Righteousness

VIEW:25 DATA:01-04-2020

RIGHTEOUSNESS
I. In OT.—
‘Righteousness,’ ‘righteous’ (except in a few passages) stand in EV [Note: English Version.] for some offshoot of the Semitic root tsdq which is met with as early as the Tell el-Amarna letters in the sense of ‘to be innocent.’ The Heb. derivatives are the adjective tsaddîq and the nouns tsedeq and tsĕdâqâh (which seem to be practically indistinguishable in meaning), and the verbal forms tsâdaq, hitsdîq, etc. This group of words is represented in EV [Note: English Version.] in about 400 passages by ‘righteousness,’ ‘righteous,’ etc.; in the remainder, about one-fifth of the whole, by ‘just,’ ‘justice,’ ‘justify,’ ‘right.’ Whether the primary notion was ‘straightness’ or ‘hardness’ is uncertain, and quite immaterial for the present inquiry.
The material can be conveniently arranged under two heads: (1) righteousness in common speech; (2) righteousness in religious terminology. The order is not without significance. It has been justly remarked that the development of the idea of righteousness in OT moves in the opposite direction to that traversed by the idea of holiness. Whilst the latter starts from the Divine and comes down to the human, the former begins with the human and ascends to the Divine.
1. Righteousness in common speech.—(a) It is perhaps safest to begin with the forensic or juristic application, The plaintiff or defendant in a legal case who was in the right was ‘righteous’ (Deu_25:1, Isa_5:23); and his claim resting on his good behaviour was ‘righteousness’ (1Ki_8:32). A judge who decided in favour of such a person gave ‘righteous judgment,’ lit. ‘judgment of righteousness’ (Deu_16:18), judged ‘righteously’ (Deu_1:16). The Messianic King, who would be the ideal judge, would he ‘swift to do righteousness’ (Isa_16:5), would ‘judge the poor with righteousness’ (Isa_11:4), and would have ‘righteousness for the girdle of his loins’ (Isa_11:5). A court of justice was, in theory, ‘the place of righteousness’ (Ecc_3:16). The purified Jerusalem would be ‘a city of righteousness’ (Isa_1:26). On the other hand, corrupt judges ‘cast down righteousness to the earth’ (Amo_5:7), and ‘take away the righteousness of the righteous from him’ (Isa_5:23). (b) From the forensic use is readily developed the general meaning ‘what is right,’ ‘what ought to be’ [some scholars invert the order of a and b, starting with the idea of ‘rightness’]. In Pro_16:8 we read: ‘Better is a little with righteousness (i.e., a little got by right conduct) than great revenues with injustice.’ Balances, weights, and measures which came up to the required standard were ‘just balances,’ etc., lit. ‘balances of righteousness’ (Lev_19:36), whilst their converse were ‘wicked balances,’ lit. ‘balances of wickedness’ (Mic_6:11) or ‘balances of deceit’ (Amo_8:5). (c) Righteous speech also, i.e. truthful speech, came under the category of ‘righteousness.’ ‘Righteous lips,’ lit. ‘lips of righteousness,’ ‘are the delight of kings’ (Pro_16:13).
2. Righteousness in religious terminology.—(a) For the ancient Hebrew, ‘righteousness’ was especially correspondence with the Divine will. The thought of God, indeed, was perhaps never wholly absent from his mind when he used the word. Note, for this conception of righteousness, Eze_18:5-9, where ‘doing what is lawful and right (tsĕdâqâh)’ is illustrated by a number of concrete examples followed up by the general statement, ‘hath walked in my statutes and kept my judgments to deal truly,’ The man who thus acts, adds the prophet, is ‘just,’ rather ‘righteous’ (tsaddîq). The Book of Ezekiel has many references to righteousness thus understood.