Comments on the Genitive Pisti” Cristou

Tolstad has written an article regarding the preferred reading of the genitive phrase pistis
cristou. In short, his article defends the subjective reading as opposed to the objective
reading.

The author of this paper differs with Tolstad on a few significant foundational points and,
consequently, sees little strength in his conclusions. This paper is an examination of those
foundational points.

First we will consider the message of Habakkuk 2:4 and its relation to the New Testament
use of ‘pistis Cristou’.

Then we will consider what appears to be a not-so-subtle slight against the executive
judgment of the wicked in Tolstad’s paper.

Finally we will look at the overall relation of Tolstad’s paper to Luther’s preaching on
righteousness by faith.

Concluding remarks will draw a line, as it were, in the sand on the beach of exegetical
study. Several suppositions common to modern exegesis demand critique. This article
provides a case study for such criticism.

Habakkuk 1-2:4

The message of the prophet Habakkuk has engaged Adventists for more than 150 years.
The very introduction to his book challenges God on the basis of his neglect of executive
judgment. Why, he asks, do you not hear my prayers for justice? Why do you show me
wickedness and oppression while you neglect to curb it? (v. 1-3) Your refusal to stop the
wicked men results in their unjust sentences against the faithful. (v. 4).

In verses 5-11 God answers. In short, He promises that judgments on the wicked are
forthcoming through the vicious attacks of the rising Babylonians.

But Habakkuk does not rest his case. While he is certain that the Babylonians themselves
were ordained to chastise, not obliterate, the chosen nation (v. 12) he still has questions.

How can God look on the ongoing evil without putting an end to it? (v. 13) Doesn’t God
see that men are being treated like beasts, to be taken, destroyed, discarded, and others to
be taken besides them (v. 14-17)?

In this sequence of thoughts Habakkuk parallels the prophet Asaph in Psalm 73.

“For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. . . .Their eyes
stand out with fatness: they have more than heart could wish. . . . And they say, How
doth God know? and is there knowledge in the most High? Behold, these are the
 ungodly, who prosper in the world; they increase in riches. [In contrast] Verily I have
cleansed my heart in vain . . . For all the day long have I been plagued, and chastened
every morning. If [I talk about this problem to other believers] behold, I should
offend against the generation of thy children. When I thought to know this, it was too
painful for me. [That is,] Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I
their end.” Verses 3-17 selected.

Habakkuk and Asaph questioned God regarding the same problem. To Asaph God
answered with a message from the sanctuary that had eschatological information.
Adventists should recognize Asaph’s allusion to the judgment of the Day of Atonement.
That is the message visible in ‘the sanctuary of God’ that would show coming justice in
‘their end.’

Habakkuk asking God virtually the same question might be expected to receive a similar
answer. Like Asaph he felt uncomfortable with his questions. After making his case he
took the position of a listener open for reproof. In doing this he modeled what Jesus
expected of us when he asked us to ‘watch’.

Said the prophet “I will stand upon my watch and set me in the [watch] tower and will
wait to see what the Lord will say to me and what I shall answer when I am reproved.”
Hab. 2:1.

God’s answer was nearly enigmatic. “Write the vision and make it plain upon tables.”
What vision? Where is there a vision that lends itself to ‘tables’ and provides an answer
to Habakkuk’s question? His question regards judgment. The recent prophecies, in
Habakkuk’s chronological perspective, of Daniel 7 are just on topic. Asaph, paralleling
Habakkuk, made inquiry into the sanctuary. Where might one find a prophecy that lends
itself to ‘tables’ and involves the sanctuary? Certainly, in Daniel 8.

Why was Habakkuk to ‘write the vision’? “So that he may run that readeth it.” In Daniel
12 we find that those that understand the vision will “run to and fro” up and down the
length of the scroll of Daniel.

The vision that Habakkuk was to write was to be ‘yet for an appointed time.’ This
certainly matches what we would expect for Daniel 8. It was to be understood, ‘to speak’
at the time of the end. Again, this points to Daniel’s prophecy that was to ‘stand in its lot
at the end of the days.”

And it was to appear to tarry. Hearers were to ‘wait for it.’ Again, an apparent reference
to Daniel 12 and Revelation 10 where men blessed in waiting for the 45 years following
the time of the end were to preach again after a bitter experience.

And it would be seen that it truly had not tarried. The judgment expected to cleanse the
earth would be rather cleansing the heavens. And this is the immediate context of the
passage we are looking at in this paper, namely:
 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.
Habakkuk 2:4

Toldstad misses the connections of the first three verses of the chapter to the Advent
movement. This leads him to follow others in the fault of reading “Jesus” in the pronoun
‘his’ in the phrase “his faith.”

But the statement is rather a timely encouragement and warning to the world hearing the
judgment-hour message. The tarrying would tempt many to scoff. These would not be the
‘upright.’ The chosen ones would be discovered by their choice to live by every word that
proceeds from the mouth of God, even in the midst of a most troubling spiritual crisis.

Like other passages written for the end of the world, this passage has had value for all
ages. In every age it has been true that the arrogant soul is judgment bound and that the
still-trusting soul is counted righteous.

How is this passage used in the New Testament? Here are the three paragraphs that make
use of it in a direct citation:

For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the
promise. For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. Now
the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in
him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the
saving of the soul. Hebrews 10:36-39

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to
every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the
righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by
faith. Romans 1:16-17

Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And
the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before
the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be
of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. For as many as are of the works of the law are
under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things
which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law
in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith:
but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Galatians 3:7-12

Tolstad neglects to use the first of these passages in his paper. Yet, this is the passage that
most closely parallels Habakkuk 2 in thought. It is our best hope for finding how Paul,
superintended by the Holy Spirit, understood the Old Testament passage.

In Hebrews 10 he follows the same line of argument as that used in Habakkuk. He

mentions the oppression of the righteous by the wicked and God’s promise to bring
vengeance. (v. 31-35). Then he proceeds to the timing of the promised blessing. It was to
appear to ‘tarry’ for they were not to cast away ‘their confidence.’ Yet, it ‘would not
tarry.’ And what promise was to come at the appointed time? The ‘coming’ (v. 37).
Who would be blessed at the coming? Not those that ‘draw back’ but those that continue
to live by faith. The passage describes the Advent movement in terms that have blessed
every age. And the Hebrews passage clearly favors the ‘genitive reading’ view that the
‘faith’ is that of the believer rather than that of God.

Neither of the two passages that Toldstad does make repeated reference to offer more
support to his conclusion.

In Romans 1 the phrase is introduced with a statement of God’s power to save both Jew
and Gentile, but the Jew’s ‘first.’ Other passages explain that the gospel was given first to
the Jews and, consequently, they believed first.

This passage comments that God’s righteousness is revealed. The question in Tolstad’s
paper is whether it is God’s faithfulness in judging that is revealed (his view) or God’s
imputed righteousness to the believing man. Surely the answer is in the phrase ‘the
righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith.’

“From faith to faith,” that is, growing faith. It is not God’s faithfulness, here, that is
growing or God’s glory, in 2 Cor. 3:18, that is growing. It is the faith and the glory of the
believer. And so Paul follows with ‘the just shall live by faith.’

How can I be sure that it is in the believer that the righteousness of God is revealed “from
faith to faith”? Because of verse 19. “For that which may be known of God is manifest in
them.” Unbelieving knowers of truth merit God’s wrath because the righteousness of God
should be revealed through them.

The third passage, in Galatians, gives men to understand at the outset that men of faith
are children of Abraham (v. 7, 9). This was foreseen by ‘the scripture.’ (v. 8). Some try to
acquire righteousness by their works. But their first sin doomed them to failure, for no
after obedience can atone for it. (v. 10). This is the backdrop to verse 11 where we read
‘The just shall live by faith.’ Verse 12 is a restatement that the men can’t live by their
obedience to the commands. Implicit is the truth that men of faith must live by their faith.

Other passages that seem to parallel Habakkuk 2:4 in thought are equally clear that while
the justification comes from God, the determining issue for “who” is justified is “who has
faith?” And he that is not upright is he that ‘is lifted up.’
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the
Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Luke 18:14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for
every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be
exalted.

In short, Hebrews and Habakkuk are clear. They tell of the Advent movement. They
illustrate the righteousness God has imputed to true believers in the face of the judgment.
They lend no support to the idea that pistis Cristou refers to Christ’s faithfulness rather
than to ‘faith in Christ.’
The Executive Judgment

Tolstad does not clearly state his views on the nature of the executive judgment. But he
says enough to catch the attention of those sharing the views of Graham Maxwell. On
page 57 (page 21 of the PDF file sent to me) he refers to Revelation as ‘starkly symbolic.’
Then he refers to the passage of Revelation 20:1-10 where, according to him ‘Satan’
suffers a ‘self-inflicted demise.’ The reader may want to read the passage himself and
discover how self-inflicted the demise is. Self-deserved? Yes. Self-invited? Yes. Self-
caused? Yes. But self-inflicted? Absolutely not.

Yet this has been the direction that an erring segment of Adventism has been going. Here
I speak of them in general and not of Tolstad in particular. He does not clarify his views
and may not share those of the larger body of symbolic-fire preachers.

But his views lend themselves to the needs of that camp. If God has been faithful to all,
and that already; if the cross did its work of revealing God’s mercy and was unneeded as
a substitutionary payment of our death-penalty, then an executive judgment seems obtuse
to many. It is not within the scope of this brief reply to show how unbelieving this
doctrine truly is. But the reader should beware that men giving credence to it have a poor
hermeneutic. The sayings of men about the sayings of God, and not the sayings of God
about the same, are the source of their sparks of light.

Luther on Righteousness by Faith

The reader of Tolstad’s paper comes away with a distinct impression that Luther’s
interpretation of pistis Cristou was poor scholarship. On page 38 (page 2 of the PDF
document) the case is introduced. Kettle, the foreman in theological history presenting
Tolstad’s views, is presented as being aware of several things.

He knew that Luther’s view of the controverted passages was the ‘keystone of the gospel
at Martin Luther saw it.’ Kettle knew that Luther’s views were ‘axiomatic’ to the
Protestant views of righteousness by faith. Kettle saw that Luther’s understanding of
these passages had been a ‘personal breakthrough’ for the Reformer that had changed the
thinking of the ‘segment of the church’ of which he was the leading reformer.

On page 39 (p. 3 PDF) Tolstad cites Luther as holding the opinion that faith “was the
God-given stance of the believer by which he appropriated the righteousness that would
be the basis of his acquittal.” Tolstad may not be aware of Ellen White’s affirmation of
Luther's position on this point.

"By living faith will you not grasp the promises of God, and appropriate Christ's
righteousness, and find the light of heaven shining in your life? You are to bring
Christ into your every thought and action. . . .Are you ready to accept the
promises of God, and to make them your own by living faith in his immutable
word? You should walk by faith, not by feeling. We do not want a sensational
 religion; but we want a religion founded on intelligent faith. This faith plants its
feet on the eternal rock of God's word. Those who walk by faith are all the time
seeking for perfection of character by constant obedience to Christ."(RH,
1889.4.9)1

This is only one of scores of similar faith-appropriates-Christ’s-righteousness statements.

And on the same page Tolstad makes a harsh judgment on the God-fearing Reformer. He
writes “There is little doubt today that Luther reached his conclusion as much on the
strength of an overarching theological vision as on the basis of strict exegesis.” While the
statement may be technically accurate, for it simply states the current view of academia,
the nature of the paragraph is to concur with that general opinion.

And the opinion is groundless. Martin Luther was a careful Biblical student. He was not
alone in his reading of the text, but was followed by the leading men of God in the
French and English languages (all the chief men of which read Greek well enough to
publish their own translations of Erasmus’ text. I think of Lefevre, Zwingle and Tyndale.)

But Martin Luther did not trust to the strength of academic researches. His view included
the Biblical model that only Spirit-led Christians can hope for the miracle of
understanding as a reward to their research. He followed the Biblical hermeneutic of
comparing scripture with scripture. This method is often belittled as ‘prooftexting’ by
those who honor the god of consensus.

Tolstad, in the 9th footnote, presents Luther’s ‘understanding’ of the gospel as the cause of
his rejection of James and Revelation as legitimate pieces of Inspiration. In the context of
the article the implication is that had Luther understood pistis Cristou as Hays, Tolstad,
etc., that he might have included these books.

But if this was implied, as it has been inferred, it has been done wrongly. James offers
great support for the ‘faith-of-the-believer’ view.

Methods

But the more important issue is that of interpretative methods. Tolstad points out the
accepted tools today. They are, he says, “lexical, semantic, and exegetical” tools. Here is
the crux of the matter. Lexicons, dictionaries, are written by men. Semantics is the study
of the meaning of words. Exegesis, in this context, is the fishing for meaning from the
words chosen by an author, from the expressions enlisted.

In short, these three methods have one thing in common. They search for the human in
the Word of God and use it to define the Divine. A more backward method for finding
God’s intended meaning one could hardly design.

1
The sentence omitted (indicated by the ellipsis) is gospel truth of a highly controversial nature. I
concluded that it would distract from the paper. But you will want to look it up and read it yourself.
When God moves a prophet to write, the prophet is given an idea. He is not the only
prophet to be given the idea. Nor is his idea intended by God to stand alone as its own
expositor. The prophet chooses words to express the idea. But words are weak and
variable. They have different meanings to different men. The author may not choose the
best word—indeed, may not even have the best word in his speaking vocabulary. He does
his best.

What does the modern exegete do? If versed in spiritual truth he would search for the
works of other prophets that spoke on the same topic. He would pray earnestly and put
away his sin. He would “avoid” teachers and philosophers that argued contrary to the
doctrines of the Bible. (Romans 16:17-18). He would build from the simple reading of
the least obscure passages and allow them to interpret the more obscure.

But our hypothetical exegete is not so versed. Instead, he begins by reading the doctors.
What is the status of the scholarly debate? Who can he cite to show that he is widely read
and that he has considered both sides of the question? Though the apostle forbade him to
let religious arguments descend to the lexiconal level (2 Tim. 2:14), he plows straight to
that point.2

He uses his lexicon to find the meaning of the original words. He forgets that words are
malleable. More than this, if the ten scholars that oversaw the translation of his passage
use a different word than that preferred by the three scholars that put together the lexicon,
he takes the three as more trustworthy in most cases. And this he does despite the fact that
the ten scholars had the benefit of context in their work—and the lexicographer (writing a
dictionary referring to scripture as a whole) could not.

He studies argument and counterargument and becomes, rather than a man that knows his
Bible, a man that knows his theologians. His method gives erring humans the privilege of
doing his thinking and studying for him. God does not guide him in this process for ‘the
world by wisdom knew not God.’

God does not share his glory with those that honor men. The god of scholarly consensus
must needs change her view every fifty or sixty years to allow the latest and greatest
scholars to make a name for themselves. The God of heaven needs no such regularity in
reversing positions.

It is on page 47 (11 PDF) that Tolstad declares plainly that the modern “scholarly
climate” will not likely emulate Luther and the other Protestant reformers. He declares
that anyone “contemplating change” is the established theological views of our time will
have to use a different method than they, the “thorny road of exegesis.” Again the
impression is left that the Reformers were children that manipulated texts to fit their
theological agenda. And what gave them such power?

2
A positive is in order here. Tolstad’s article speaks ill of using etymology to determine meaning of words.
Good for him. He faults several studies that do. Shame on them. And still, this is a favorite practice of
‘exegetes.’
Such power. It was the Word of God that enlivened the great men of the 16th century and
the pioneers in the Advent movement. It is a general ignorance of it that dims Bible
scholars today.

This section offers no real evidence against Tolstad’s views on pistis cristou. Rather it
highlights general weaknesses in ‘scholarly’ methods and it repudiates the suggested idea
that Protestant theology of justification was built on a ship-shod reading of the Greek
text. There are many theologians who have a vested interest in affirming the
Protestantism-was-ship-shod theory.

We should perk up our ears in concern when an article on the interpretation of a New
Testament passage makes more than a dozen negative references to Luther and
Protestantism and not one positive.

Concluding Remarks

The faith of the believer in the unerring Word of God is the basis of justification. Romans
4 explains that God counted Abraham’s faith ‘for righteousness’ and will do the same for
us if ‘we believe.’

Tolstad has followed cunningly devised fables. He has missed the connection between
Habakkuk 2 and Hebrews 10. He has belittled the greater scholars of the 16th century
while imitating the weakest of them in the 21st.

If he is right in Romans and Galatians, it is for reasons not well represented in the paper
he wrote.

Eugene Prewitt
January 1, 2005