I submitted this paper for Advanced New Testament Theology (TH 850) at Bob Jones University on December 8, 2004.
Introduction
The concept of righteousness is a central part of Scriptural revelation. The Old Testament is saturated with righteousness terminology, and the concept is no less prevalent in the New. The fundamental teachings of Scripture are integrally related to righteousness. God is righteous; man, because of the fall, is unrighteous. God demands righteousness and will punish unrighteousness. Man is incapable of meetings God’s demands, so God provided a way to make people righteous.1 This is the theology of righteousness in a nutshell, but the issues are more complex. The difficulty lies partly in the variety of ways in which the terminology functions.2 In addition, the fact that some of the most significant controversies in the history of the Christian church have revolved around this subject has had a profound impact on the biases of interpreters from both sides of the debate. Dogmatic presuppositions often govern exegesis of the disputed texts.3 While it is impossible to be entirely objection, careful exegesis will take into consideration the progressive nature of revelation and will give more weight to contextual issues than to theological ones. What follows is an attempt to analyze and categorize the data where righteousness refers to individuals and discuss the biblical and theological relationships among the various categories.
Part 1: Preliminary Considerations
In the biblical theological method, word studies must be the foundation for subject studies. Therefore, before working through the New Testament passages and attempting to categorize the material, it is important to consider the terminology and come to a working definition. In addition, the underlying broader theology of righteousness sets the context for the more limited scope of the righteousness of the individual.
Terminology
The key Old Testament words for righteousness are the adjective צַדִּיק (206x), the nouns צְדָקָה (159x) and צֶדֶק (119x), and the verb צדק (41x). Together these four terms occur 523 times.4 The original meaning of this root was probably “straightness.”5 This developed into the idea of “conformity to a standard.”6 Leviticus 19:36 is a well-known non-theological example where weights and measurements are described as righteous, that is, conforming to the proper standard. The common usage normally has in view conformity to the standard of God’s revelation (Deu 6:25).
The New Testament δίκη– word group is similar in meaning to the Old Testament terminology, but it encompasses a much broader range of terms.7 The scope of this study is concerned primarily with δικαιοσύνη (92x),8 δίκαιος (79x),9 δικαιόω (39x),10 δικαίωμα (10x),11 and δικαίωσις (2x).12 These five words are used 222 times in the New Testament. Romans and Matthew contain the most occurrences with 63 and 26 respectively, providing the essence of the New Testament theology of righteousness. The New Testament Greek terminology conveys the same basic meaning of meeting certain standards.13
Definition
The contexts in which righteousness occurs help to illuminate its meaning and develop a working definition. Righteousness is often contrasted with wickedness (Mat 13:49; cf. Mat 25:37; Act 24:15), unrighteousness (Mat 5:45; Rom 3:5; 6:13), transgression (Rom 5:17, 18), sinfulness (Mar 2:17; Luk 5:32; 15:7; Rom 5:19; 8:10; 2 Cor 5:21), lawlessness (2 Cor 6:14; 1 Tim 1:9; Heb 1:9), and condemnation (Rom 5:16, 18; 2 Cor 3:9). Righteousness is connected to keeping the law (Luk 1:6; Rom 2:13) and is often collocated with holiness (Mar 6:20; Luk 1:75; Act 3:14; Rom 6:19; 7:20; 1 Cor 1:30; 6:11; Eph 4:24). The adjective is joined by καί with prophets (Mat 13:17; 23:35), devout men (εὐλαβής, Luk 2:25), those who fear God (Act 10:22, 35), and good men (Luk 23:50).14 Based on these emphases, righteousness is essentially conformity to the requirements of God.15 This definition is broad enough to encompass the various ways in which the term functions in the New Testament. These categories will be developed in more detail below.
Theological Background
In order to properly understand the subject of the righteousness of man, it is important to see it in its larger theological context. Before developing a theology of human righteousness, a foundational theology of divine righteousness deserves attention. God is the standard of and reference point for all righteousness.
Believers are to seek to conform to God’s righteousness (Mat 6:33). Jesus addressed God as righteous Father (Joh 17:25). God is always righteous in all His dealings with man (Mat 20:4). Furthermore, God’s righteous character guarantees that His judgment will also be righteous (Act 17:31; Rom 2:5; 1 Pet 2:23; Rev 16:5, 7). This righteous judgment is the object of praise (Rev 15:3; 19:2), and the display of His wrath can rightly be called His righteous acts (Rev 15:4). God’s laws are also righteous (Rom 1:32; 7:12). The sinner’s unrighteousness demonstrates by contrast God’s righteousness (Rom 3:5). God gave Jesus to propitiate His wrath and demonstrate that He was righteous when He forgave believers under the old covenant (Rom 3:25–26).16 His righteousness is also displayed in His forgiveness of believers when they come to Him and confess their sins (1 Joh 1:9).