—(b) As the Divine will was revealed in the Law, ‘righteousness’ was thought of as obedience to its rules (Deu_6:25). Note also the description of a righteous man in Psa_1:1-6 (cf. v. Psa_1:1 f. with Psa_1:5 b and Psa_1:6 a). The expression was also used of obedience in a single instance. Restoring a pledge at sun-down was ‘righteousness’ (Deu_24:13). The avenging deed of Phinehas was ‘counted to him for righteousness’ (Psa_106:31). So we find the word in the plural: ‘The Lord is righteous: he loveth righteous deeds’ (Psa_11:7 RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] ).—(c) In most of the passages quoted, and in many places in Ezk., Job, Prov., and Eccles., the righteousness of the individual is referred to; but in others Israel (Psa_14:5; Psa_97:11; Psa_118:20 etc., Isa_41:8-11, and other parts of Deutero-Isaiah, Hab_1:13 etc.), or a portion of Israel (Isa_51:1; Isa_51:7 etc.), is represented as ‘righteous.’—(d) Since righteousness is conformity to the Divine will, and the Law which reveals that will is righteous in the whole and its parts (Psa_119:7; Psa_119:62; Psa_119:75; Psa_119:172 etc.), God Himself is naturally thought of as essentially righteous (Deu_32:4 where ‘just’ = ‘righteous’; Jer_12:1, Isa_42:21, Psa_7:9 (10) 11 (12), His throne is founded on righteousness and judgment (Psa_89:14, (15)), and all His ways exhibit righteousness (Psa_145:17). As, however, Israel was often unrighteous, the righteousness of Jehovah could then be revealed to it only in judgment (Isa_1:27; Isa_5:18; Isa_10:22). In later times it was revealed in judgment on their heathen oppressors (Psa_40:9 f., Psa_98:2 etc.).—(e) So in a number of passages, especially in Isa_40:1-31; Isa_41:1-29; Isa_42:1-25; Isa_43:1-28; Isa_44:1-28; Isa_45:1-25; Isa_46:1-13; Isa_47:1-15; Isa_48:1-22; Isa_49:1-26; Isa_50:1-11; Isa_51:1-23; Isa_52:1-15; Isa_53:1-12; Isa_54:1-17; Isa_55:1-13; Isa_56:1-12; Isa_57:1-21; Isa_58:1-14; Isa_59:1-21; Isa_60:1-22; Isa_61:1-11; Isa_62:1-12; Isa_63:1-19; Isa_64:1-12; Isa_65:1-25; Isa_66:1-24, ‘righteousness’ is almost synonymous with justification, salvation (Isa_45:8; Isa_46:13; Isa_51:6 f., Isa_58:6; Isa_59:9; Isa_61:11; Isa_62:1; many passages in Psalms [Psa_22:31 (32) Psa_24:5 etc.], Mal_4:2 [Heb_3:19]). For more on this subject cf. art. Justification.
II. In NT.—
The Greek equivalents of tsaddîq, tsedeq, etc., are dikaios (81 times), ‘righteous,’ ‘just’; dikaiôs (5 t.), ‘justly,’ ‘righteously’; dikaiosynç (92 t.), ‘righteousness’; dikaioô (39 t.), ‘justify’; dikaiôma (10 t.). ‘righteousness’ (4t. [AV [Note: Authorized Version.] ] ‘righteous act,’ ‘judgment,’ ‘ordinance,’ ‘justification’]); dikaiôsis (2 t.), justification’; dikaiokrisia, ‘righteous judgment’ (Rom_2:5).
In the teaching of Jesus (Mat_5:6; Mat_5:10; Mat_5:20; Mat_6:1; Mat_6:33; Mat_21:32, Joh_16:8; Joh_16:10), and in NT generally, ‘righteousness’ means, as in OT, conformity to the Divine will, but with the thought greatly deepened and spiritualized. In the Sermon on the Mount righteousness clearly includes right feeling and motive as well as right action. In Mat_6:1 (where dikaiosynç is unquestionably the true reading) there may be an echo of the later meaning acquired by tsĕdâqâh, its Aramaic equivalent, the beginnings of which can be traced in LXX [Note: Septuagint.] (Deu_6:25; Deu_6:8 other passages) and the Heb. Sirach about b.c. 200 (Sir_3:14; Sir_40:17)—‘benevolence,’ ‘almsgiving.’ If, as cannot be reasonably doubted, the Sermon on the Mount was originally in Aramaic, the word for ‘righteousness’ can hardly have been used in such a connexion without a side glance at a common popular application of it. Still, it is not safe to find more than a hint or echo.
In Mat_3:15, Zahn has observed, dikaiosynç seems to be used in the sense of dikaiôma, ‘ordinance.’ In the Pauline Epistles, where dikaiosynç and dikaioô are most frequently used (85 times out of 131), the former in a considerable number of cases describes not the righteousness required by God, but the righteousness bestowed by God and accepted by faith in Christ (Rom_1:17 etc.).
For fuller treatment cf. art. Justification.
W. Taylor Smith.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

