The Righteousness of God: A Lexical Examination of the Covenant-Faithfulness Interpretation (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161535185, 9783161535192, 3161535189

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editors Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) · James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL) · Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

386

Charles Lee Irons

The Righteousness of God A Lexical Examination of the Covenant-Faithfulness Interpretation

Mohr Siebeck

Charles Lee Irons, born 1968; 1992 BA in Greek at UCLA; 1996 MDiv in Biblical Studies at Westminster Seminary California; 2011 PhD in New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena; currently Senior Research Administrator at Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science in Los Angeles.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-153519-2 ISBN 978-3-16-153518-5 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2015 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

To my parents Charles Stephen and Margaret Martha Irons Οὐχὶ ἡ καρδία ἡμῶν καιομένη ἦν ἐν ἡμῖν ὡς ἐλάλει ἡμῖν ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, ὡς διήνοιγεν ἡμῖν τὰς γραφάς;

Luke 24:32

Preface This monograph is a revised version of my Ph.D. dissertation, submitted in May 2011 to the School of Theology of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Professor Dr. Jörg Frey for accepting this dissertation into the prestigious WUNT II series. It was also a delight to work with the editorial, marketing and production staff at Mohr Siebeck, especially Mss. Katharina Stichling, Kendra Mäschke, Bettina Gade, and Mr. Simon Schüz, each of whom showed the highest professionalism and helpfulness at each state of the publication process. I could not have written this book without the help and encouragement of so many people whom God has placed in my life. To begin with, I am grateful to my mother and father for their unwavering support. I have dedicated this book to them in thankfulness to the spiritual inheritance they passed on to me. It was my father who showed me his Greek New Testament and his Hebrew Bible when I was a child, instilling in me a thirst to be able to read God’s word in the original languages. And it was my mother who passed on to me her analytical mind to dissect issues logically. I am the person I am today because of their Christian nurture. I am indebted to my advisors in the New Testament Ph.D. program at Fuller Theological Seminary. I am thankful for my primary advisor, Dr. Donald Hagner, who agreed to take me on as a doctoral student and who continued to mentor and encourage me after his retirement. My first Ph.D. seminar at Fuller with him, “History of New Testament Research,” was a delight and laid the foundation for the entire doctoral program. It was like being given a map of Pilgrim’s Progress, so one knows ahead of time where to walk and where the dangers lurk. My secondary advisor was Dr. Seyoon Kim. His Teutonic wissenschaftlich approach made a lasting impression on me, especially his seminar on “Jesus and Paul.” Both of my mentors earned their doctorates under the supervision of F. F. Bruce. And so, through them, I consider myself honored to be a second generation student of that great evangelical New Testament scholar. In addition to their mentorship, both scholars served as my internal readers, along with Dr. Mark A. Seifrid who served as the external reader. All three provided extremely helpful feedback in their examiners’ reports, guiding me toward a more balanced treatment of Paul’s doctrine of justification, which is reflected in this revised version of the original dissertation.

VIII

Preface

I must acknowledge my debt to the Fuller Center for Advanced Theological Studies (CATS) Committee for awarding me two scholarships: the Everett Harrison Memorial Scholarship for the 2007–08 academic year and a CATS Scholarship the following year, 2008–09. I want to express my deep gratitude to my father- and mother-in-law, Dr. Thomas and Mrs. Catherine Yoshikawa, who have been extraordinarily generous with their resources over the years. I would also like to thank my former supervisor, Dr. Keith Norris, now Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, for making it possible for me to complete my doctoral studies while working under him when he was the Interim President and Executive Vice President for Research and Health Affairs at Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science. Mr. Keith Balser deserves special thanks for proofreading my manuscript and laboring to improve the clarity of my prose. As a self-taught scholar of New Testament Greek, he spent countless hours checking every iota subscript. He also performed the laborious task of preparing the indexes. I would also like to thank Mr. Ted Yoder who did the typesetting, working his magic to transform the manuscript into camera ready copy. Thanks to the Rev. Bob Bjerkaas who accompanied me to the 2010 Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta, where I read a paper summarizing my dissertation. I am also grateful to Dr. T. David Gordon for his friendship and his insights on the influence of Ernst Käsemann on N. T. Wright. Parts of Chapters 1 and 4 appeared in slightly different form in my essay, “Is ‘Righteousness’ a Relational Concept in the Hebrew Bible?” in Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources (ed. Richard Taylor and Craig E. Morrison; Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 4; Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2014), 135–45. I am grateful to Gorgias Press for permission to include that material here. Finally, I must close by acknowledging those who sacrificed the most to enable me to pursue doctoral studies: my wife, Misty, whose companionship and support mean more than I can express in words, and our three children, Geneva, Lydia, and Jonathan. It was only because they gave me permission to go to the library every Saturday that I was able to make the final push to complete this project. I am blessed to have such a wonderful family. November 2014

Charles Lee Irons

Table of Contents Preface.............................................................................................................. VII Figure and Tables............................................................................................. XV Abbreviations................................................................................................ XVII Modern English Versions of the Bible......................................................... XXIII

Introduction. ....................................................................................................1 Chapter 1: History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul ...................................................................................................9 A. History of Interpretation up to the Reformation..........................................10

1. The Greek Fathers...................................................................................10 2. The Latin Fathers.....................................................................................13 3. The Medieval Period ..............................................................................16

B. The Reformation Tradition of Interpretation...............................................19 1. The Reformers.........................................................................................20 2. Post-Reformation Protestant Interpretation.............................................25 C. The New View and Its Trajectory.................................................................29 1. The 19th Century Origins of the New View . ..........................................29 2. Cremer’s Reception in Old Testament Scholarship................................36 3. The 20th Century Gerechtigkeit Gottes Discussion.................................38 4. English-Speaking Scholarship in the 20th Century..................................54 5. The New Perspective on Paul..................................................................56 D. Conclusion....................................................................................................60

X

Table of Contents

Chapter 2: Methodological Considerations........................................61 A. Lexical Semantics.........................................................................................61

1. Lexical Concepts vs. Discourse Concepts...............................................61 2. Hebrew Parallelism.................................................................................65

B. Septuagint Studies . ......................................................................................68 1. Role of LXX in Mediating Hebrew Meanings into Greek......................68 2. LXX as a Translation and Calques..........................................................70 3. Relevance to the Cremer Theory.............................................................73 4. Continuity between Meaning in Extra-Biblical Greek and New Hebraic Meaning......................................................................75 C. Relevance of Jewish Literature Composed in Greek ..................................77 D. Conclusion....................................................................................................82

Chapter 3: Righteousness in Extra-Biblical Greek . ........................84 A. Before the Fifth Century BC.........................................................................85 B. The Fifth Century BC....................................................................................87 C. The Fourth Century BC................................................................................91 D. Third to First Centuries BC..........................................................................96 E. First to Second Centuries AD.....................................................................100 F. Conclusion..................................................................................................104

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament ............................108 A. ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ָ   ָ   ְ in the Hebrew Old Testament ...............................................109 ֶ    ֶ

1. The Differences Between the Two Nouns.............................................109 2. Their Semantic Range ..........................................................................111 3. Semantic Domain Analysis ..................................................................120

B. Δικαιοσύνη in the Septuagint (Excluding the Apocrypha).........................126 C. Analysis of Arguments for the Relational Interpretation............................131 1. Righteousness as “Thoroughly Positive” .............................................132 2. The Appeal to Hebrew Parallelism ......................................................142 a. Theoretical Observations on Hebrew Parallelism............................142