Jesus is also often called righteous. Pilate’s wife recognized that Jesus was a righteous man (Mat 27:19). When the centurion saw the darkness during Jesus’ crucifixion, he testified that Jesus was a righteous man (Luk 23:47). Peter identified Jesus as the Holy and Righteous One (Act 3:14). The prophets all announced the coming of the Messiah, the Righteous One (Act 7:52). Paul likewise identified Jesus as the Righteous One (Act 22:14). He is the righteous Judge who in the future will reward believers (2 Tim 4:8) and punish the wicked (Rev 19:11; cf. Act 17:31). Jesus was characterized by his love of righteousness and hatred of lawlessness (Heb 1:9). As the Righteous One, He died for His unrighteous people (1 Pet 3:18) for whom He is both advocate and propitiation (1 Joh 2:1–2). It is the Son’s righteous character that all believers possess (1 Joh 2:19; 3:7).
Part 2: Categorization of the Terminology
A careful reading of the New Testament demonstrates that the concept of righteousness, while having one basic meaning, is used in several different ways. One of the most significant contributions of Pauline theology is his emphasis on God’s saving righteousness, the righteousness that God credits or imputes to those who believe (e.g., Rom 4). This righteousness is a gift (Rom 5:17). The New Testament is also replete with the necessity for righteous living (Tit 2:2). Christians are those whose lives are characterized by righteousness (1 Jn 2:19). Religious hypocrites may also manifest a certain kind of righteousness (Mat 5:20). This righteousness is conformity to external stipulations only. What follows is an attempt to develop the theme of righteousness in the New Testament along these three lines.17
Self-Righteousness
The religious leaders of the New Testament era were particularly corrupt. Jesus was far from irenic in his interactions with them (e.g., Mat 23). Most people regarded them as righteous (Mat 5:20; cf. Luk 16:15). But Jesus saw through their shallow externalism, penetrating to their corrupt and unrighteous hearts.
Jesus came to save sinful people (Mat 1:21). Those who regarded themselves as righteous saw no need for repentance and faith in Jesus (Luk 15:7). Jesus’ mission totally bypasses such men who refuse to repent of their self-righteousness (Mat 9:13; Mar 2:17; Luk 5:32). This righteousness was only one of outward appearance (Mat 23:28). The Pharisees totally neglected the heart. They sought to justify themselves, that is, they defended their own righteousness rather than acknowledging their need (Luk 10:29). The concern of the self-righteous is with the opinions of others, but God sees their utterly wicked hearts (Luk 16:15). They trust in themselves rather than in God (Luk 18:9). Their righteousness is a mere pretense (Luk 20:20).
What characterized the religious leaders of Jesus’ day was the same self-righteousness that Paul fought against in his. Israel as a whole had misunderstood the function of the law and the way to attain righteousness with God. They pursued it through the law (Gal 5:4; Phi 3:6, 9), seeking to merit the acceptance of God through their performance (Rom 9:31). Their ignorance of God’s justifying righteousness resulted in the establishment of their own (Rom 10:3).
Imputed Righteousness
The concept of righteousness as God’s salvation receives little attention in the early phases of New Testament revelation. There are several references to “the righteous” as a group of people, i.e., believers. Theologically it is clear that these people are righteous because they have been justified, but the passages themselves seem to place the stress their righteousness of life. Luke 18:14 is the lone example where righteousness in standing before God is explicitly mentioned. The tax collector was justified by his faith, clearly implying justification’s judicial and non-moral nature.
Romans contains the most thorough treatment of imputed righteousness in Scripture. The gospel reveals God’s righteousness (1:17). This righteousness could have in theory been attained through obedience to the law (2:13). But the fact that men are unrighteous sinners (3:10) and cannot meet the demands of the law, makes justification by obedience an impossibility (3:19, 20). Forensic justification can only come through faith (3:22, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5, 13; 9:30; 10:4, 6, 10) in the work of God in Christ (3:22, 25) apart from the law (3:20, 28; 4:2). Paul connects justification to Christ’s resurrection (4:25), His blood (5:9), and His obedience (5:19). This righteousness is a gift of grace (3:24; 5:16, 17). It is something God credits (4:3, 9, 11, 22). This righteousness of justification came to the Gentiles and passed by the Jews (9:30, 31). It is something to be submitted to (10:3).