justice, holiness. The righteousness of God is the essential perfection of his nature; sometimes it is put for his justice. The righteousness of Christ denotes, not only his absolute perfection, but, is taken for his perfect obedience unto death, and his suffering the penalty of the law in our stead. The righteousness of the law is that obedience which the law requires. The righteousness of faith is the justification which is received by faith.
Biblical and Theological Dictionary by Richard Watson
PRINTER 1849.

The words ‘righteous’ and ‘righteousness’ are found much more in biblical language than in everyday language. Both words, however, are concerned with everyday matters, and for this reason some modern versions of the Bible prefer to use such words as ‘right’, ‘fair’, ‘just’ and ‘honest’. A righteous person is one who, among other things, does right or is in the right.
The source of righteousness
Perfect righteousness is found in God alone. He is perfect in goodness and has a perfect knowledge of what is right and what is wrong (Deu_32:4; Psa_145:17; Isa_45:21; Rom_9:14; Heb_6:18). Since God made human beings in his image, they also have a sense of righteousness. If they are characterized by proper behaviour and moral uprightness, the Bible may speak of them as righteous (Gen_7:1; Psa_15:2; Pro_12:3-10; Luk_1:6; 2Co_9:9-10).
This righteousness is not a moral perfection that people achieve by their own efforts, but a right relationship with God that people enter into through faith and obedience (Isa_50:9; Hab_2:4; Rom_3:4-5; Rom_9:31-32; Rom_10:3-4; Gal_3:11-12). It is a righteousness that pleases God and guarantees his help (Psa_45:7-8; Isa_56:1; 1Pe_3:12).
The legal setting
Righteousness is not simply a private affair; it is a matter also for social concern. God’s righteousness demands social justice (Isa_5:7-9; Amo_5:6-7; Amo_5:24). Justice, in fact, is a prominent characteristic of righteousness in the Bible (see JUSTICE).
The Bible commonly uses ‘righteousness’ and related words in a legal setting, where a judge must administer justice righteously. The judge in some cases is God (Gen_18:25; Psa_96:13; Ecc_3:17; Act_17:31; 2Ti_4:8; Rev_19:11), in other cases a civil official (Lev_19:15; Deu_4:8; Eze_23:45; cf. Joh_7:24). The innocent and the guilty are respectively the righteous and the wicked. In acquitting the innocent, the judge declares him to be in the right, or righteous; in condemning the guilty, the judge declares him to be in the wrong, or wicked (Deu_25:1; 1Ki_8:32; Job_32:1; Mal_3:18; Mat_13:41-43; Mat_27:19; Rom_2:5-8).
This legal sense of righteousness gives meaning to the biblical teaching of justification by faith. (In both Hebrew and Greek the words ‘righteous’ and ‘justify’ come from the same root.) To justify means to declare righteous. Justification is God’s act of declaring righteous those who put their faith in Christ and his saving work. God does not make believers righteous in the sense of improving them to a standard of behaviour that satisfies him, but rather he declares them righteous. Christ has met God’s righteous demands by paying sin’s penalty on behalf of sinners. God can therefore declare repentant sinners righteous, yet himself remain righteous in doing so (Rom_1:16-17; Rom_3:21-26; Rom_4:1-3; Rom_5:1-2; Gal_2:15-16; Gal_3:21-22; Php_3:9). (For details of this aspect of the believer’s righteousness see JUSTIFICATION.)
Though righteous deeds, or good works, cannot save anyone, once people are saved their lives should be full of righteous deeds (Eph_2:8-10; Php_1:11). Once God has declared them righteous, they must make it true in practice by living righteously (Rom_6:13; Rom_6:18-19; Eph_4:24; Eph_5:9; Php_3:8-10; 1Ti_6:11; 1Pe_2:24; 1Pe_3:14).
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.