Table of Contents

XI

b. “Righteousness” and “Salvation” in Parallel . .................................144 c. “Righteousness” and “Faithfulness” in Parallel...............................151 d. “Righteousness” in Parallel with a Variety of Other Terms.............155 3. The LXX’s Use of Δικαιοσύνη to Render ‫ סד‬ ֶ   ‫ח‬  ֶ . ..................................157 4. Criticism of the Norm-Idea...................................................................162 5. Antithesis Between “the Righteous” and “the Wicked”........................163 6. “May They Not Come Into Your Righteousness” (Psalm 69:27).........................................................................................167 7. Judah and Tamar: “She is More Righteous than I” (Genesis 38:26)......................................................................................169 D. The Righteousness of God in the Old Testament........................................178 1. Psalm 7:17.............................................................................................181 2. Psalm 35:23–28.....................................................................................183 3. Psalm 51:14...........................................................................................184 4. Psalm 98:1–3.........................................................................................186 5. Psalm 143:1–2, 11–12...........................................................................188 6. Psalm 7:7–9...........................................................................................190 E. Conclusion..................................................................................................193

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature ...............................194 A. The Dead Sea Scrolls..................................................................................196 B. Apocrypha and OT Pseudepigrapha Composed in Hebrew.......................207 1. Tobit......................................................................................................208 2. Sirach.....................................................................................................210 3. Baruch....................................................................................................212 4. 1 Maccabees..........................................................................................214 5. Jubilees..................................................................................................216 6. 1 Enoch..................................................................................................219 7. Psalms of Solomon................................................................................222 8. Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum ............................................................225 9. 4 Ezra.....................................................................................................227 10. Life of Adam and Eve............................................................................230 C. Aprocrypha, OT Pseudepigrapha, and Other Hellenistic Jewish Writings Composed in Greek..........................................................232 1. Wisdom of Solomon . ...........................................................................233 2. 4 Maccabees..........................................................................................235 3. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.....................................................239

XII 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Table of Contents

Testament of Job....................................................................................245 Paraleipomena of Jeremiah (= 4 Baruch)............................................247 Letter of Aristeas...................................................................................248 The Sibylline Oracles............................................................................251 The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides....................................................252 Philo.......................................................................................................255 Josephus.................................................................................................258

D. The New Testament ....................................................................................263 1. 2. 3.

Overview...............................................................................................263 Δικαιοσύνη in Matthew.........................................................................264 The Three Occurrences of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ Outside of Paul..............266 a. Matthew 6:33....................................................................................266 b. James 1:20........................................................................................267 c. 2 Peter 1:1.........................................................................................268

E. Conclusion...................................................................................................270

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul. .........................272 A. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “God’s Covenant Faithfulness” . ..............................273 1. Romans 3:1­–8........................................................................................273 2. Romans 3:21–26....................................................................................279 3. 2 Corinthians 5:21.................................................................................290 4. Other Greek Words for “Faithfulness”..................................................295 B. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “God’s Saving Activity or Power” . .........................296 1. 2.

Δύναμις Θεοῦ and Ὀργὴ Θεοῦ as Subjective Genitives.......................297 Intertextual Allusions to the OT............................................................301 a. Psalm 143..........................................................................................306 b. Psalm 98 ...........................................................................................308

C. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “Gift of Righteousness from God”.............................311 1. 2. 3.

Δικαιοσύνη as Righteousness before God.............................................311 Θεοῦ as Genitive of Source or Genetivus Auctoris...............................316 “By Faith” and Other Näherbestimmungen...........................................318 a. Romans 1:17.....................................................................................322 b. Romans 3:5.......................................................................................323 c. Romans 3:21–22...............................................................................323 d. Romans 3:25–26...............................................................................324 e. Romans 10:3.....................................................................................325

Table of Contents

4. 5.

XIII

f. 2 Corinthians 5:21.............................................................................327 g. Philippians 3:9..................................................................................327 The Πίστις Χριστοῦ Debate..................................................................329 The Parallels Between Phil 3:9 and Rom 10:3......................................334

D. Conclusion..................................................................................................336

Chapter 7: Synopsis and Implications................................................337 A. Synopsis of the Argument............................................................................337 B. Implications for Paul’s Doctrine of Justification........................................339

Appendix: All Occurrences of “Righteousness” in the Old Testament ...........................................................................................344 Bibliography....................................................................................................383 Index of Ancient Sources.................................................................................410 Index of Authors..............................................................................................434 Index of Subjects..............................................................................................440

 



Figure and Tables Figure 1. The Ogden-Richards Triangle.........................................................62 Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Table 10. Table 11. Table 12. Table 13. Table 14. Table 15. Table 16. Table 17.

Occurrences of the ‫ צדק‬Root in the Hebrew Bible......................109 Categories of Usage for ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ  ָ   ָ   ְ in the DSS.........................111 The ΔΙΚ-group in LXX . ..............................................................127 LXX Translation Choices for ‫צדק‬...............................................128 ֶ   ֶ LXX Translation Choices for ‫צדקה‬   ָ   ָ   ְ ...........................................128 Hebrew Words Translated by Δικαιοσύνη in LXX......................129 Comparison of Categories of Usage: MT/Hebrew (‫צדק‬/‫)צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ  ָ  ָ   ְ vs. LXX/Greek (Δικαιοσύνη)........................................................130 “Righteousness of God” in Hebrew Bible (“My, His, Your”)......178 All 12 Occurrences of the Plural ‫ צדקות‬in the DSS....................197 All 35 Occurrences of “God’s Righteousness” in the DSS..........198 Categories of Usage for ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ     ָ   ָ   ְ in the DSS.........................200 All Occurrences of Δικαιοσύνη in Tobit (NETS).........................209 Two Textual Traditions at 4 Ezra 8:31–36...................................229 Parallel Terms in Romans 3:1–8...................................................274 Δικαιοσύνη (sans Θεοῦ) in Paul ..................................................313 The Ten “Righteousness of God” Texts in Paul...........................321 Parallels Between Rom 10:3 and Phil 3:9..................................... 335

List of Abbreviations AB Anchor Bible ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992 ACCS Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums AnBib Analecta biblica ANE Ancient Near East(ern) ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by J. B. Pritchard. 3rd ed. Princeton, 1969 ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin, 1972– ANTC Abingdon New Testament Commentaries APOT The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Edited by R. H. Charles. 2 vols. Oxford, 1913 ASTI Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute ATA Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BCOT Baker Commentary on the Old Testament BDAG Danker, F. W., W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago, 2000 BDB Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1907 BDF Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago, 1961 BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium BEvT Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart, 1983 BHT Beiträge zur historischen Theologie BIOSCS Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies

XVIII

List of Abbreviations

BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester BJS Brown Judaic Studies BNP Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopedia of the Ancient World. Edited by H. Cancik et al. Leiden, 2002– BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentaries BSac Bibliotheca sacra BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CCSS Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture CEJL Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature ConBNT Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series CTQ Concordia Theological Quarterly Diels-Kranz Diels, H. and W. Kranz. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. 2 vols. 5th ed. Berlin, 1952 DLCPT Digital Library of Classic Protestant Texts DNTB Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by C. A. Evans and S. E. Porter. Downers Grove, 2000 DPL Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by G. F. Hawthorne and R. P. Martin. Downers Grove, 1993 DSS The Dead Sea Scrolls DSSR The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. Edited by D. W. Parry and E. Tov. 6 vols. Leiden, 2004–2005 EB English Bible EDNT Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by H. Balz and G. Schneider. Grand Rapids, 1990–1993 EKK Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament EKL Evangelisches Kirchenlexicon. Edited by E. Fahlbusch et al. 4 vols. 3rd ed. Göttingen, 1985–1996 ESV English Standard Version ET English Translation EvT Evangelische Theologie FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments GAP Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford, 1910 HALOT Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited by M. E. J. Richardson. Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden, 2001