The rest of the New Testament speaks of imputed righteousness, but not to the extent that Romans does. Christ is our righteousness (1 Cor 1:30), and it is in His name that the believer is justified (1 Cor 6:11). Believers are also in a sense the righteousness of God, that is, they receive by imputation all the righteousness of God in Christ (2 Cor 5:21). Galatians stresses the character of justification by faith apart from the law (2:16; 3:24). Righteousness is in Christ (2:17), not in the law (2:21; 3:11). Abraham is the example of justification by faith (3:6). This is God’s way of justifying anyone in any age (3:8). In Philippians Paul speaks of the righteousness which came through faith in Christ, contrasting it with his “righteousness” that he derived from the Law (3:9). Titus 3:7 contains a statement of the gracious character of justification, connecting it causally with eternal life. James also mentions the imputation of righteousness by faith (2:23).18
Personal Righteousness
The majority of references to righteousness in the New Testament refer not to imputed righteousness but to righteousness of life.19 This sense is predominant in the gospels especially. Specific people are called righteous. Mary’s husband Joseph (Mat 1:19), John the Baptist (Mar 6:20; cf. Mat 21:32), Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth (Luk 1:6), Simeon (Luk 2:25), Joseph of Arimathea (Luk 23:50), and Cornelius (Act 10:22). Jesus warned His followers that righteous living would result in persecution (Mat 5:10). Both righteous and unrighteous people experience many of God’s material blessings (Mat 5:45). Believers are often called righteous (Mat 13:17, 43; 23:29, 35; 25:37, 46). It is righteous men who are destined for eternal life (Mat 25:46). One day they will be resurrected (Luk 14:14; Act 24:15). True righteousness is not concerned with impressing others (Mat 6:1). Righteous living is often associated with the kingdom (Mat 5:10, 20, 6:33; 13:43; 25:34).
The epistles emphasize righteousness of life as well. In Romans 6, Paul calls justified believers to present themselves as instruments of righteousness to God (6:13; cf. 16, 18, 19, 20). As Jesus did, Paul links the kingdom with righteous living (Rom 14:17; cf. 1 Cor 6:9). Righteous living is the antithesis of lawlessness (2 Cor 6:14). The new man is created for righteous living (Eph 4:24); it is a fruit produced by God in the believer (Eph 5:9; cf. Phi 1:11), oftentimes through uncomfortable circumstances (Heb 12:11). The Christian nevertheless has a responsibility to flee sin and pursue righteousness (1 Tim 6:11; 2 Tim 2:22). The Scripture has a prominent place in this pursuit (2 Tim 3:16). The overseer must be especially exemplary in his righteousness (Tit 1:8). The saints of old were characterized by their righteousness (Heb 11:33). James emphasizes this righteousness of life that completes and demonstrates the reality of one’s faith (Jam 2:21, 24, 25). Such a person can pray effectively (Jam 5:16). Peter connects the death of Christ to our righteousness of life, asserting that this was His design (1 Pet 2:24). He echoes the words of Jesus that although righteous living brings suffering, the sufferer is blessed (1 Pet 3:14). Peter refers to Lot as a righteous man three times (2 Pet 2:7–8). Although his life reflected it rather imperfectly, he had a righteous heart and righteous desires. 1 John has a distinct emphasis on practicing righteousness. It is the certain characteristic of everyone who has been born of God (2:29; 3:10). This righteous living is a revelation of a righteous heart (2:7). The book of Revelation closes with the command to the righteous man to continue to practice righteousness (22:11). From beginning to end, the New Testament makes clear that righteous living characterizes God’s people.
Part 3: Drawing Some Conclusions
Commentators differ on several passages that deal with righteousness. The basic disagreement is whether to see imputed righteousness or practical righteousness. Matthew 5:20 will serve as an example to analyze the issues in more detail. In addition, the relationship between imputed righteousness and practical righteousness needs to be pursued.
Matthew 5:20 as a Crux Interpretum
Surveying the commentary literature on the disputed passages reveals three main positions. Some see the meaning of practical righteousness of life. Others find the imputed righteousness of Christ. A minority attempt to hold on to both. Usually a commentator will handle all the passages in the same way, reflecting his theological bias.20
In Matthew 5:20 Jesus states, “Unless your righteousness should abound more than [or surpass] [the righteousness of] the scribes and Pharisees, you will certainly not enter into the kingdom of the heavens.” If the question were simply what kind of righteousness goes beyond the righteousness of the religious leaders of Jesus’ day, the answer could legitimately be the imputed righteousness of Christ or the righteousness of life that comes from a renewed heart. Both are superior from a theological standpoint. The primary concern here is which one Jesus had in mind. Some commentators are convinced that this must be the righteousness of Christ. They do so primarily on theological grounds.21
Those who find imputed righteousness approach the Sermon on the Mount with the Lutheran distinction that it is law rather than gospel, that is, its sole function is to show men their inability and point them beyond themselves to the perfect righteousness of Christ.22 It seems rather difficult to argue from the passage itself that Jesus did not intend for His followers to actually put into practice what He was calling them to do.23 The often-misunderstood verse at the end of chapter 5 is not teaching the unattainability of sinless perfection. In its context, Jesus is calling His followers to a radical expression of love. Just as the Father manifests his providential kindness both to the righteous and to the unrighteous, Christ’s disciples are to be a people who love perfectly, that is, who manifest love to friends and enemies.24 In addition, Jesus makes it plain that those who obey His words are those who have life and those who do not will be condemned. Entering through the narrow gate leads to life (7:14), while entering through the broad gate leads to death (7:13). It is those who are doing the will of the Father who will enter into the kingdom of the heavens (7:21). Those who practice lawlessness will be rejected at the judgment (7:23). Finally, Jesus closes with an analogy about building a house. Those who hear Jesus’ words and obey them are wise (7:24–25), but those who hear and do not obey are foolish (7:26–27). The climax of His whole sermon is a call to radical obedience, and failure to actually do the things that Jesus laid out so precisely guarantees judgment and ruin. To defend the notion that Jesus is simply trying to point men to their need for the gospel—for His active and passive substitutionary obedience—without really calling them to a radical kingdom-righteousness is exegetical indefensible.