rı̄?chus-nes (צדּיק, caddı̄ḳ, adjective, ?righteous,? or occasionally ?just? צדק, cedheḳ, noun, occasionally = ?riahteousness,? occasionally = ?justice?; δικαιος, dı́kaios, adjective, δικαιοσύνη, dikaiosúnē, noun, from δίκη, dı́kē, whose first meaning seems to have been ?custom?; the general use suggested conformity to a standard: righteousness, ?the state of him who is such as he ought to be? (Thayer)):
1. Double Aspect of Righteousness: Changing and Permanent
2. Social Customs and Righteousness
3. Changing Conception of Character of God: Obligations of Power
4. Righteousness as Inner
5. Righteousness as Social
6. Righteousness as Expanding in Content with Growth in Ideals of Human Worth
LITERATURE

1. Double Aspect of Righteousness: Changing and Permanent:
In Christian thought the idea of righteousness contains both a permanent and a changing element. The fixed element is the will to do right; the changing factor is the conception of what may be right at different times and under different circumstances. Throughout the entire course of Christian revelation we discern the emphasis on the first factor. To be sure, in the days of later Pharisaism righteousness came to be so much a matter of externals that the inner intent was often lost sight of altogether (Mat_23:23); but, on the whole and in the main, Christian thought in all ages has recognized as the central element in righteousness the intention to be and do right. This common spirit binds together the first worshippers of God and the latest. Present-day conceptions of what is right differ by vast distances from the conceptions of the earlier Hebrews, but the intentions of the first worshippers are as discernible as are those of the doers of righteousness in the present day.

2. Social Customs and Righteousness:
There seems but little reason to doubt that the content of the idea of righteousness was determined in the first instance by the customs of social groups. There are some, of course, who would have us believe that what we experience as inner moral sanction is nothing but the fear of consequences which come through disobeying the will of the social group, or the feeling of pleasure which results as we know we have acted in accordance with the social demands. At least some thinkers would have us believe that this is all there was in moral feeling in the beginning. If a social group was to survive it must lay upon its individual members the heaviest exactions. Back of the performance of religious rites was the fear of the group that the god of the group would be displeased if certain honors were not rendered to him. Merely to escape the penalties of an angry deity the group demanded ceremonial religious observances. From the basis of fear thus wrought into the individuals of the group have come all our loftier movements toward righteousness.
It is not necessary to deny the measure of truth there may be in this account. To point out its inadequacy, however, a better statement would be that from the beginning the social group utilized the native moral feeling of the individual for the defense of the group. The moral feeling, by which we mean a sense of the difference between right and wrong, would seem to be a part of the native furnishing of the mind. It is very likely that in the beginning this moral feeling was directed toward the performance of the rites which the group looked upon as important. See ALMS.
As we read the earlier parts of the Old Testament we are struck by the fact that much of the early Hebrew morality was of this group kind. The righteous man was the man who performed the rites which had been handed down from the beginning (Deu_6:25). The meaning of some of these rites is lost in obscurity, but from a very early period the characteristic of Hebrew righteousness is that it moves in the direction of what we should call today the enlargement of humanity. There seemed to be at work, not merely the forces which make for the preservation of the group, not merely the desire to please the God of the Hebrews for the sake of the material favors which He might render the Hebrews, but the factors which make for the betterment of humanity as such. As we examine the laws of the Hebrews, even at so late a time as the completion of the formal Codes, we are indeed struck by traces of primitive survivals (Nu 5:11-31). There are some injunctions whose purpose we cannot well understand. But, on the other hand, the vast mass of the legislation had to do with really human considerations. There are rules concerning Sanitation (Lev 13), both as it touches the life of the group and of the individual; laws whose mastery begets emphasis, not merely upon external consequences, but upon the inner result in the life of the individual (Psa_51:3); and prohibitions which would indicate that morality, at least in its plainer decencies, had come to be valued on its own account. If we were to seek for some clue to the development of the moral life of the Hebrews we might well find it in this emphasis upon the growing demands of human life as such. A suggestive writer has pointed out that the apparently meaningless commandment, ?Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk? (Exo_23:19), has back of it a real human purpose, that there are some things which in themselves are revolting apart from any external consequences (see also Lev 18).