List of Abbreviations

XIX

HBS Herders biblische Studien HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament HNTC Harper’s New Testament Commentaries HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs HTR Harvard Theological Review IBHS Waltke, B. K. and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, 1990 ICC International Critical Commentary IDB The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by G. A. Buttrick. 4 vols. Nashville, 1962 IRT Issues in Religion and Theology JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JES Journal of Ecumenical Studies JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society JPSTC JPS Torah Commentary JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods JSJSup Journal for the Study of Judaism: Supplement Series JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series JSS Journal of Semitic Studies JTS Journal of Theological Studies KEK Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament KJV King James Version L&N Louw, J. P., and E. A. Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. 2 Vols. New York, 1989 LCL Loeb Classical Library LEH Lust, J., E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie. Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Rev. ed. Stuttgart, 2003 LLT-A Library of Latin Texts – Series A LSJ Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, H. S. Jones, with the assistance of R. McKenzie. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed., with a Supp lement 1968. Oxford, 1989 LXX Septuagint MSU Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens MT Masoretic Text Muraoka Muraoka, T. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Louvain, 2009 NASB New American Standard Bible – Updated Edition

XX

List of Abbreviations

NCB New Century Bible NCBC New Cambridge Bible Commentary NETS A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Edited by A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright. Oxford, 2007 NIB The New Interpreter’s Bible NIBCOT New International Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, 1997 NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary NIV New International Version NIVAC NIV Application Commentary NovT Novum Testamentum NovTSup Supplements to Novum Testamentum NPNF1 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1 NPP New Perspective on Paul NRSV New Revised Standard Version NT New Testament NTAbh Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen NTL New Testament Library NTM New Testament Monographs NTS New Testament Studies OCD The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Edited by S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth. 3rd ed. Oxford, 1996 ODCC The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Edited by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone. 3rd ed. Oxford, 1997 OT Old Testament OTL Old Testament Library OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York, 1983, 1985 PBM Paternoster Biblical Monographs PG Patrologia graeca. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857–1886 PL Patrologia latina. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 217 vols. Paris, 1844– 1864 PNTC Pillar New Testament Commentary PTSDSSP Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. Tübingen/Louisville, 1993– PVTG Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece RAC Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Edited by T. Kluser et al. Stuttgart, 1950–

List of Abbreviations

XXI

RB Revue biblique RevQ Revue de Qumran RGG3 Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Edited by K. Galling et al. 7 vols. 3rd ed. Tübingen, 1957–1965 4 RGG Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Edited by H. D. Betz et al. 8 vols. 4th ed. Tübingen, 1998–2007 RSV Revised Standard Version SB Sources bibliques SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLSCS Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies SBLSymS Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series SBLWGRW Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Greco-Roman World SBT Studies in Biblical Theology SC Sources chrétiennes. Paris, 1943– SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series SP Sacra Pagina SSEJC Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity SSN Studia semitica neerlandica ST Studia theologica StudNeot Studia neotestamentica SUNT Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, 1964–1976 TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Translated by J. T. Willis et al. Grand Rapids, 1974–2006 Th Theodotion THAT Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by E. Jenni, with assistance from C. Westermann. 2 vols. Stuttgart, 1971–1976 ThWAT Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Stuttgart, 1970– TLG Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. Irvine TLNT Spicq, C. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. Trans lated and edited by J. D. Ernest. 3 vols. Peabody, 1994 TLOT Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by E. Jenni, with assistance from C. Westermann. Translated by M. E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, 1997 TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung TSAJ Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum

XXII

List of Abbreviations

TUGAL Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur TWNT Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Stuttgart. 8 vols. 1932–1979 TynBul Tyndale Bulletin TZ Theologische Zeitschrift VT Vetus Testamentum WAC Wise, M., M. Abegg, Jr., and E. Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. New York, 1996 WBC Word Biblical Commentary WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZEE Zeitschrift für evangelische Ethik ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche ZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Modern English Versions of the Bible Scripture quotations marked “ESV” are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations marked “NASB” are from the New American Standard Bible®, copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. Scripture quotations marked “NIV” are from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®, copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. The “NIV” and “New International Version” are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™ Scripture quotations marked “NRSV” are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations marked “NETS” are from A New English Translation of the Septuagint, copyright © 2007 by the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Inc. Used by permission of Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Introduction The New Perspective on Paul1 represents a significant paradigm shift in the interpretation of Paul’s doctrine of justification. One of the hallmarks of the New Perspective is the shift, to use Krister Stendahl’s terminology, from reading Paul through the lens of the introspective conscience of the West, to reading him

1 N. T. Wright says there is no such thing as “the” New Perspective, but only a “disparate family of perspectives” with “fierce squabbles and sibling rivalries going on inside.” Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009), 28. Accordingly, Wright is hesitant to identify with “the New Perspective” label and uses other terms such as “a covenantal reading of Paul” (Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 132) and more recently “a ‘fresh perspective’ on Paul” (idem, Paul in Fresh Perspective [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005], 40). However, without smoothing over the unique viewpoints held by individual scholars, I use the label “the New Perspective on Paul” in order to refer to an established, coherent position with regard to the interpretation of Paul’s doctrine of justification. I believe it is legitimate to do so since “the New Perspective on Paul” was identified as such by James D. G. Dunn in his Manson Memorial Lecture at the University of Manchester on November 4, 1982 and published as “The New Perspective on Paul,” BJRL 65 (1983): 95-122; reprinted with additional notes in Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990), 183-214. More recently, see Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays (WUNT II/185; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). In spite of differences with Dunn on numerous issues (e.g., Christology; the pistis Christou debate; the notion of Israel’s continuing exile and the narrative dimension of Paul’s thought, to name the most significant ones), Wright is in fundamental agreement with Dunn on the social/covenantal shape of Paul’s doctrine of justification and claims (The Climax of the Covenant [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992], 139 n10) to have arrived at essentially the same position independently of Dunn. See his lecture delivered at the Tyndale House in Cambridge on July 4, 1978, published as “The Paul of History and the Apostle of Faith,” TynBul 29 (1978): 61-88. Dunn further points out in a footnote that Wright “was the first to recognize the significance of Sanders’ work and to offer ‘a new way of looking at Paul … (and) a new perspective on … Pauline problems.’” Dunn, “The New Perspective: whence, what and whither?” in idem, The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays, 6-7 n24. Wright responded to Dunn’s footnote by saying: “There are times when I wish that the phrase had never been invented; indeed, perhaps for Freudian reasons, I had quite forgotten that I had invented it myself (though even then it was borrowed from Krister Stendahl) until J. D. G. Dunn, who is normally credited with it, graciously pointed out that I had used it in my 1978 Tyndale Lecture, in which, as I well remember, he was sitting in the front row.” Wright, Justification, 28. Thus, by “the New Perspective on Paul” I am referring to the position marked out by the points of agreement between Dunn and Wright in their sociological reinterpretation of Paul’s doctrine of justification in light of the work of E. P. Sanders on the gracious character of the religion of Judaism.

