In the bible, the word used to mean "righteousness" is dikaiosune. We usually want to use the word as a label for the person who does all the right things, who keeps his promises or all of her commitments. He/she an upstanding person. He/she a righteous person.
The problem is, it doesn't mean anything of the sort...at least not directly. Dikaiosune is a covenantal term. It refers to one's positive status as a member of the covenant. When the bible calls a person "righteous" (dikaios), it is not calling him or her a good person or referring to any positive moral quality. It is not synonymous with "good Jewish/Christian behavior". There are no degrees of righteousness as there can be in matters of morality. One is either righteous or not. When the word is used to refer to God obviously it can't mean the same thing. In that context it refers to God's covenant faithfulness. God is righteous. He will keep the promises he's made to Israel/the Church. ** (see below for the wordy theological/doctrinal note)
Interestingly, the same Greek word...dikaiosune...is used to mean "justice". The terms "righteous" and "just" are interchangeable in Koine Greek usage. A person who is RIGHTEOUS (a member of the covenant, or IN CHRIST in the New Testament) will also be JUST. In the bible, justice always refers to the righting of wrongs, and largely refers to an heart posture of generosity, compassion and fairness with respect to the poor, the orphan and the widow. To put it another way, the bible never envisions a state of righteousness that does not include an ardent desire to speak for those without a voice, to defend those who are alone, to lift up those who are oppressed. Over and over again, especially (but not exclusively) in the Old Testament, in every genre and context imaginable, God tells Israel that the activity of worship is offensive to him outside the context of justice. Without justice God tells Israel there is, literally, no covenant.
Where do we find it in the New Testament? Here's just one good example. Though people have tried to pit Paul against James in the New Testament, there is no conflict between the two of them, only a difference in emphasis. Where Paul is typically more concerned with the inclusiveness of the Gospel (unity), our changed lives (repentance) and our state of membership in the new covenant (justification), the book of James is all about righteousness and justice. Look closely at the book of James. From the first chapter on, what's the context? THE POOR, THE ORPHAN AND THE WIDOW. When he talks about "works" being evidence of "faith", what works is he referring to? CARING FOR THE POOR, THE ORPHAN AND THE WIDOW. When he refers to "faith" as dead without "works", what does he mean? He means the same thing he meant in the Old Testament, that there is no covenant membership without justice. James is all about the marginalized.
Caring for the poor, the widow and the orphan isn't a something God tells us to do if we're inclined to do it. Embracing the outcast and marginalized is not a religious hobby. God says that if that's not what we're about, if it's not our defining characteristic, then we should all go home because he's not listening. Those aren't my words...they were spoken through the prophet Amos (5:21-24). If we're spending Sunday mornings in church, then spending the rest of our time making sure that the poor never have access to the things that we have access to, then we are have become worthless and may as well bulldoze our buildings. I didn't say it...Hosea did (Hosea 12:6-14). Proverbs considers it gnomic truth (as God sees it) that those who oppress the needy show contempt for the One who made them (Proverbs 14:31). Those who exploit the poor (even passively) will face God's judgement (Isaiah 3:14-17).
I could go on and on, citing text after text. There are hundreds. I'll cite just one more. Throughout the whole corpus of scripture, there is just one text where Jesus himself tells us what the criteria for judgement will be on the Last Day. It's Matthew 28. Jesus calls all the nations to himself and separates them to his right and his left (sheep and goats). Look closely. What's the litmus test? Church attendance? No. Holding the correct doctrines? No. How many people you led to him? No.
It's mercy. One group was merciful and the other wasn't. Notice that the goats thought they did all the right things, but they were not righteous. They were not members of the covenant. Why not? Because they were unjust. Their hearts were never motivated by love to gather up the castoffs of society. They didn't even see them! Even if they didn't actively exploit them, they're no better off than those who did. As usual for Jesus, this is all about the heart. They were unrighteous because they were unjust. They were unjust because their hearts were focused in entirely the wrong direction.
Justice and righteousness are inseparable. When Jesus refers to the Law (the document stipulating the requirements for covenant membership), he sums it up by citing a variation of the Hebrew Shema from Deuteronomy 6: love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul (self) and mind. But Jesus doesn't stop there. Then he adds a second part, putting it on a par with the first. The Greek used there is deutera de omoia aute: "and the second is equal in every way". Jesus didn't make it up; it's from Leviticus 19:18: love your neighbor as yourself. Loving God and loving people are two sides of the same coin. You cannot do one without doing the other. If you are doing one, you are necessarily doing the other.
He has shown you, O man, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.
- Micah 6:8
**The objection to this idea usually goes as follows: if righteousness means "a state of covenant membership", then what does the bible mean when it says that we have Christ's righteousness, that we are in possession of a righteousness that is not our own? In other words, this idea is typically viewed as an attack on the reformation doctrine of imputation, which states that the righteousness of Christ, that is, his faithfulness and obedience, is treated as if it were actually ours through faith. The work of the cross is not a legal fiction; we are in fact not guilty. In solidarity with Schweitzer, Davies, E.P Sanders, W.G. Dunn and N.T. Wright, I would reply that a status of covenant membership accomplishes the same thing. We are pronounced "not guilty" not according to any work that we have accomplished, but because we are IN CHRIST, part of the new covenant in his blood. There is no conflict with imputation, or at least not as stark a conflict as the opponents of the so-called New Pauline Perspectives would assert.
No comments:
Post a Comment