Thread: pistis christou, subjective or objective? Poll

Is it speaking about Christ's faith/faithfulness (subjective) or "faith in Christ" (objective).

Example (KJV):

Galatians 2:16: Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Relevent texts:

Rom. 3:22, 26
Gal. 2:16; 3:22
Eph. 3:12
Phil 3:9

Though I don't think you'll find much diversity on the PB with this question, keep in mind that some advocate a different meaning in different contexts; thus, In Galatians 2 a person will give an objective rendering, but will give in a subjective rendering in Romans 3.

I actually wrote a long boring paper on this in Advanced Greek Exegesis class while at seminary (specifically looking at Philippians 3:9). I think I leaned (at that time) to a subjective genitive intepretation, but that was really before the rise of the justification controversies, so I'm not sure I would even tiptoe near that area if I were to revisit the subject.

I do think, however, it is important that we do stress Christ's "faithfulness," even if that is not the thrust of these specific passages. That is, our Lord's active obedience cannot be separated from the doctrine of justification, since our right standing before God finds its basis in His perfect righteousness. In that sense (and I would dare to say that sense alone) we might look favorably upon Christ's "faithfulness" as being appropriate. Nevertheless, we must affirm that we need an alien righteousness (a righteousness that is not our own, but is and comes from God and is based on faith in Christ, as Paul maintains in Phil. 3:9).

The trouble with the subjective genitive is that I think I can see how someone could take such an approach and run with it, perhaps even coming up with a form of universalism in the process (as is, we are all justified w/o exception because of Christ's faithfulness). As a side note, I remember while writing the paper that one of the sources I used (pro subjective gen.) was by Markus Barth, Karl's son.

One of my Greek profs did one of his theses, or it may have been a dissertation on this. I'll have to check my files to see if it can be posted. If I recall correctly it was when he was at Cambridge.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

I actually wrote a long boring paper on this in Advanced Greek Exegesis class while at seminary (specifically looking at Philippians 3:9). I think I leaned (at that time) to a subjective genitive intepretation, but that was really before the rise of the justification controversies, so I'm not sure I would even tiptoe near that area if I were to revisit the subject.

I do think, however, it is important that we do stress Christ's "faithfulness," even if that is not the thrust of these specific passages. That is, our Lord's active obedience cannot be separated from the doctrine of justification, since our right standing before God finds its basis in His perfect righteousness. In that sense (and I would dare to say that sense alone) we might look favorably upon Christ's "faithfulness" as being appropriate. Nevertheless, we must affirm that we need an alien righteousness (a righteousness that is not our own, but is and comes from God and is based on faith in Christ, as Paul maintains in Phil. 3:9).

The trouble with the subjective genitive is that I think I can see how someone could take such an approach and run with it, perhaps even coming up with a form of universalism in the process (as is, we are all justified w/o exception because of Christ's faithfulness). As a side note, I remember while writing the paper that one of the sources I used (pro subjective gen.) was by Markus Barth, Karl's son.

Part of my positive influence for the subjective came from Peter T. O'Brien in his NIGTC commentary on Philippians. I can't be conclusive on this, but I also think Daniel Wallace favors the subjective in his Greek syntax work GGBB.

I can see the danger of universalism, and the same argument is made from Rom. 5:18-19. However, on the flip side, I think there is an equally large danger of thinking of "faith" as the effective cause of justification rather than Christ. I think we have lost the objectivity of justification when its always viewed as by "faith in Christ." Any ambiguity of what it means to be "justified by Faith in Christ" could be solved, imo, by understanding better what it is to be justified by the "faith of Christ."

It's interesting, in light of the AV, that the NKJV translates it "in." I chose subjective because I percieve this as refering to imputation. Verse 17 influences this as well.

Galatians 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not!

Originally Posted by Hilasmos

Part of my positive influence for the subjective came from Peter T. O'Brien in his NIGTC commentary on Philippians. I can't be conclusive on this, but I also think Daniel Wallace favors the subjective in his Greek syntax work GGBB.