3. Changing Conception of Character of God: Obligations of Power:
An index of the growth of the moral life of the people is to be found in the changing conception of the character of God. We need not enter into the question as to just where on the moral plane the idea of the God of the Hebrews started, but from the very beginning we see clearly that the Hebrews believed in their God as one passionately devoted to the right (Gen_18:25). It may well be that at the start the God of the Hebrews was largely a God of War, but it is to be noticed that His enmity was against the peoples who had little regard for the larger human considerations. It has often been pointed out that one proof of the inspiration of the Scriptures is to be found in their moral superiority to the Scriptures of the peoples around about the Hebrews. If the Hebrew writers used material which was common property of Chaldeans, Babylonians, and other peoples, they nevertheless used these materials with a moral difference. They breathed into them a moral life which forever separates them from the Scriptures of other peoples. The marvel also of Hebrew history is that in the midst of revoltingly immoral surroundings the Hebrews grew to such ideals of human worth. The source of these ideals is to be found in their thougth of God. Of course, in moral progress there is a reciprocal effect; the thought of God affects the thought of human life and the thought of human life affects the thought of God; but the Hebrews no sooner came to a fresh moral insight than they made their moral discovery a part of the character of God. From the beginning, we repeat, the God of the Hebrews was a God directed in His moral wrath against all manner of abominations, aberrations and abnormalities. The purpose of God, according to the Hebrews, was to make a people ?separated? in the sense that they were to be free from anything which would detract from a full moral life (Lev_20:22).
We can trace the more important steps in the growth of the Hebrew ideal. First, there was an increasingly clear discernment that certain things are to be ruled out at once as immoral. The primitive decencies upon which individual and social life depended were discerned at an early period (compare passages in Leviticus cited above). Along with this it must be admitted there was a slower approach to some ideals which we today consider important, the ideals of the marriage relations for example (Deu_24:1, Deu_24:2). Then there was a growing sense of what constitutes moral obligation in the discharge of responsibilities upon the part of men toward their fellows (Isa_5:8, Isa_5:23). There was increasing realization also of what God, as a moral Being, is obligated to do. The hope of salvation of nations and individuals rests at once upon the righteousness of God.
By the time of Isaiah the righteousness of God has come to include the obligations of power (Isa_63:1). God will save His people, not merely because He has promised to save them, but because He must save them (Isa_42:6). The must is moral. If the people of Israel show themselves unworthy, God must punish them; but if a remnant, even a small remnant, show themselves faithful, God must show His favor toward them. Moral worth is not conceived of as something that is to be paid for by external rewards, but if God is moral He must not treat the righteous and the unrighteous alike. This conception of what God must do as an obligated Being influences profoundly the Hebrew interpretation of the entire course of history (Isa_10:20, Isa_10:21).
Upon this ideal of moral obligation there grows later the thought of the virtue of vicarious suffering (Isa_53:1-12). The sufferings of the good man and of God for those who do not in themselves deserve such sufferings (for them) are a mark of a still higher righteousness (see HOSEA, BOOK OF). The movement of the Scriptures is all the way from the thought of a God who gives battle for the right to the thought of a God who receives in Himself the heaviest shocks of that battle that others may have opportunity for moral life.
These various lines of moral development come, of course, to their crown in the New Testament in the life and death of Christ as set before us in the Gospels and interpreted by the apostles. Jesus stated certain moral axioms so clearly that the world never will escape their power. He said some things once and for all, and He did some things once and for all; that is to say, in His life and death He set on high the righteousness of God as at once moral obligation and self-sacrificing love (Joh_3:16) and with such effectiveness that the world has not escaped and cannot escape this righteous influence (Joh_12:32). Moreover, the course of apostolic and subsequent history has shown that Christ put a winning and compelling power into the idea of righteousness that it would otherwise have lacked (Rom_8:31, Rom_8:32).