Several factors argue for practical righteousness of life.25 First, the context following 5:20 and the nature of the contrast that Jesus develops between Pharisaical righteousness and the righteousness that He demands argue for this view. The Pharisees were a corrupt people whose righteousness was only outward, but inside they were full of lawlessness (Mat 23:27, 28). To them the law was a matter of externals only. Jesus was calling for a radically different righteousness, one that flowed from the heart. Beginning in 5:21, Jesus deals with the Pharisaical perversions of the law, restoring to it is true internal quality. The prohibition of murder not only included the act but also the attitudes of the heart, anger and hatred (5:21–22). The sin of adultery was more than the sexual act itself. It included the desire for sex with someone else’s spouse (5:27–28). This was Jesus’ exposition of true righteousness in contrast to the false righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.26
Second, the use of the “righteousness” terminology within the Sermon on the Mount points in the direction of practical righteousness. In 5:6 Jesus commends those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. That fact that Jesus is dealing with personal character traits in the context27 makes righteousness of life more likely. In 5:10 Jesus pronounces a blessing on those who are persecuted because of righteousness—clearly a reference to their righteous living. In 5:45 Jesus speaks of God’s providential kindness manifesting itself toward the righteous and the unrighteous. While the righteous certainly are righteous in the sense of justification, the contrast implies that lifestyles are in view. In 6:1 Jesus warns his hearers of practicing their righteousness in order to be seen by men. This kind of righteousness is something that an individual does (ποιεῖν). In 6:33 Jesus commanded His followers to seek the kingdom of God and His righteousness. The connection between the kingdom and righteous living was dealt with above.28 Jesus points back to 5:20 and the exposition of righteousness that follows.
Third, within in the larger context of the gospels there are no explicit references to imputed righteousness.29 While Christ’s salvific provision is not absent from the Gospel accounts, it is Christ’s demands for repentance, discipleship, and faith that are in the forefront. This emphasis corresponds with the fact that in the Gospels righteousness is a way of living for Christ’s followers. Post-resurrection revelation, especially Paul’s treatment in Romans, deals more thoroughly with righteousness as a judicial declaration.
Based on these considerations, Jesus is calling for a true righteousness of life in contrast to the false self-righteousness of the religious leaders of His day. But what of the connection with entrance into the kingdom of heaven? It is at this point that the opponents of this view object—if righteousness of life is intended, then final salvation is in some sense merited by the individual, and it is clear from the rest of Scripture that the individual’s life plays no meritorious role in his salvation. However, the text says nothing of meriting the kingdom. Concern to preserve the gracious character of salvation and the solely meritorious value of the work of Christ is a vital. The Scriptures do indeed teach these points.30 But concern for these must not result in a misunderstanding of the work of God within the individual. Exegetical and theological precision help to solve the apparent problem. Jesus’ point is that this kind of righteousness is necessary for entrance into the kingdom.31 This is far different than saying that this righteousness merits entrance into the kingdom. Something can be necessary and a condition without being meritorious.32
Considering other passages where the Scriptures teach the necessity of certain things for salvation will help alleviate the problem. First, Jesus speaks in a similar way of the new birth. Jesus said to Nicodemus, “Unless someone may be born from above [or again], he is not able to see the kingdom of God” (Joh 3:3). The language here and in verse 5 parallels that of Matthew 5:20.33 The conditional statements of verses 3 and 5 are equivalent to the expression in verse 7: “It is necessary for you to be born from above [or again].”34 The clear teaching of Jesus is that regeneration is a condition and a necessity for entering into the kingdom. Hebrews expresses this same point but with reference to sanctification: “Be pursuing… sanctification [or holiness], apart from which no one will see the Lord (Heb 12:14). The point that Jesus made about the new birth is equally true of its counterpart sanctification. It must be there to some degree for entrance into heaven.35 One final passage speaks of another necessity for entrance into heaven. Hebrews 10:36 speaks of perseverance as being essential: “You have need of perseverance, in order that, having done the will of God, you might receive the promise.” The context makes it clear that perseverance is necessary for final salvation, because shrinking back results in destruction (10:39).
From these three passages it is clear that the new birth, sanctification, and perseverance are all necessary conditions36 for entering into the kingdom of heaven.37 None of these, strictly speaking, is meritorious. The new birth does not merit for the individual the favor of God and a place in heaven. Neither does sanctification or perseverance in faith and repentance. From this a clear distinction can be drawn between necessary and meritorious. It is in this sense that righteousness of life can be a pre-condition to and necessary for entrance into the kingdom of heaven without being meritorious.38 This righteousness of which Jesus speaks is the fruit of the new birth and equates sanctification.39 In addition, all of these are certainties for God’s people and the products of His grace. No problem exists between a strong conviction that it is only the meritorious righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer by faith alone that merits entrance into heaven and an affirmation that all those who will enter into heaven must be righteous in heart and life.
The Relationship between Righteousness of Standing and Life
A question that needs to be addressed is the relationship between imputed righteousness and practical righteousness. This is pressing the limits of biblical theology, but it is worth pursuing as far as possible. The first connection is only implicit. In Romans 4–6, Paul makes the connection between justification and sanctification, but he never explicitly ties righteousness of life to righteousness of standing before God. In Romans 6 the exhortations to pursue righteous living are based in one’s union with Christ, which certainly is related to positional righteousness. But although Paul does not develop the connection between justification in chapters 4 and 5 and righteous living in chapter 6 at any length, it is safe to conclude that Paul sees imputed righteousness as temporally antecedent to righteousness of life.
James makes a similar connection, but he is no more explicit than Paul. Abraham was justified by his works (Jam 2:21, 24), but only after he had already been justified in a different sense by his faith (Jam 2:23). The same conclusion may be drawn here, that righteousness of life follows the righteousness of faith.
The only passage that may draw a direct and explicit link from imputed righteousness to righteousness of life is 1 John 3:7: “The one who is practicing the righteousness is righteous, just as that one [Jesus] is righteous.” In other words, righteousness of life is a manifestation of a justified state.40 But John’s emphasis on regeneration41 would seem to suggest that his point is rather that righteous activity is the evidence of the righteousness of regeneration. In 2:29 he asserts that “everyone who is practicing righteousness has been born by Him.” The parallelism here with 3:7 suggests that “being born by Him” and “being righteous” are interchangeable expressions. It is probably best then to connect righteousness of life explicitly with regeneration42 and implicitly with justification.
Conclusion
All men are by nature unrighteous. God demands righteousness. Men respond to God’s demands with external self-righteousness, but God demands something better. He demands a perfect righteousness for justification and acceptance with Him. He provides this righteousness through His gracious work for man in the substitutionary work of Christ received through faith. God also demands a righteousness of heart and life. This He provides through His gracious work in man by regeneration and sanctification. Both kinds of righteousness are necessary for salvation, and both kinds of righteousness are graciously provided and accomplished by God. The former is meritorious, that is, there is a causal connection between being righteous and entering the kingdom.43 The latter is non-meritorious. The connection is one of correlation; never is the language of causality used. Everyone who will enter heaven will have this righteous. God in His great salvation has fully provided both for His people so that Christ receives all the glory. He is glorified through the exaltation of His perfect righteousness as the sole means of meriting God’s favor, and He is glorified through the recreation of His righteous character in the lives of all of His brothers and sisters.
Appendix: A Comparison and Contrast of the Three Types of Righteousness
Self-Righteousness
Saving Righteousness
Living Righteousness
Temporal Context
Pre-conversion44
Conversion
Post-conversion
Duration
Continuous
Instantaneous
Progressive
Quality
Sinful
Perfect
Imperfect
Quantity
Partial
Perfect
Imperfect
Meritorious
Attempted
Yes
No
Sphere
External
Positional
Internal→External
Source
Inherited
Imputed
Infused/Imparted
Necessity
No
Yes
Yes
Akin, Daniel L. 1, 2, 3 John. Vol. 38 of The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001.
Blomberg, Craig. Matthew. Vol. 22 of The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992.
Broadus, John A. Commentary on Matthew. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1990.
Charles, J. Daryl. “The Greatest or the Least in the Kingdom?: The Disciple’s Relationship to the Law.” Trinity Journal 13:2 (Fall 1992): 139–62.
Custer, Stewart. “Righteousness: δικαίωμα, δικαίωσις, δικαιοσύνη;” A Treasury of New Testament Synonyms, 43–48. Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1975.
Diehl, David W. “Righteousness.” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 952–53. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.
Hendriksen, William. Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew. New Testament Commentary.Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.
Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991.
Hindson, Edward E., and Woodrow Michael Kroll, ed. KJV Bible Commentary, electronic ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1994.
Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, electronic ed. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.
MacDonald, William, and Arthur Farstad. Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments, electronic ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995.
Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel, Commentary on the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998.
Metzger, Bruce M. Lexical Aids for Students of New Testament Greek. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.
Pink, Arthur W. An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1982.
Ritchie, Rick. “The Law According to Jesus.” The Reformation and Lordship Salvation, edited by Michael Horton, 69–80. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.
Ridderbos, Herman N. The Coming of the Kingdom, translated by H. de Jongste, edited by Raymond O. Zorn. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1962.
________. “The Significance of the Sermon on the Mount.” When the Time Had Fully Come: Studies in New Testament Theology, 26–43. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001.
Seifrid, Mark A. “Righteousness, Justice, and Justification.” The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner, 740–44. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 2000.
Shrenk, Gottlob. “δικαιοσύνη.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 2:192–210. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.
Sproul, R. C. ed. New Geneva Study Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995.
Spurgeon, Charles H. The Gospel of Matthew, edited by Larry Richards. Grand Rapids: Fleming H. Revell, 1987.
Stigers, Harold G. “צָדֵק.” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, 2:752–55. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999.
Stott, John R. W. The Message of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7). The Bible Speaks Today. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1978.
Toon, Peter. “Righteousness.” Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell, n. p. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.
Trenchard, Warren C. Complete Vocabulary Guide to the Greek New Testament. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.
Walvoord, John F., and Roy B. Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985.
Wright, N. T. “Righteousness.” New Dictionary of Theology, edited by Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright, 590–92.
Notes
1. This connection with salvation is part of what makes righteousness such an important motif. The redemption of man is one of the most significant elements of Christian theology. ↩
2. The crux of the issue is the relationship between righteousness as a saving gift and righteousness as a way of life. It is not always clear which sense is in view. ↩
3. Many systematic theologians approach the texts of Scripture with a decided opposition to either legalism or antinomianism. Legalism makes human righteousness a meritorious cause of salvation. Antinomianism makes human righteousness unnecessary in salvation. While nearly all would profess to be in opposition to both, one of the two is usually the primary object of refutation. ↩
4. The largest number of occurrences is in Psalms (139x), Proverbs (94x), Isaiah (81x), Ezekiel (43x), and Job (35x). ↩
5. Harold G. Stigers, “צָדֵק,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 2:752. ↩
6. Stigers goes on to say, “This root basically connotes conformity to an ethical or moral standard.” Ibid. ↩
7. Trenchard lists 22 words. Warren C. Trenchard, Complete Vocabulary Guide to the Greek New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 30–31. Together these terms occur 333 times in the New Testament. Metzger lists only 11 of these. Bruce M. Metzger, Lexical Aids for Students of New Testament Greek, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 54. ↩
8. Romans is by far the most significant book for understanding the concept of righteousness in the New Testament. It has 34 occurrences, the next closest being Matthew with 7. ↩
9. Matthew and Luke are the most significant with 17 and 11 occurrences respectively. ↩
10. Romans has 15 occurrences, Galatians 8, and Luke 5. ↩
11. It occurs 5 times in Romans, twice in Hebrews and Revelation, and once in Luke. ↩
12. The only two New Testament occurrences are in Romans (4:25; 5:18). ↩
13. Although these Greek terms have a significant history of non-biblical usage, more than likely it is the LXX usage reflecting the Old Testament Hebrew that was most influential in shaping the New Testament meaning. ↩
14. It is also parallel to good men (ἀγαθούς, Mat 5:45; Rom 5:7). The noun is also collocated with goodness (Eph 5:9) and truth (Eph 5:9; 6:14). ↩
15. The Pauline emphasis on righteousness is markedly different than the majority of the New Testament data. Paul ties righteousness to faith (Rom 1:17; 3:22, 26, 28, 30; 4:3, 5, 9, 11, 13; 5:1; 9:30; 10:4, 10; Gal 2:16; Phi 3:9) and grace (Rom 3:24; 5:17; Tit 3:7) and uses it synonymously with salvation (Rom 10:10). This is important for the following discussion, but it does not shed light on the basic meaning of righteousness. ↩
16. It is here that God’s righteousness and God’s salvation meet. It is well known that Paul often uses the expression “righteousness of God” to refer not to God’s character but to God’s salvation. ↩
17. These categories can be distinguished in the Old Testament as well, although not with the same level of clarity. From earliest stages of Old Testament revelation it is apparent that righteousness is both a judicial gift received by faith and a characteristic of life for God’s believing people. Noah was a righteous man (Gen 6:9). The moral quality of his life was radically different from the surrounding culture (Gen 7:1). Abraham was also a righteous man. Genesis 15:6 presents, however, a different kind of righteousness. God credited righteousness to Abraham in connection with his response of faith to God’s promises. Intimations of Pauline theology are certainly discernable at the early stage of revelation. Nevertheless, it remains for the New Testament to shed more light on this aspect of righteousness. The history of Israel manifested the fact that in the heart of man resides the perversion of self-righteousness. Many of the Jewish people sought to establish their own righteousness by externalizing the law. The thought they were sufficient to meet its demands and missed the point that the law was ultimately intended to point them to their need of God’s grace. This self-righteousness was at its peak during the ministry of Christ and His apostles. ↩
18. Several other passages may be included (Mat 5:20; Act 13:39; 24:25; Rom 6:7; 8:4, 10; Eph 6:14; Phi 1:11; 2 Tim 4:8; Heb 11:4; 12:11; 1 Joh 3:7; Rev 19:8). However, it is not clear whether imputed or practical righteousness is in view. ↩
19. According to Shrenk, “δικαιοσύνη is almost always used in the NT for the right conduct of man which follows the will of God and is pleasing to Him.” Gottlob Shrenk, “δικαιοσύνη,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 2:198. ↩
20. Interpreters who emphasize the doctrine of justification by faith alone and God’s preservation of His people will usually find imputed righteousness in these passages. Strong opposition to the Roman Catholic view results in a minimization of practical righteousness. Commentators who follow the more sanctificational thrust of the Puritans and oppose antinomianism are more likely to find righteousness of life. ↩
21. This debate occurs in several other passages: Eph 6:14; 2 Tim 4:8; 2 Pet 2:7–8; Rev 19:8. ↩
22. Rick Ritchie argues for this view: “Like the Mosaic law [sic] in the Old Testament, the Sermon on the Mount was given to let us know of our need for a savior [sic]. Its primary purpose is to condemn, not to save.” “The Law According to Jesus,” The Reformation and Lordship Salvation, ed. Michael Horton (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 71. He maintains that any demands placed on the individual must be law and not gospel. He makes no attempt in his discussion to do any exegetical work within the sermon itself. He simply relies on his dogmatic presuppositions asserting that the gospel makes no demands on the individual. His discussion is very unconvincing. See also William MacDonald and Arthur Farstad, Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments, electronic ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), n.p., who see in this passage the teaching that “the only righteousness that God will accept is the perfection that He imputes to those who accept His Son as Savior (2 Cor. 5:21).” The KJV Bible Commentary also takes this position: “This righteousness Christ would establish in His life and death would be made available as God’s free gift. This is the righteousness that would exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees.” Edward E. Hindson and Woodrow Michael Kroll, ed., KJV Bible Commentary, electronic ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1994), n.p. Lenski seems to argue that both the righteousness of faith and the righteousness of life are in view. Richard C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel, Commentary on the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 213–16. Mathew Henry’s discussion points in this direction as well. Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), n.p. ↩
23. There certainly was a sense in which they could not obey the words of Jesus. But it was not in an absolute sense. Obedience to Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount is indeed possible (and certain and necessary!) by God’s gracious work of regeneration and sanctification. This is a promise of the new covenant (Eze 36:27). In this sense, everyone who has received a new heart is able to obey the demands that Jesus sets forth, albeit imperfectly. Ridderbos comments, “To my mind there are not sufficient grounds to defend the thesis that the exhortations of the Sermon have only such a negative tendency, namely, to make it clear that nobody is able to meet the demands of God and to bar the road of self-righteousness for a sinner.” Herman N. Ridderbos, “The Significance of the Sermon on the Mount,” When the Time Had Fully Come: Studies in New Testament Theology (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001), 30. ↩
24. Ridderbos’s comments are helpful here: “Jesus does not, in any universal sense, demand of man moral equality with God. The word ‘perfect’ as used here denotes quite a different meaning. It concerns the ‘perfectness,’ the consistency of love. Man is bound not only to love his neighbor but also his enemies. It is in this sense that the heavenly Father, too, is perfect…. There is no room in His love for half measures. Hence perfect love is also demanded from His children, not partial, not only towards friends, but enemies as well. Hence also Luke can add in the corresponding passage in his Gospel: ‘Be ye merciful, even as your Father is merciful’ (Luke 6:36)…. Therefore, it is not possible to appeal to this to contend the positive tenor of the law in the Sermon on the Mount.” Ibid., 30–31. ↩
25. Ridderbos holds this view: “When Jesus demanded from His disciples that their righteousness should exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, He did not confront them with this demand in such a way as to denote that the righteousness of the scribes is so very prefect that to excel it would be an impossibility. On the contrary, the entire teaching of Jesus is full of criticism of the emptiness and worthlessness of the righteousness of the scribes.” Ibid., 30. See also William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 293–95; John R. W. Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7), The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1978), 74–81; Charles H. Spurgeon, The Gospel of Matthew, ed. Larry Richards (Grand Rapids: Fleming H. Revell, 1987), 54; Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 111–12; John A. Broadus, Commentary on Matthew (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1990), 101; Arthur W. Pink, An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1982), 62–64; John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985), 2:30; Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, electronic ed. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), n.p.; Craig Blomberg, Matthew, vol. 22 of The New American Commentary, (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 105; R. C. Sproul, ed., New Geneva Study Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), n.p. ↩
26. Ridderbos argues that “the entire passage on the antitheses in Matthew 5:21–48 is nothing but the description of the ‘righteousness’ which the disciples need in order to enter the kingdom of heaven (5:20).” Herman N. Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, trans. H. de Jongste, ed. Raymond O. Zorn (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1962), 285. ↩
27. Jesus calls His followers to be poor in spirit (5:3), mournful (5:4), gentle (5:5), merciful (5:7), pure in heart (5:8), and peacemakers (5:9). ↩
28. See page 8. ↩
29. Luk 18:14 is one possible exception, although it is the verb rather than the noun that is used. ↩
30. E.g., Eph 2:8–9; Tit 3:5–7. ↩
31. Jesus makes this same connection elsewhere. Mat 5:10 connects the kingdom with righteousness of life, as does Mat 25:46. Jesus speaks of obedience to the Father’s will as a certain characteristic of everyone who will enter the kingdom (Mat 7:21). Paul makes the same point but states it negatively: “The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom” (1 Cor 6:9; cf. Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5). If there is a problem with seeing righteousness of life in Mat 5:20, then there must be a problem in these texts as well. That righteousness of life will certainly be characteristic of all those who go to heaven is indisputable. ↩
32. Charles comments, “Jesus is not saying that entering the kingdom of heaven is based on what one does. He is saying, however, that by not obeying one will not enter.” J. Daryl Charles, “The Greatest or the Least in the Kingdom?: The Disciple’s Relationship to the Law,” Trinity Journal 13:2 (Fall 1992): 158. ↩
33. Both are third class conditions, having ἐάν with a subjective in the protasis. ↩
34. Jesus Himself makes this equation by using the past tense, “Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘It is necessary for you to be born again.’” This is His own commentary on what He had previously said in verses 3 and 5. The point is that the language of condition and necessity are interchangeable. ↩
35. The issue is not one of quantity but of quality. It is not that a believer must attain a certain amount of righteousness or holiness but that he must have them, and he does because they are the certain fruits of regeneration. ↩
36. It is certainly theologically true that all of these are also certainties, and that sanctification and perseverance will flow forth from genuine conversion. Scripture often speaks in terms of certainty with reference to the fruits of salvation. It should be clear, however, that it also speaks in terms of necessity as well. Both perspectives are true, and each teaches a different an important truth. ↩
37. It may be helpful to note the distinctions within the general term “salvation.” Scripture uses the concept generally of the whole of salvation, planned in eternity, effected on Calvary, applied at conversion, continued through sanctification, and consummated in glorification. Imputed righteousness is linked in Scripture with initial salvation, i.e., conversion. In the above passages, all the components are linked explicitly to final salvation, i.e., entrance into heaven. ↩
38. What then is its role? Paul suggests teaches that suffering, which produces righteousness, equips believers for the kingdom (2 The 1:5). This righteousness of life then is God’s way of preparing us for heaven. ↩
39. Stott comments, “It is the deep obedience which is a righteousness of the heart and is possible only in those whom the Holy Spirit has regenerated and now indwells. This is why entry into God’s kingdom is impossible without a righteousness greater (i.e., deeper) than that of the Pharisees. It is because such a righteousness is evidence of the new birth, and no-one enters the kingdom without being born again” (75). ↩
40. Akin hints at this in his commentary when he says, “The believer does right because he possesses the imputed righteousness of Christ.” Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38 of The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 145. ↩
41. 1 John 2:29; 3:9 [2x]; 4:7; 5:1 [3x], 4, 18 [2x]. ↩
42. See also Ephesians 4:24. ↩
43. Tit 3:7 causally connects justification with eternal life. ↩
44. Although it is primarily the characteristic of unconverted religious people, genuine believers often struggle with legalistic, self-righteous tendencies. ↩