I can see the danger of universalism, and the same argument is made from Rom. 5:18-19. However, on the flip side, I think there is an equally large danger of thinking of "faith" as the effective cause of justification rather than Christ. I think we have lost the objectivity of justification when its always viewed as by "faith in Christ." Any ambiguity of what it means to be "justified by Faith in Christ" could be solved, imo, by understanding better what it is to be justified by the "faith of Christ."

I believe you are correct about both O'Brien and Wallace. I believe I used both of those as sources for the paper I wrote. I could probably manage to send you a copy if you are interested. PM me your email address or email me at tjparp AT gmail DOT com.

And I would tend to agree with your assessment in your second paragraph as well.

It seems to be the view of Westminster that the AV has it correct.

Gal 2:16 is used as a proof test for WCF Chapter 11:1

Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

Gal 2:16 is also used as a proof text for WLC Q 70

Q. 70. What is justification?

A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.

Robert Shaw from "The Reformed Faith"

Arminians maintain that faith itself, or the act of believing, is accepted as our justifying righteousness. In opposition to this our Confession teaches, that God does not justify us "by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, as our righteousness." And in confirmation of this, we observe, that faith, as an act performed by us, is as much a work of obedience to the law as any other; and, therefore, to be justified by the act of faith, would be to be justified by a work. But this is contrary to the express declarations of Scripture, which exclude all sorts of works from the affair of justification.—Gal. ii. 16. Besides, faith is plainly distinguished from that righteousness by which we are justified. We read of "the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ;" and of "the righteousness which is of God by faith." - Rom. iii. 22; Phil. iii. 9. No language could more clearly show that righteousness and faith are two different things. "Nothing," says Mr Haldane, "can be a greater corruption of the truth than to represent faith itself as accepted instead of righteousness, or to be the righteousness that saves the sinner. Faith is not righteousness. Righteousness is the fulfilling of the law."

We are not justified by our faith. We are justified by Christ's righteousness.

Since the genitive can support either, it would therefore rely on the context. I'm not sure it would be the same sense in all places. Your poll seems to assume it must be taken the same way all the time.

I'm surprised that this came up on something like PB. My understanding is that the Reformed faith has always held to an objective view. This is an issue in the NPP and (I believe) FV. Wallace's argument is based on some shaky statistics. A full argument for the objective view can be found in Stephen Westerholm's Perspectives Old and New on Paul.



Galatians 3:22-26 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Try going back through this passage replacing "faith" with "faithfulness", then fit that into the discussion of works vs faith.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

I'm surprised that this came up on something like PB. My understanding is that the Reformed faith has always held to an objective view. This is an issue in the NPP and (I believe) FV. Wallace's argument is based on some shaky statistics. A full argument for the objective view can be found in Stephen Westerholm's Perspectives Old and New on Paul.



Galatians 3:22-26 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Try going back through this passage replacing "faith" with "faithfulness", then fit that into the discussion of works vs faith.

Yes. The answer is objective, namely "faith in Christ." That is why the AV translates it that way. I realize that Wallace thinks it is subjective. Wallace is wrong. Jesus did not have faith. He was not a sinner. He was God incarnate.

Some here are also confusing that the fact that faith is the gift of God would make this a subjective genitive. It does not. A subjective genitive would mean that Jesus Christ had (His own) faith and that somehow Jesus' act of faith,not His life of obedience and obedient death on the cross, saves sinners. That obliterates the idea of Jesus fulfilling the Covenant of Works (which the NPP would just love).

There are several long PB threads on this if someone can find them. I have probably put together several long pages of posts on this exact text and issue.

-----Added 12/3/2008 at 02:45:03 EST-----

Here's one link:
Gal. 2:16 Faith in (of) Christ...

I agree with you Fred, and generally with Bruce's argument in your supplied link. But as I understand it, in the subjective sense it would be referring to the faithfulness of Christ, not his faith (per se) as you suggest.