4. Righteousness as Inner:
The ideas at work throughout the course of Hebrew and Christian history are, of course, at work today. Christianity deepens the sense of obligation to do right. It makes the moral spirit essential. Then it utilizes every force working for the increase of human happiness to set on high the meaning of righteousness. Jesus spoke of Himself as ?life,? and declared that He came that men might have life and have it more abundantly (Joh_10:10). The keeping of the commandments plays, of course, a large part in the unfolding of the life of the righteous Christian, but the keeping of the commandments is not to be conceived of in artificial or mechanical fashion (Luk_10:25-37). With the passage of the centuries some commandments once conceived of as essential drop into the secondary place, and other commandments take the controlling position. In Christian development increasing place is given for certain swift insights of the moral spirit. We believe that some things are righteous because they at once appeal to us as righteous. Again, some other things seem righteous because their consequences are beneficial, both for society and for the individual. Whatever makes for the largest life is in the direction of righteousness. In interpreting life, however, we must remember the essentially Christian conception that man does not live through outer consequences alone. In all thought of consequences the chief place has to be given to inner consequences. By the surrender of outward happiness and outward success a man may attain inner success. The spirit of the cross is still the path to the highest righteousness.

5. Righteousness as Social:
The distinctive note in emphasis upon righteousness in our own day is the stress laid upon social service. This does not mean that Christianity is to lose sight of the worth of the individual in himself. We have come pretty clearly to see that the individual is the only moral end in himself. Righteousness is to have as its aim the upbuilding of individual lives. The commandments of the righteous life are not for the sake of society as a thing in itself. Society is nothing apart from the individuals that compose it; but we are coming to see that individuals have larger relationships than we had once imagined and greater responsibilities than we had dreamed of. The influence of the individual touches others at more points than we had formerly realized. We have at times condemned the system of things as being responsible for much human misery which we now see can be traced to the agency of individuals. The employer, the day-laborer, the professional man, the public servant, all these have large responsibilities for the life of those around. The unrighteous individual has a power of contaminating other individuals, and his deadliness we have just begun to understand. All this is receiving new emphasis in our present-day preaching of righteousness. While our social relations are not ends in themselves, they are mighty means for reaching individuals in large numbers. The Christian conception of redeemed humanity is not that of society as an organism existing on its own account, but that of individuals knit very closely together in their social relationships and touching one another for good in these relationships (1Co_1:2; Rev_7:9, Rev_7:10). If we were to try to point out the line in which the Christian doctrine of righteousness is to move more and more through the years, we should have to emphasize this element of obligation to society. This does not mean that a new gospel is to supersede the old or even place itself alongside the old. It does mean that the righteousness of God and the teaching of Christ and the cross, which are as ever the center of Christianity, are to find fresh force in the thought of the righteousness of the Christian as binding itself, not merely by commandments to do the will of God in society, but by the inner spirit to live the life of God out into society.

