de Boer, Martinus
2011 Galatians: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox).
Campbell, Douglas
2014 ‘Participation and Faith in Paul’, in Michael J. Thate, Kevin J. Vanhoozer and
Constantine R. Campbell (eds.), ‘In Christ’ in Paul: Explorations in Paul’s The-
ology of Union and Participation (WUNT, 2.384; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck):
37-60.
Crook, Zeba A.
2004 Reconceptualising Conversion: Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion in the Reli-
gions of the Ancient Mediterranean (BZNW, 130; Berlin: de Gruyter).
Hays, Richard B.
2002 The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11 (2nd
edn; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Hooker, Morna D.
1990 From Adam to Christ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
2016 ‘Another Look at πίστις Χριστοῦ’, SJT 69.1: 46-62.
274 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40(3)

Hubbard, Moyer V.
2002 New Creation in Paul’s Letters and Thought (SNTSMS, 119; Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press).
Kugler, Chris
2016 ‘ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ: The Current State of Play and the Key Arguments’, CBR
14.2: 244-55.
Lindsay, Dennis R.
1993 Josephus and Faith: Πίστις and Πιστεύειν as Faith Terminology in the Writings
of Flavius Josephus and in the New Testament (AGAJU, 19; Leiden: Brill).
Lührmann, D.
1973 ‘Pistis in Judentum’, ZNW 64: 19-38.
Martyn, J. Louis
1997 Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 33A;
New York: Doubleday).
Morgan, Teresa
2015 Roman Faith and Christian Faith: Pistis and Fides in the Early Roman Empire
and Early Churches (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Oakes, Peter
2015 Galatians (Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic).
Peek, W.
1955 Griechische Vers-Inschriften. I. Grab-Epigramme (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag).
Schliesser, Benjamin
2007 Abraham’s Faith in Romans 4 (WUNT, 2.224; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
2016 ‘“Christ-Faith” as an Eschatological Event (Galatians 3.23-26): A “Third View”
on Πίστις Χριστοῦ’, JSNT 38.3: 277-300.
Schnelle, Udo
2003 Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology (trans. M. Eugene Boring; Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Academic).
Sprinkle, Preston M.
2009 ‘Πίστις Χριστοῦ as an Eschatological Event’, in Bird and Sprinkle 2009: 165-84.
Ulrichs, Karl Friedrich
2007 Christusglaube: Studien zum Syntagma pistis Christou und zum paulinischen
Verständnis von Glaube und Rechtfertigung (WUNT, 2.227; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck).
Watson, Francis
1986 Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach (SNTSMS, 56; Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press).
2009 ‘By Faith (of Christ): An Exegetical Dilemma and its Scriptural Solution’, in Bird
and Sprinkle 2009: 147-63.
Oakes 275

Williams, Sam K.
1997 Galatians (ANTC; Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press).
Wolter, Michael
2011 Paulus: Ein Grundriss seiner Theologie (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Ver-
lag).
2015 Paul: An Outline of his Theology, translation of Wolter 2011 by R.L. Brawley
(Waco, TX: Baylor University Press).