Jim,

Wallace specifically gives as an option "Christ's faith":

Older commentaries (probably as a Lutheran reflex) see Cristou/ as an objective gen., thus, “faith in Christ.” However, more and more scholars are embracing these texts as involving a subjective gen. (thus, either “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness”). Without attempting to decide the issue, we simply wish to interact with a couple of grammatical arguments, one used for each position.

Another example of our wonderful "progress" in linguistics. (You will not be surprised to see that among the "more and more scholars" that Wallace cites are Dunn and Hays)

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Jim,

Wallace specifically gives as an option "Christ's faith":

Older commentaries (probably as a Lutheran reflex) see Cristou/ as an objective gen., thus, “faith in Christ.” However, more and more scholars are embracing these texts as involving a subjective gen. (thus, either “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness”). Without attempting to decide the issue, we simply wish to interact with a couple of grammatical arguments, one used for each position.

Another example of our wonderful "progress" in linguistics. (You will not be surprised to see that among the "more and more scholars" that Wallace cites are Dunn and Hays)

Ah, yes, I had forgotten about Hays. I believe this is the subject (no pun intended) of his dissertation.

Echoing above, I'm surprised so many on here have said "Subjective." Reformed exegesis has always taken it objectively.

I can't find Prof. Pollard's paper, but I do remember his statement of, 'the subjective interpretation of the clause is an open bucket in which man can pour just about any idea he desires.'

FWIW, the LDS insist on translating it in the subjective fashion. It is a necessity of their theology.

A man can learn a lot here...carry on.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

I'm surprised that this came up on something like PB. My understanding is that the Reformed faith has always held to an objective view. This is an issue in the NPP and (I believe) FV. Wallace's argument is based on some shaky statistics. A full argument for the objective view can be found in Stephen Westerholm's Perspectives Old and New on Paul.



Galatians 3:22-26 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Try going back through this passage replacing "faith" with "faithfulness", then fit that into the discussion of works vs faith.

I have Westerholm's book, been a long time, but I don't recall being persuaded. Doug Moo, in his commentary on Romans, has a prettly long section on it, concerning 3:22, defending the objective.

Concerning Gal. 3:22-26

Notice the parallel...

v. 23: Now before the faith came...until the coming faith would be revealed...

v24. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came

v.25: "But now that the faith has come we are no longer under a guardian..."

-----Added 12/3/2008 at 05:32:36 EST-----

Originally Posted by Gomarus

Since the genitive can support either, it would therefore rely on the context. I'm not sure it would be the same sense in all places. Your poll seems to assume it must be taken the same way all the time.

Yea, I didn't think of that. From my experience, which isn't that great, most people either take pistis christou one way or another, since the 4 main passages are very similar, in that they talk about justification. So I just assumed. I can't see how one could say objective in Gal 2:16 but subjective in Phil 3:9.

Since it's been quite a few posts, I would recommend everyone who hasn't read this whole thread note Pastor Greco's comment in post #11. There seems to be some confusion here among several as to what the terms mean.

Please note, whether faith originates with us, or is a gift of God is irrelevant to the discussion: "of Christ" being an objective genitive means that Christ is the object of that faith; "of Christ" as a subjective genitive means that Christ is the one with the faith.

I have a dumb question. Assuming "Christou" is the objective genitive instead of the subjective, why is it in the genitive and not the dative? Could it have been in the dative? The answer may just be that that's how NT Greek works -- I have no idea!

Evie, the dative is used frequently in verbal constructions to indicate the object of faith, but much more rarely with the noun. Usually, if modifying a noun, the dative will appear in a prepositional phrase (Rom 3:25).


Others,

Much of the argument for the subjective comes from statistical analysis. The great majority of subjective genitives following pistis ( πίστις), are personal pronouns. If we filter those out, the data becomes much more scarce. You can find clearly objective personal genitives (Mark 11:22) and clearly subjective ones (Rom. 3:3).

If you look at Romans 4:13, you see the phrase "dikaiosunhs pistews" ( δικαιοσύνης πίστεως) contrasted with the law. Abraham's promise was not through the law, but the righteousness of faith (his faith in God). See Phil. 3:9 (debated example) - here you have the same concept. Righteousness (dikaiosunhn - δικαιοσύνη) not from the law, but through pistews Christou. ( πίστεως Χριστοῦ)

If these two passages are truly parallel, Paul must be referring to his own faith in Christ, just like Abraham's faith. Does anyone think Paul is making a different contrast in Phil 3:9 than he is in Rom 4:13?

Much of the argument for the subjective comes from statistical analysis. The great majority of subjective genitives following pistis ( πίστις), are personal pronouns. If we filter those out, the data becomes much more scarce. You can find clearly objective personal genitives (Mark 11:22) and clearly subjective ones (Rom. 3:3).

So, if we filter out the data that is directly relevant to the current discussion, the case becomes stronger for the objective?

Let me summarize, in fairness, some of the counter arguments for the subjective:

Apart from the pistis christou construction (the 4 main debated passages), there are 24 occurrences of pistis followed by a genitive of person (a noun or personal pronoun). 20 out of the 24 refers to the faith of Christians (collectively or individually).

Concerning Mk 11:22, and the three others, those are rare and are outside of the Pauline Corpus. The debated pistis christou passages are all within the Pauline corpus.

Moreover, the phrase ek pisteos iesou (Rom. 3:26; Gal. 3:22) has an exact parallel to Rom. 4:16, ek pisteos Abraam, and this is surely NOT talking about faith in Abraham, but Abraham's faith (subjective).

In Hellenistic literature and LXX thought, the meaning of "trust" for faith does appear, however the normative understanding was more that of "faithfulness/pledge." Making the concept of "faithfulness of Christ" not an entirely foreign concept for the word pistis.

The faithfulness of Christ is seen in his "unflinching obedience to the Father's Will" and to the loving purposes of salvation through suffering and death." This is parallel to the "obedience" of Christ in gaining salvation in Romans 5:18-19, and Phil. 2:8:

Romans 5:18-19: Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.

Philippians 2:8: being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

(Paraphrased, as argued by Peter T. O'brien, in The New International Greek Testament Commentary: Philippians)

If you look at Romans 4:13, you see the phrase "dikaiosunhs pistews" ( δικαιοσύνης πίστεως) contrasted with the law. Abraham's promise was not through the law, but the righteousness of faith (his faith in God). See Phil. 3:9 (debated example) - here you have the same concept. Righteousness (dikaiosunhn - δικαιοσύνη) not from the law, but through pistews Christou. ( πίστεως Χριστοῦ)

If these two passages are truly parallel, Paul must be referring to his own faith in Christ, just like Abraham's faith. Does anyone think Paul is making a different contrast in Phil 3:9 than he is in Rom 4:13?

I think these are two different things. Is Paul really saying in Romans 4:13 Righteousness is gained by means of an act of faith or by the death of Christ 4:25?

Philippians 3:9: And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

I don't see Paul saying here I am rejecting the "righteousness that comes from works of the law" so that I can gain the "righteousness of the works of faith." It is, rather, I forsake the my works of the law as a means to righteousness to gain the works of Christ as my righteousness (i.e. the faithfulness of Christ who fulfilled the law). Phil 3:8 says, I forsake all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ."

Not having a righteousness of my own (from my works), but that righteousness that comes from the work of another (pistis christou).

-----Added 12/4/2008 at 02:56:46 EST-----

To add to the discussion:

Galatians 2:16: Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

1. No one is justified by works of law

2. But, [one] is justifed by pistou christou (faithfulness of Christ)

3. Even we believed into Christ (eis christon)

4. For the purpose of being justfied by that pistis christou

5. For, as we know, it is not by [our] works of law we are justified

Seems abnormal, to me at least, to say:

one is justified by faith in Christ,
so we believed in Christ
that we might be justified by faith in Christ

Seems, better, imo, to read "so we believed in Christ" (clearly an 'in Christ' phrase) as the center means of receiving the work of Christ (pistis christou). Again, I think the contrast here is between justification by our works of the law or by the work of Christ (by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous - Rom. 5:19).

Oh how this discussion takes me back. I was just looking over my old seminary paper last evening (written back in 2001). I seem to remember my Greek prof (Jimmy Agan, currently at Covenant Seminary for any interested) essentially pushed me into writing the paper because I asked a question about used of the objective/subjective genitive in class. Then, I wrote the paper, which he disagreed with and trashed (didn't get a bad grade though). Finally, he waited until I finished and then gave me a paper by T. David Gordon trashing the appeal to the subjective genitive in Galatians 2:16!

Sigh. Seminary is a learning process...

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Oh how this discussion takes me back. I was just looking over my old seminary paper last evening (written back in 2001). I seem to remember my Greek prof (Jimmy Agan, currently at Covenant Seminary for any interested) essentially pushed me into writing the paper because I asked a question about used of the objective/subjective genitive in class. Then, I wrote the paper, which he disagreed with and trashed (didn't get a bad grade though). Finally, he waited until I finished and then gave me a paper by T. David Gordon trashing the appeal to the subjective genitive in Galatians 2:16!

Sigh. Seminary is a learning process...

Do you still have that David Gordon paper? Is it available online?

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Do you still have that David Gordon paper? Is it available online?

Yes, I still have the Gordon paper. I'm not sure if it is online (the title is "The Objective Genitive, pisteus Iesou Christou, in Gal. 2:16", except the letters are Greek and not transliterated).

Do a search; if it is not, PM me with your address and I'll be glad to mail you a copy. The copy I have looks exactly like a student paper and is not a journal article or anything like that.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Oh how this discussion takes me back. I was just looking over my old seminary paper last evening (written back in 2001). I seem to remember my Greek prof (Jimmy Agan, currently at Covenant Seminary for any interested) essentially pushed me into writing the paper because I asked a question about used of the objective/subjective genitive in class. Then, I wrote the paper, which he disagreed with and trashed (didn't get a bad grade though). Finally, he waited until I finished and then gave me a paper by T. David Gordon trashing the appeal to the subjective genitive in Galatians 2:16!

Sigh. Seminary is a learning process...

I wish I would have chosen this subject back when I had to write a paper for my Greek syntax class. I ended up doing it on kai touto in Eph. 2:8.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Do you still have that David Gordon paper? Is it available online?

Yes, I still have the Gordon paper. I'm not sure if it is online (the title is "

Do a search; if it is not, PM me with your address and I'll be glad to mail you a copy. The copy I have looks exactly like a student paper and is not a journal article or anything like that.

The title is ... ?

I got too fast with the post key. It is corrected now.

I found a good article defending the subjective in both Gal. 2:16 and 3:22. Its more of a theological argument than just grammatical or statistical. Starts getting to the heart of the issue on page 7; and another good section starts on page 27, and summary conclusion on page 41.

http://people.cedarville.edu/employee/millerc/ets/3.pdf

Re. the ETS paper (.pdf), there goes the Reformation... The big problem in Galatia wasn't faith vs. works, it was failure to appreciate union with Christ! Wow. OK... I guess we can all go back to Rome now.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Re. the ETS paper (.pdf), there goes the Reformation... The big problem in Galatia wasn't faith vs. works, it was failure to appreciate union with Christ! Wow. OK... I guess we can all go back to Rome now.

Your assessment of the quote is good...but was the link to the paper supposed to work?

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Re. the ETS paper (.pdf), there goes the Reformation... The big problem in Galatia wasn't faith vs. works, it was failure to appreciate union with Christ! Wow. OK... I guess we can all go back to Rome now.

I admit I rushed through reading most of it, it is quite long, but I didn't gather that as much. Unless I am misunderstanding you. Maybe a sentence of elaboration?

Here's a few lines:

Thus, the essence of the contrast between the two terms [ergwn nomou and pistew Ihsou Xristou, BGB]was not found to reside in human doing versus human believing but between identity with Moses and identity with Christ. So that the contrast between law and gospel was not so much between human effort and faith as it was between two separate economies in God’s program. This emphasis upon the historical sequence of God’s dealings with man was emphasized and confirmed in Paul’s discussion of redemption history in 3:22-26. He speaks of being under the law as a temporary time under a pedagogue which is brought to a close by the faithfulness and now that the faithfulness has come we are no longer under a tutor (3:23-25). Thus, in Paul’s discussion, to be “of the works of the law” is not only to be identified with Moses but to be identified with a distinct period of history which has been superseded by “the faith.” In turn, “the faith” then is not simply “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” on Calvary but also the new epoch which it has introduced.

Conclusion
We have sought to demonstrate that the theology of law which Paul articulates in Galatians can only be understood as the answer to the specific, historical situation of the Galatian believers. While it is most likely true that the Galatian churches were composed of a Jewish/Gentile mix of people, Paul’s argument is clearly directed toward those Gentiles who have been tempted to secure Abrahamic blessing in the Law. He counters this false notion by demonstrating that Gentiles are blessed with Abraham’s blessings not by being “in the law” but by being “in the seed of Abraham.” Since that seed has now come, Gentiles are blessed directly in him. God has fulfilled the promises to Abraham by means of Calvary. Simply stated, if Gentiles are in Christ then they are sons of Abraham. Paul’s argument against the law, then in this book is not so much ontological as it is chronological.164 The role of the law in redemption history has been fulfilled and the promised seed has come in which Gentiles are blessed. For Gentiles to seek the blessings of Abraham in law is to deny that the basis of their sonship is in Christ, and thus they “fall from grace” (5:5). This message may be summarized then as:

The inclusion of Gentiles

in the blessings of Abraham

is accomplished by their incorporation

in Christ rather than
in Law.

pp.45-46

IOW, according to the author, Paul's message to the Galatians is: Salvation by union with Christ. Really?

Here's another quote from p.40:

If this point is correct then it would reinforce Hay’s point that Paul’s route to Abraham is through Christ and not through faith. If the statement in 3:29 summarizes his point (and it would seem that it does) then Paul’s strategy is to show that “if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring” rather than “ if you have faith like Abraham you are his seed. ”

Is it summary, or is it conclusion? And how is it that we are in Christ? Frequently in his letters, Paul will make a strong theological point, and then follow it up with an rather forceful argument such as: "... Therefore X! And thus if X is so, then this Y is also the case!"

Just saying, its another argument for a subjective, vs. an objective reading. And I don't think it makes any better case than others attempted before it.

Ok, sorry, I misread your post...when I made the comment I was failing to distinguish the "quote" within your sentences.

Also looked at the reference #164, and I'm not sure T. David Gordon would appreciate being used to reinforce a man's conclusion like that, especially if it would make TDG appear to stand in support of this particular thesis, if he differed (and knowing him, I think he would).

One's conclusion should stand without additional footnotes, IMO.

-----Added 12/4/2008 at 11:55:19 EST-----

Yet another quote I'm not comfortable with, p.17:

In summary, what makes Paul’s gospel unique in Galatians is not the doctrine of faith. Although his good news includes this teaching, this is not the component of the message which is in danger and for which in turn he so powerfully argues. Paul is not attacking Judaism or the law per se, or primarily defending the truth of justification by faith. His unique calling is to promote the gospel that Gentiles are saved in Messiah without becoming Jews.

I just think he's granting the merit of some version of the NPP thesis, and trying to argue a "non-liberal" or "conservative" incorporation of it within evangelicalism.