6. Righteousness as Expanding in Content with Growth in Ideals of Human
Worth:
In all our thought of righteousness it must be borne in mind that there is nothing in Christian revelation which will tell us what righteousness calls for in every particular circumstance. The differences between earlier and later practical standards of conduct and the differences between differing standards in different circumstances have led to much confusion in the realm of Christian thinking. We can keep our bearing, however, by remembering the double element in righteousness which we mentioned in the beginning; on the one hand, the will to do right, and, on the other, the difficulty of determining in a particular circumstance just what the right is. The larger Christian conceptions always have an element of fluidity, or, rather, an element of expansiveness. For example, it is clearly a Christian obligation to treat all men with a spirit of good will or with a spirit of Christian love. But what does love call for in a particular case? We can only answer the question by saying that love seeks for whatever is best, both for him who receives and for him who gives. This may lead to one course of conduct in one situation and to quite a different course in another. We must, however, keep before us always the aim of the largest life for all persons whom we can reach. Christian righteousness today is even more insistent upon material things, such as sanitary arrangements, than was the Code of Moses. The obligation to use the latest knowledge for the hygienic welfare is just as binding now as then, but ?the latest knowledge? is a changing term. Material progress, education, spiritual instruction, are all influences which really make for full life.
Not only is present-day righteousness social and growing; it is also concerned, to a large degree, with the thought of the world which now is. Righteousness has too often been conceived of merely as the means of preparing for the life of some future Kingdom of Heaven. Present-day emphasis has not ceased to think of the life beyond this, but the life beyond this can best be met and faced by those who have been in the full sense righteous in the life that now is. There is here no break in true Christian continuity. The seers who have understood Christianity best always have insisted that to the fullest degree the present world must be redeemed by the life-giving forces of Christianity. We still insist that all idea of earthly righteousness takes its start from heavenly righteousness, or, rather, that the righteousness of man is to be based upon his conception of the righteousness of God. Present-day thinking concerns itself largely with the idea of the Immanence of God. God is in this present world. This does not mean that there may not be other worlds, or are not other worlds, and that God is not also in those worlds; but the immediate revelation of God to us is in our present world. Our present world then must be the sphere in which the righteousness of God and of man is to be set forth. God is conscience, and God is love. The present sphere is to be used for the manifestation of His holy love. The chief channel through which that holy love is to manifest itself is the conscience and love of the Christian believer. But even these terms are not to be used in the abstract. There is an abstract conscientiousness which leads to barren living: the life gets out of touch with things that are real. There is an experience of love which exhausts itself in well-wishing. Both conscience and love are to be kept close to the earth by emphasis upon the actual realities of the world in which we live.

Literature.
G. B. Stevens, The Christian Doctrine of Salvation; A. E. Garvie, Handbook of Christian Apologetics; Borden P. Bowne, Principles of Ethics; Newman Smyth, Christian Ethics; A. B. Bruce, The Kingdom of God; W. N. Clarke, The Ideal of Jesus; H. C. King, The Ethics of Jesus.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

Righteousness
(צֶדֶק, δικία, the quality of being right morally). The righteousness of God is the essential perfection of his nature, and is frequently used to designate his holiness, justice, and faithfulness (Gen_18:25; Deu_6:25; Psa_31:1; Psa_119:137; Psa_119:142; Isa_45:23; Isa_46:13; Isa_51:5-8; Isa_56:1). The righteousness of Christ denotes not only his absolute perfection (Isa_51:11; 1Jn_2:1; Act_3:14), but is taken for his perfect obedience unto death as the sacrifice for the sin of the world (Dan_9:24; Rom_3:25-26; Rom_5:18-19; Jer_23:6; Joh_1:29). The righteousness of the law is that obedience which the law requires (Rom_3:10; Rom_3:20; Rom_8:4). The righteousness of faith is the justification which is received by faith (Rom_3:21-28; Rom_4:3-25; Rom_5:1-11; Rom_10:6-11; 2Co_5:21; Gal_2:21). Righteousness is sometimes used for uprightness and just dealing between man and man (Isa_60:17), also for holiness of life and conversation (Dan_4:27; Luk_1:6; Rom_14:17; Eph_5:9). The saints have a threefold righteousness:
(1.) The righteousness of their persons, as in Christ, his merit being imputed to them, and they accepted on the account thereof (2Co_5:21; Eph_5:27; Isa_45:24);
(2.) The righteousness of their principles, being derived from, and formed according to, the rule of right (Psa_119:11);
(3.) The righteousness of their lives, produced by the sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit, without which no man shall see the Lord (Heb_13:24; 1Co_6:11). See Dickinson, Letters, let. 12; Witherspoon, Essay on Imputed Righteousness; Hervey, Theron and Aspasio; Owen, On Justification; Watts, Works, 3, 532, 8vo ed.; Jenks, On Submission to the Righteousness of God. SEE JUSTIFICATION; SEE SANCTIFICATION.

CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores