“From Faith” (Rom. 1:17)

Douglas A. Campbell argues forcefully for interpreting the phrase ek pisteos (from faith) in Romans 1:17 as a reference to the faithfulness of Christ in his obedience to death. This, in turn, suggests strongly that Paul’s later use of pistis Christou (faith of Christ) as Christ’s own faithfulness rather than our human faith in Jesus. Several of Campbell’s arguments are worth noting:

1) He argues that the phrase ek pisteos is controlled by the use of the phrase in Habakkuk 2:4, and in fact serves as something of a sloganized allusion to that passage. The prepositional phrase occurs 21 times in Paul, but only occurs in the two letters (Romans and Galatians) that employ Hab 2:4 as a proof text.

2) He opposes two models of reading apokaluptetai in Rom 1:17a, the “traditional anthropocentric reading” that suggests that the righteousness of God is not really what needs to be disclosed, but “what requires disclosure is the gospel’s offer of salvation to individuals.” This reading weakens the en auto (in it) to a colorless adjectival phrase. On the alternative reading, the “cosmic eschatological reading,” the gospel’s content is the narrative that reveals and discloses the reality of God’s righteousness. Not only does the second reading give a stronger and more plausible force to the en auto , but it also fits with Paul’s use of apokalupto elsewhere. Paul normally uses the verb “to describe cosmic eschatological disclosures and, in particular, the primary eschatological disclosure that is the gospel.”

3) Once Campbell has decided in favor of the “cosmic eschatological” interpretation of Rom 1:17a, then the meaning of the ek pisteos is decided. If the gospel discloses the eschatological salvation of God, that cannot be in any way dependent on the faith of individuals. He is thus left with two possible interpretations of ek pisteos : “from the faith/fulness of God” (the theocentric view) and “from the faith/fulness of Christ” (the christological interpretation). He offers several arguments against the theocentric view, the strongest of which are: a) Paul adopted a reading of Hab 2:4 that is unattested elsewhere; specifically, he drops the mou from the phrase ek pisteos ; had he wanted to speak of the faith/fulness of God, that is hard to explain. b) Assuming that the use of ek pisteos in 1:17 sets the pattern for Paul’s usage elsewhere in Romans, it is evident that a theocentric interpretation does not work elsewhere.

4) He concludes that 1:17 should be understood as follows: “The eschatological saving righteousness of God is being revealed in the gospel by means of faithfulness (namely, the faithfulness of Christ), with the goal of faith/fulness (in the Christian).”

5) He also argues that ek pisteos must have the same christological sense in the quotation from Hab 2, since the prophet is quoted to support Paul’s point. To suggest that Paul shifts the meaning of a key phrase in a half verse is to make Paul incoherent.

I’m not sure if I agree with all this, but there is much food for thought.