2

Introduction

through a sociological and covenantal lens in terms of the Jew-Gentile issue.2 Paul’s righteousness terminology is seen as having less to do with how individual sinners can be justified or declared righteous in the sight of a holy God in order to enjoy eschatological life, and more to do with corporate questions concerning the identity of the covenant people, the inclusion of the Gentiles in that people, and the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises to Abraham.3 This shift in the interpretation of the Pauline doctrine of justification from soteriological concerns to questions regarding covenant faithfulness and covenant membership rests on three pillars. The first pillar is E. P. Sanders’s critique of the older Protestant characterization of Judaism as a legalistic religion and his revised understanding of the pattern of the Jewish religion as one of “covenantal nomism.”4 The two terms provide the two poles of the Jewish religion. At its heart, Judaism is “nomism,” since the keeping of the Law of God is viewed as central; but it is “covenantal nomism,” because the keeping of the Law is within the context of God’s gracious covenant with his people. The covenant is prior to keeping the Law. Israel was brought into a covenant relationship by God’s electing grace and mercy, but once in the covenant obedience is the requirement for staying in the covenant and thus attaining salvation at the last day. “The cov2 Krister Stendahl, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” HTR 56 (1963): 199-215. Besides Stendahl, other precursors of the Dunn/Wright emphasis on the sociological function of the law and their construction of Paul’s doctrine of justification in covenantal terms include Markus Barth (“Jews and Gentiles: The Social Character of Justification in Paul,” JES 5 [1968]: 241-67), and Nils Alstrup Dahl (“The Doctrine of Justification: Its Social Function and Implications,” in idem, Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission [Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1977], 95-120). See also Stendahl’s essay, “Paul Among Jews and Gentiles,” based on the Thomas White Currie Lectures delivered at Austin Presbyterian Seminary, February 4–8, 1963, and published in idem, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 1-77. 3 Stendahl: “We tend to read [Paul] as if his question was: On what grounds, on what terms, are we to be saved? … But Paul was chiefly concerned about the relation between Jews and Gentiles – and in the development of this concern he used as one of his arguments the idea of justification by faith.” Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles, 3. Wright: “Saul of Tarsus was not interested in a timeless system of salvation, whether of works-righteousness or anything else … Jews like Saul of Tarsus were not interested in an abstract, timeless, ahistorical system of salvation. They were not even primarily interested in, as we say today, ‘going to heaven when they died’ … They were interested in the salvation which, they believed, God had promised to his people Israel … ‘Justification’ thus describes the coming great act of redemption and salvation, seen from the point of view of the covenant (Israel is God’s people).” Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, 32-33. 4 E. P. Sanders made the New Perspective possible (so Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law, 211) by demonstrating the character of Judaism as a non-legalistic covenantal nomism. Sanders may therefore be regarded as a founding father of the New Perspective. However, Dunn and Wright distance themselves for Sanders on a number of issues with regard to the interpretation of Paul. See Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law, 186-88, 211-12; idem, “The New Perspective: whence, what and whither?” in idem, The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays, 6-7; Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, 114.

Introduction

3

enant was not earned, but obedience to the commandments was a consequence of the prior election of Israel ... Obedience and the intention to obey are required if one is to remain in the covenant and share in its promises, but they do not earn God’s mercy.”5 Older Protestant theologians had spoken as if Judaism denied God’s mercy and taught that humans earn God’s favor through meritorious works righteousness. This was thought to be the view that Paul was attacking in his doctrine of justification when he rejected the notion of justification by works of the law in favor of justification by faith in Christ on the basis of his atoning death. The significance of this change in the perception of the nature of the Judaism that Paul was interacting with in his teaching on justification cannot be overstated. If Paul was not criticizing justification by human works of righteousness, then what was he criticizing? It was this question which led James D. G. Dunn and N. T. Wright to erect the second pillar of the New Perspective, namely, the social function of the law.6 Their argument is that ἔργα νόμου is a technical term for the boundary markers (circumcision, Sabbath observance, and kosher food laws) that separate Jews from Gentiles. Paul’s formula “justification not by works of the law but by faith in Christ” (e.g., Gal 2:16) is thus not setting up a contrast between justification by merit and justification by grace, but a contrast between two ways of being identified with the covenant people of God, namely, by the badge of the boundary markers and by the badge of faith in Christ. Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith, then, rejects the Jewish racial view that membership in the covenant community is restricted either to those who are born Jews or to Gentiles who become Jews by getting circumcised and observing the distinctive practices that keep the Jews from the unclean Gentiles.7 The third pillar of the New Perspective is connected to the second, and consists of the lexical claim that Paul’s ΔΙΚ-language is to be interpreted against a Jewish background and hence in covenantal categories. In Paul’s “justified not by works of the law but by faith in Christ” language, not only the phrase “works of the law” 5 E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977), 85, 147. 6 “If the Judaism of Paul’s day also gave such a place to divine election, atonement and forgiveness, then what was Paul objecting to? … My T. W. Manson Lecture on ‘The New Perspective on Paul’ (1983) was a first attempt to find a better answer. I found it in the context occasioning Paul’s first use of the key term, ‘works of the law’, in Gal 2.16.” Dunn, “The New Perspective: whence, what and whither?” in idem, The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays, 7. 7 N. T. Wright says, “I am in substantial agreement with [Dunn’s] general thesis about ‘works of law’ in Paul.” Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 139 n10. “If we ask how it is that Israel has missed her vocation, Paul’s answer is that she is guilty not of ‘legalism’ or ‘works-righteousness’ but of what I call ‘national righteousness’, the belief that fleshly Jewish descent guarantees membership of God’s true covenant people.” Idem, “The Paul of History and the Apostle of Faith,” 65. “Torah thus provided the vital covenant boundary-marker, especially in those areas where it seemed important to maintain Israel’s distinctiveness… It was Torah, and particularly the special badges of sabbath and purity, that demarcated the covenant people.” Idem, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 238.

4

Introduction

but also the verb δικαιόω is subjected to reinterpretation. Traditionally, the verb was understood in soteriological terms, that is, as having to do with the status of righteousness before God, with the Catholic-Protestant split on whether it means “to make righteous” (Augustine and the Roman Catholic Church) or “to declare righteous” (Luther and the Protestant tradition). But in the New Perspective it is interpreted, not in soteriological but sociological/covenantal terms, as meaning “to reckon someone to be a member of the covenant people of God.” The adjective δίκαιος is taken to mean “faithful to the covenant.” The noun δικαιοσύνη is interpreted as “the status of covenant membership” or as “covenant faithfulness,” depending on the context. The focus of this monograph is on the third pillar of the New Perspective, the covenantal interpretation of Paul’s ΔΙΚ-terminology. And even here, I have chosen to narrow my investigation to one of these ΔΙΚ-terms, the lexeme δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, which occurs 10 times in Paul’s epistles. It is a hallmark of the New Perspective on Paul that its advocates claim that in Romans 1:17 and 3:21ff the phrase is a cipher for God’s covenant faithfulness. For example, James D. G. Dunn writes: It should be equally evident why God’s righteousness could be understood as God’s faithfulness to his people. For his righteousness was simply the fulfilment of his covenant obligations as Israel’s God in delivering, saving, and vindicating Israel, despite Israel’s failure.8

N. T. Wright adopts substantially the same interpretation as Dunn: For a reader of the Septuagint … “the righteousness of God” would have one obvious meaning: God’s own faithfulness to his promises, to the covenant.9 “God’s righteousness will be revealed” was a coded way of saying that God would at last act within history to vindicate Israel.10 The righteousness of God [in Rom 3:21] … must mean, can only mean, God’s faithfulness to his single plan.11 The normal biblical and post-biblical reading of the phrase ‘God’s righteousness’ ... is that of God’s covenant faithfulness.12

It should be noted that this interpretation is not exclusive to the New Perspective. For example, scholars as diverse as Ernst Käsemann,13 Richard B. Hays,14 and 8 James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 342. 9 N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 96-97. 10 N. T. Wright, “The Letter to the Romans,” in New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 10.401. 11 N. T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove: IVP, 2009), 201. 12 N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 996. 13 Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 24-30, 78-85, 100-1.

Introduction

5

Michael F. Bird,15 are influenced by the relational/covenantal interpretation of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ or some version of it. The first and second pillars of the New Perspective (“covenantal nomism” and “works of the law”) have been sufficiently addressed by a number of important studies.16 The third pillar has received less attention. But given the importance of “the righteousness of God” for Paul, especially in Romans, this novel view merits further investigation.17 I suspect that this lacuna is due to the fact that the redefinition of “righteousness” in covenantal, relational, Hebraic terms has become so entrenched that few scholars feel the need to subject this redefinition to critical examination. I believe that I have something new to contribute, since I will be going against the tide of the scholarly consensus by arguing that Paul’s “righteousness” terminology does not have a Hebraic, relational context or meaning. By conducting a more methodologically-sound investigation of the lexical semantics of Paul’s “righteousness” terminology using the latest developments in LXX lexicography, I believe I can help move the discussion forward on a more secure philological basis, rather than merely engaging the issue with the broad brush of theological motifs. While much has been written on Paul’s doctrine of justification as a theological theme, there are far fewer scholarly treatments of the issue from a more philological angle, with careful attention to the principles of lexical semantics in general and of semantic change via the LXX in particular. The book-length studies that have examined the issue philologically18 used what are now regarded as 14 Richard B. Hays, “Psalm 143 and the Logic of Romans 3,” JBL 99 (1980): 107-15; idem, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale, 1989), 36-38; idem, “Justification,” ABD 3.1131; idem, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11 (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Dearborn: Dove, 2002), 294. 15 Michael F. Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective (PBM; Milton Keynes, United Kingdom/Waynesboro, Ga.: Paternoster, 2007), 10-16; idem, Introducing Paul: The Man, His Mission and His Message (Downers Grove: IVP, 2008), 93-95. 16 E.g., Andrew A. Das, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2001); idem, “Beyond Covenantal Nomism: Paul, Judaism, and Perfect Obedience,” Concordia Journal 27 (2001): 234-52; Simon J. Gathercole, Where Is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1­—5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002); Seyoon Kim, Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002); Peter Stuhlmacher, Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective, with an essay by Donald A. Hagner (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001); Charles H. Talbert, “Paul, Judaism, and the Revisionists,” CBQ 63 (2001): 1-22. 17 Some good work has been done by Mark A. Seifrid in “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid; WUNT II/140; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck /Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 415-42. 18 Hermann Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre im Zusammenhange ihrer geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen (2nd ed.; Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1900); Peter Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (2nd ed.; FRLANT 87; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

6

Introduction

outdated linguistic methods and operated with naïve – and in many cases, incorrect – assumptions about the nature of semantic change when Greek words were used by Jewish authors with a supposed “Hebraic” or “Semitic” mindset. The idea for this topic was triggered by the apparent dissonance between two things: (1) on the one hand, the fact that James Barr’s critique of the Cremer/Kittel methodology of lexical study19 has been so widely accepted; and (2) on the other hand, the continued employment of the Cremer/Kittel method in the writings of Dunn and Wright as if Barr’s critique never made any impact. Therefore, this monograph makes a contribution to the field of Pauline studies (1) by subjecting Cremer’s Hebraic/relational theory to a critical examination using the latest theoretical and applied principles of lexical semantics and LXX lexicography, and (2) by seeking to rescue the interpretation of Paul’s doctrine of justification from inappropriate covenantal categories, thus making possible a renewed “old perspective” understanding of Paul’s “righteousness/justification” terminology. In the article on “Righteousness, Righteousness of God” in the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters we read: The Hellenistic idea of righteousness as a virtue, a meeting of the norm, was replaced with the idea of meeting God’s claim in this covenant relationship ... Thus the semantic range for dikaios in LXX Greek was enlarged due to the influence of the Hebrew background.20

My purpose is to examine whether this claim is in fact true using a rigorous methodology based on the latest developments of LXX lexicography. Furthermore, I want to draw out the lexical implications of my lexicographical findings for the interpretation of Paul’s doctrine of justification. In particular, I want to provide lexical, philological, and exegetical support for Stephen Westerholm’s reading of Paul’s “righteousness” language, which rests on the distinction between “the righteousness of the law” (ordinary righteousness) and “the righteousness of faith/ God” (extraordinary righteousness).21 The task of critically analyzing Cremer’s Hebraic/relational interpretation is a crucial step toward restoring the traditional understanding of “righteousness.” I will argue positively that “righteousness,”

1966); David Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms (SNTSMS 5; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967); John A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Inquiry (SNTSMS 20; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972). 19 James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961). See especially Chapter 8: “Some Principles of Kittel’s Theological Dictionary,” 206-62. 20 K. L. Onesti and M. T. Brauch, “Righteousness, Righteousness of God,” DPL 830. N. T. Wright relies heavily on this article by Onesti and Brauch; see block quote in Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 800. 21 Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 263-84; idem, “The Righteousness of the Law and the Righteousness of Faith in Romans,” Interpretation 58 (July 2004): 253-64.

Introduction

7

for Paul, is not covenant membership but the state of being legally recognized as δίκαιος before God, a state theoretically achievable by perfect good behavior and one which God requires of all humans if they are to avoid perishing and inherit eternal life. But since, in fact, “there is none δίκαιος, no not one” (Rom 3:10), God in his mercy has made provision for an extraordinary righteousness, even “the righteousness of God” in Christ, received as a gift, by faith in Christ, apart from doing the good deeds required in the law. In Chapter 1, I trace the history of interpretation of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Paul, from Origen (the earliest commentator on Paul’s epistle to the Romans) down to the present-day New Perspective. I see three main phases in the history of interpretation of Paul’s use of the phrase “the righteousness of God.” Phase one is the Greek and Latin fathers, primarily Augustine, and the medieval commentators, who follow Augustine’s lead. In this phase, the term is understood soteriologically as referring to the righteous status that comes from God as a gift and is bestowed on humans by faith through the infusion of righteousness. Phase two begins with the Protestant Reformation and continues in the post-Reformation period through to the present in various evangelical writers and commentators. In this phase, “the righteousness of God” is also understood soteriologically, as a gift of God, but rather than that gift coming to humans through the infusion of righteousness, the gift is bestowed by means of imputation, so that the righteousness of God is the righteousness of Christ reckoned to the believer. Phase three starts in the 19th century with the Ritschlian school and is picked up and developed by Hermann Cremer in his view that righteousness is a relational concept. In this third phase, “the righteousness of God” is understood not primarily as a gift but as God’s saving activity in fulfillment of his covenant relationship with Israel. My aim is to critique this new relational view, associated primarily with the name of Hermann Cremer, developed in New Testament theology through the writings of Käsemann and Stuhlmacher, and subsequently incorporated into the New Perspective (Dunn, Wright, and Hays). Having shown that the New Perspective interpretation of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is relatively recent with roots in the Ritschlian school and founded directly on Hermann Cremer’s relational theory of righteousness, I then move on to engage in a detailed lexical study of “righteousness.” My goal is to demonstrate the fallacious nature of Cremer’s theory and, thereby, to undermine the central lexical basis of the New Perspective interpretation of “the righteousness of God.” Since this monograph is a word study of “righteousness” across two languages, Greek and Hebrew, in Chapter 2, I describe my methodological assumptions and approach. The next three chapters (3–5) are the heart of the study, in which I examine the usage of δικαιοσύνη in extra-biblical Greek (Chapter 3), the usage of ‫צדק‬ ֶ  ֶ    and ‫צדקה‬   ָ  ָ  ְ in the Old Testament and of δικαιοσύνη in the Septuagint (Chapter 4), and the usage of “righteousness” in Jewish literature (mostly extant in Greek and Latin translations) from the post-exilic period to the Bar Kokhba revolt in

8

Introduction

AD 135 (Chapter 5). The chapter on extra-biblical Greek is important for providing a baseline against which biblical and Jewish usage can be compared. My argument is that the difference between “Greek” and “Hebrew” thought regarding “righteousness” is not as marked or dramatic as scholars from Cremer to the New Perspective have made it seem. To be sure, the Hebrew terms have usages that are unique to the biblical context (e.g., the use of the plural “righteous acts,” the saving/delivering/vindicatory use of “righteousness”) not found in extra-biblical Greek. Nevertheless, aside from these differences, the term “righteousness” (whether in extra-biblical Greek, Jewish Greek, or in Hebrew) is basically used in two main senses, a judicial and an ethical sense. Furthermore – and this is the critical point – there is no evidence, in either the Greek or the Hebrew usage, for the notion that “righteousness” is a relational concept in which the relationship itself is the norm so that “righteousness” is conformity to the demands that a relationship brings with itself. This is Cremer’s theory and I believe that the lexical study of Chapters 3–5 has disproved it once and for all. Another theme that runs throughout Chapters 3–5, in addition to refuting Cremer’s Hebraic/relational theory, is that “righteousness,” both in biblical usage and in Jewish literature, is frequently used in reference to the notion of “righteousness before God.” This is a critical observation, for it then becomes the basis for my positive interpretation in Chapter 6. In this chapter, I make the case that in seven of its ten occurrences in Paul, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ refers to the gift of the status of righteousness before God, a status received by faith in Christ, on the basis of his righteous life and atoning death.22 In addition to making this positive case for the gift interpretation of “the righteousness of God,” I also engage in exegesis of several key passages in Paul that have been appealed to in order to argue for “the covenant faithfulness” interpretation (Rom 3:5; 3:25-26; 2 Cor 5:21). Finally, having critically examined the New Perspective and vindicated the old perspective with regard to “the righteousness of God” in Paul, in the concluding chapter I review and summarize the argument of this book (Chapter 7). In addition, I offer some implications for Paul’s doctrine of justification and for the New Perspective on Paul.

22 There is no need to insist that Paul must use the phrase in the same way in all ten instances, as if it were a terminus technicus. The seven occurrences of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in the gift-of-righteousness-from-God sense are Rom 1:17; 3:21, 22; 10:3 (2x); 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9 (with ἐκ). The remaining three occurrences (Rom 3:5, 25, 26) I interpret as having reference to God’s distributive justice. All ten cases will be examined in Chapter 6.

Chapter 1

History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul My task in this opening chapter is to provide a survey of the history of interpretation of the phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Paul. I see that history as unfolding basically in three stages: (1) patristic and medieval interpretation up to the time of the Protestant Reformation; (2) the interpretation of this phrase by the 16th century Reformers and their theological heirs from the 17th century to the present day; and (3) the rise of a “new view” in the latter half of the 19th century, beginning with Ludwig Diestel, Albrecht Ritschl, and Hermann Cremer, and continuing down to the present in both Old Testament and New Testament scholarship, culminating in the New Perspective on Paul. The “new view” interprets δικαιοσύνη in a Hebraic/relational sense and takes the entire phrase as God’s saving activity in fulfillment of his covenant promises (iustitia salutifera). The genitive θεοῦ on this view is thus taken as a subjective genitive. Although the purpose of this chapter is entirely descriptive, there is also an implicit argument involving the following steps. First, I believe it is significant that the patristic and medieval tradition, especially among the Greek-speaking fathers, is nearly unanimous in taking δικαιοσύνη as referring to the righteous status conferred on the believer as a gift and the genitive θεοῦ as a genitive of source or author. If the fathers who were native Greek speakers did not see “covenant faithfulness” or iustitia salutifera in this Pauline lexeme, and rather interpreted δικαιοσύνη in a manner more in line with its traditional meaning in extra-biblical Greek (i.e., as “righteousness” or “a righteous status”), then there is good reason to doubt the correctness of the Hebraic/relational view. Second, while the Reformers undeniably departed from the patristic and medieval tradition when they asserted that this righteousness from God is imputed rather than infused, they nevertheless operated within the same lexical and syntactical framework of patristic and medieval interpretation. That is, they maintained the basic meaning of δικαιοσύνη as “righteousness” or a “righteous status,” and they continued the tradition of taking θεοῦ as a genitive of source or author. Third, the “new view” promoted in the 19th century by Diestel, Ritschl, and Cremer and picked up by Schlatter, Käsemann, and the New Perspective, really has very little historic support and suggests a radical divergence from what could be regarded as the nearly unanimous voice of ecclesiastical tradition from Origen to the Protestant Reformation. It is, of course, possible that a new interpretation

10

Chapter 1: History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ

could be proved correct, and I am certainly not arguing that the weight of tradition is ipso facto the decisive criterion of truth. Nevertheless, it is something that ought to be taken into consideration. The fact that there is hardly any support for the “new view” prior to Ritschl and Cremer would suggest that the burden of proof rests with the advocates of the “new view” to demonstrate the correctness of their exegesis with clear and compelling argument. Additionally, I would argue that most 20th century interpreters, as well as those in the present, who advocate the Hebraic/relational interpretation have not gone back to examine Cremer’s arguments for themselves but typically cite his 1899 work as an unquestioned authority, or they cite other scholars influenced by Cremer, but the chain of citation eventually goes back to Cremer. Yet if the arguments that Cremer advanced are found to be wanting, then the entire edifice of scholarship may be seen to have been built on a less than secure foundation.

A. History of Interpretation up to the Reformation In describing the history of interpretation, one naturally wants to begin with the apostolic fathers, as they are the earliest writings attesting to Christian reflection on the New Testament. However, they do not comment specifically on Paul’s language of “the righteousness of God.”1 This is not surprising, since their writings were more topical and ad hoc in nature. Commentary writing did not begin until the third century. Therefore, I begin with the Greek fathers of the third century and following. 1. The Greek Fathers Origen (c. 185 – c. 254),2 in his commentary on Romans, explains Rom 3:21 by appealing to 1 Cor 1:30 and concludes that “the righteousness of God” is Christ himself: The apostle Paul himself says elsewhere of Christ that “he has become for us wisdom from God and righteousness and holiness and redemption.” This righteousness of God, therefore, which is Christ (Haec ergo justitia Dei, quae est Christus), is indeed disclosed apart from the natural law, but not apart from the law of Moses or the prophets.3 1 Peter Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (2nd ed.; FRLANT 87; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 11. 2 ODCC 1193. 3 Origen, Commentarii in Epistulam ad Romanos. PG 14.944. ET: Thomas P. Scheck, Origen: Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Books 1-5 (The Fathers of the Church 103; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2001), 213. Origen’s commentary on Romans was translated into Latin by Rufinus (345–410). “No doubt he touched up Origen’s text as he went along, but on the whole it seems that the author’s original intention has been preserved in translation.” Gerald Bray, ed., Romans (ACCS; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998), xxiii.

A. History of Interpretation up to the Reformation

11

Not only is “the righteousness of God” Christ himself, but it is given to all who believe, causing them to be cleansed of their sins, justified, and made fit for glory: Therefore the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ reaches to all who believe, whether they are Jews or Greeks. It justifies those who have been cleansed from their past crimes and makes them capable of receiving the glory of God (Justitia Dei per fidem Jesu Christi ad omnes perveniens qui credunt, sive Judaei sint, sive Graeci, purgatos eos a prioribus sceleribus justificat, et capaces facit gloriae Dei); and it supplies this glory, not for the sake of their merits nor for the sake of works, but freely to those who believe.4

In other words, Origen interprets the Pauline lexeme “the righteousness of God” as having reference not to God’s faithfulness to the covenant but to Christ himself and the status of being cleansed from sin, justified, and qualified for eschatological glory on the basis of Christ’s atonement. “The righteousness of God” is thus a soteriological status that sinful humans receive by believing in Christ. Later, in his comments on Rom 10:5–6, Origen notes that Paul makes mention of “two kinds of righteousness” (duarum justitiarum), namely, “the righteousness that is from the law” (justitia quae ex lege) and “the righteousness that is from faith” (justitia quae ex fide). Origen connects these two kinds of righteousness with Paul’s statement in the immediately preceding context about Israel’s unbelief (“being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own righteousness,” Rom 10:3). Origen comments: “It seems to me that that righteousness of God that he said above was not known by Israel is this righteousness that is from faith (Dei justitiam, ipsa sit justitia haec quae ex fide est),” while “their own righteousness” is the same as the righteousness that is from the law.5 This is significant because, as we will see, many recent scholars from Cremer to Käsemann to the New Perspective reject the identification of “the righteousness of God” with “the righteousness of faith.” Although they acknowledge the close connection between the two, these scholars want to retain the theocentric emphasis of “the righteousness of God” (interpreted as God’s saving righteousness in fulfillment of his covenant promises) while allowing only the latter term, “the righteousness of faith,” to refer to the soteriological status of righteousness enjoyed by the believer. Although Origen is an important early witness, it is when we turn to the great preacher Chrysostom (c. 347–407)6 that we really begin to see a line of interpretation that will be followed by all the Antiochene fathers and will influence the Latin fathers as well. In his second homily on Romans, commenting on Rom 1:17, Chrysostom says: 4 Origen; PG 14.945. ET: Thomas P. Scheck, Origen: Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Books 1-5, 215. 5 Origen; PG 14.1160. ET: Thomas P. Scheck, Origen: Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Books 6-10 (The Fathers of the Church 104; Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2002), 136. 6 ODCC 342.

12

Chapter 1: History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ

And righteousness, not thine own, but that of God; hinting also at the abundance of it and the facility. For you do not achieve it by toilings and labors, but you receive it by a gift from above, contributing one thing only from your own store, “believing” (καὶ δικαιοσύνην οὐ σὴν, ἀλλὰ Θεoῦ, καὶ τὸ δαψιλὲς αὐτῆς καὶ τὸ εὔκολον αἰνιττόμενος. Οὐ γὰρ ἐξ ἱδρώτων καὶ πόνων αὐτὴν κατορθοῖς, ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ τῆς ἄνωθεν δωρεᾶς λαμβάνεις, ἕν μόνον εἰσφέρων οἴκοθεν, τὸ πιστεῦσαι).7

Again, in his homily on Rom 10:3, Chrysostom makes the contrast between the righteousness of the law, which comes by “toils and labors,” and the righteousness of God, received as a gift. He says: But he calls it “their own righteousness,” either because the Law was no longer of force, or because it was one of trouble and toil. But this he calls God’s righteousness, that from faith, because it comes entirely from grace from above, and because men are justified in this case, not by labors, but by the gift of God (Ἰδίαν δὲ δικαιοσύνην αὐτὴν καλεῖ, ἢ διὰ τὸ μηκέτι τὸν νόμον ἰσχύειν, ἢ διὰ τὸ πόνων εἶναι καὶ ἱδρώτων• ταύτην δὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ πίστεως, διὰ τὸ ὁλόκληρον αὐτῆς ἐκ τῆς ἄνωθεν εἶναι χάριτος, καὶ οὐχὶ πόνοις ἀλλὰ Θεοῦ δικαιοῦσθαι δωρεᾷ).8

Chrysostom’s interpretation sets the pattern for those who follow him. In his comments on Rom 10:3, Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350 – 428)9 makes clear that he interprets the phrase as equivalent to “justification”: On the one hand, they [the Jews] have disregarded the justification from God promised to us; on the other hand, having supposed that by their own works and by following the law in their conduct they would be able to save themselves, they made no effort to believe in Christ and to receive the justification thenceforth promised to us by grace (τὴν μὲν παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπαγγελθεῖσαν ἡμῖν δικαίωσιν παρεῖδον, οἰηθέντες δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν οἰκείων ἔργων ἀκολούθως τῷ νόμῳ πολιτευόμενοι τοῦτο ἑαυτοῦ περιποιῆσαι δύνασθαι, οὐδὲ μίαν ἔθεντο σπουδὴν τοῦ πιστεῦσαι Χριστῷ, καὶ τὴν ἐκεῖθεν ἡμῖν κατὰ χάριν ἐπαγγελθεῖσαν δικαίωσιν δέξασθαι).10

Notice that Theodore glosses “the righteousness of God” as “the justification from God (παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ) promised to us,” indicating that he takes “righteousness” as equivalent to “justification” (δικαίωσις), and “of God” as a genitive of source or a genetivus auctoris. Theodoret of Cyrrhus (c. 393 – c. 460)11 was another prolific exegete in the Antiochene tradition. In his comments on Rom 1:17, he writes: He says that the righteousness of God is revealed through the gospel, not only that [righteousness] which is supplied to us (τὴν ἡμῖν χορηγουμένην), but also that which in the very mystery of the [divine] economy is openly set forth. For not by power did he administer our salvation, nor by command and word did he destroy the power of death, but he mixed mercy with

7 Chrysostom, NPNF 1 11.349; PG 60.409. 8 Chrysostom, NPNF 1 11.472; PG 60.565. 9 ODCC 1598. 10 Theodore of Mopsuestia, In Epistolas B. Pauli Commentarii. PG 66.845; translation mine. 11 ODCC 1600.

A. History of Interpretation up to the Reformation

13

justice (ἐκέρασε τῷ δικαίῳ τὸν ἔλεον). And the only begotten Word of God himself, having clothed himself with Adam’s nature, and having kept it uninitiated from all sin, offered it on our behalf and, having paid the debt of that nature, he discharged the common debt of all men (ἐνδυσάμενος φύσιν, καὶ πάσης ἁμαρτίας φυλάξας ἀμύητον, ταύτην ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν προσενήνοχε, καὶ τὸ χρέος τῆς φύσεως ἀποδοὺς, τὸ κοινὸν πάντων ἀνθρώπων διέλυσεν ὄφλημα).12

Theodoret sees “the righteousness of God” as containing two ideas: it is not only a gift (“that [righteousness] which is supplied to us”), but it is also God’s attribute of righteousness as expressed in the economy of redemption, namely, the fact that the only begotten Word clothed himself with Adam’s nature in order to pay the debt that all humans owed, thus mixing “mercy with justice.” On Rom 10:3, Theodoret has this to say: He calls their unseasonable (ἄκαιρον) keeping of the law, “their own righteousness,” for they are zealous to keep it even though it has ceased. But “the righteousness of God” he names that [righteousness] which comes by grace through faith (Θεοῦ δὲ δικαιοσύνην, τὴν κατὰ χάριν διὰ τῆς πίστεως γινομένην ὠνόμασε).13

And on 2 Cor 5:21, Theodoret interprets “the righteousness of God” as a gift of God, “for he has gifted us with the riches of righteousness (τὸν γὰρ τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἡμῖν ἐδωρήσατο πλοῦτον).”14 The semi-Pelagian Gennadius of Constantinople (d. 471)15 offered this comment on Rom 10:3: For not understanding the greatness of righteousness, [namely,] that by divine grace alone could humans produce it, they foolishly strive to establish the things that seem [right] to them, and to obtain justification through their own works (τῆς δικαιώσεως δι’ οἰκείων ἔργων ἐπιτυχεῖν), while opposing that [justification] which has now been given to you in Christ by God (ἀντιλέγοντες τῇ ὑπὸ Θεοῦ νῦν ἐν Χριστῷ δοθείσῃ ὑμῖν).16

Notice that Gennadius glosses “the righteousness of God” as “that [justification – δικαίωσις] which has now been given (δοθείσῃ) to you in Christ by God.” Gennadius was a semi-Pelagian and a critic of Augustine’s predestinarian monergism, so it should not be presumed that this tradition of interpretation was only held by the fathers in the Augustinian tradition. 2. The Latin Fathers Ambrosiaster was a fourth century Latin writer living in Rome, probably a presbyter, who wrote commentaries on all the epistles of Paul. His real identity is unknown, but since his works were incorrectly attributed to Ambrose, he is called “Ambrosiaster” to distinguish him from Ambrose. Gerald Bray considers him

Theodoret of Cyrrhus; PG 82.60; translation mine. Theodoret of Cyrrhus; PG 82.164; translation mine. 14 Theodoret of Cyrrhus; PG 82.412; translation mine. 15 ODCC 663. 16 Gennadius; PG 85.1712; translation mine. 12 13

14

Chapter 1: History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ

to be one of the most important, though unfortunately neglected, ecclesiastical writers of this period.17 In his commentary on Romans, Ambrosiaster presents two different approaches to “the righteousness of God.” On the one hand, in his comments on Rom 3:21, Ambrosiaster interprets “the righteousness of God” as his mercy in fulfillment of the promise: Therefore, what is called the righteousness of God appears to be mercy (misericordia) because it has its origin in the promise, and when God’s promise is fulfilled it is called “the righteousness of God” (cum promissum Dei redditur, iustitia Dei dicitur). For it is righteousness when what is promised has been delivered. And when God accepts those who flee to him for refuge, this is called righteousness, because to not accept them is injustice (quia non suscipere iniquitas est).18

This emphasis on righteousness as the fulfillment of the promise, as equivalent to mercy, and as God’s acceptance of those who flee to him for refuge may very well be one of the earliest precursors of the Cremer relational theory. On the other hand, commenting on Rom 1:17, Ambrosiaster writes: Paul says this because the righteousness of God is revealed in the one who believes, whether Jew or Greek. He calls it “the righteousness of God” because God freely justifies the ungodly by faith, without the works of the law (iustitiam Dei dicit, quia gratis iustificat impium per fidem sine operibus legis), just as he says elsewhere: “That I may be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith.” He says that this same righteousness is revealed in the gospel when God grants faith to man, through which he may be justified (dum donat homini fidem, per quam iustificetur).19

In this second interpretation, “the righteousness of God” has to do with the application of soteriological righteousness to the believer, when “God freely justifies the ungodly by faith,” or “when God grants faith to man, through which he may be justified.” This is more consistent with the patristic tradition of interpretation than Ambrosiaster’s comments on Rom 3:21.

17 Gerald Bray, “Ambrosiaster,” in Reading Romans Through the Centuries: From the Early Church to Karl Barth (ed. Jeffrey P. Greenman and Timothy Larsen; Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2005), 21-38. 18 Ambrosiaster, Commentarius in Pauli epistulam ad Romanos. ET: Gerald Bray, ed., Ro mans (ACCS; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998), 95. I have corrected Bray’s translation in the last line. Bray has “because wickedness would not accept such people.” But “wickedness” is a mistranslation of iniquitas, which means “injustice, unfairness,” and Bray’s translation fails to account for the est. Latin text from the online Library of Latin Texts – Series A (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols) (hereafter cited as LLT-A). 19 Ambrosiaster. ET: Bray, ed., Romans, 31. Latin text from LLT-A.

A. History of Interpretation up to the Reformation

15

Augustine (354 – 430)20 never wrote a complete commentary on Romans.21 However, we can glean his exegetical insights on certain key verses in Romans from his anti-Pelagian writings. The following comments on Rom 3:21 are significant: He does not say, the righteousness of man, or the righteousness of his own will, but the “righteousness of God,” – not that whereby He is Himself righteous, but that with which He endows [lit. clothes]22 man when He justifies the ungodly (non dixit: iustitia hominis uel iustitia propriae uoluntatis – iustitia Dei, non qua Deus iustus est, sed qua induit hominem, cum iustificat impium) …. Accordingly he advances a step further, and adds, “But righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ,” that is, by the faith wherewith one believes in Christ; for just as there is not meant the faith with which Christ Himself believes, so also there is not meant the righteousness whereby God Himself is righteous. Both no doubt are ours, but yet they are called God’s and Christ’s, because it is by their bounty that these gifts are bestowed on us.23

And when dealing with Rom 10:3 (“… being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness” [ESV]), Augustine takes a similar interpretive approach. Note his use of the same “not that whereby God himself is just, but …” formula, but with ex Deo as his gloss for Dei. He said this of the Jews, who in their self-assumption rejected grace … when they supposed themselves able to fulfill that law by their own strength, ignorant of God’s righteousness, – not indeed that by which God is Himself righteous, but that which man has from God (Dei iustitiam, non qua iustitia Deus iustus est, sed quae iustitia est homini ex Deo).24

20 ODCC 128. 21 Although Augustine never wrote a complete commentary on Romans, we do have two incomplete attempts from his early phase. Augustine on Romans: Propositions from the Epistle to the Romans and Unfinished Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (text and translation by Paula Fredriksen Landes; SBLTT 23; Scholars Press: Chico, 1982). The “righteousness of God” texts in Romans (1:17; 3:21-22; 10:3) are not addressed by Augustine in these anti-Manichean works. 22 The verb induo is more correctly rendered “clothes” in The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century I/23: Answer to the Pelagians (trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J.; Hyde Park, New York: New City Press, 1997), 158; and The Library of Christian Classics, Volume VIII: Augustine: Later Works (trans. John Burnaby; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1955), 205. 23 Augustine, De spiritu et littera, Ch. 15 [IX]; NPNF1 5.89; PL 44.209. The formula is repeated later in the same treatise, in Ch. 31 [XVIII]. After quoting 2 Cor 5:21 (“That we might be made the righteousness of God in Him”), Augustine explains: “This is not the righteousness whereby God is Himself righteous, but that whereby we are made righteous by Him” (Haec est illa iustitia Dei, non qua ipse iustus est, sed qua nos ab eo facti). NPNF1 5.96; PL 44.220. 24 Augusine, De gratia et libero arbitrio, Ch. 24 [XII]; NPNF1 5.453; PL 44.895. The same formula with ex Deo is also found in Augustine’s Contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum, Book III, Ch. 20 [VII]: “It is not called the righteousness of God because by it God is righteous, but because man has it from God” (Non enim propterea iustitia Dei dicitur, quoniam Deus ea iustus est; sed quia homini ex Deo est). NPNF1 5.412; PL 44.603.

16

Chapter 1: History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ

It was statements such as these that helped Luther break out of the medieval understanding of iustitia Dei as if it were nothing other than God’s iustitia distributiva, that is, the attribute of divine righteousness in accordance with which he rewards the good and punishes the wicked.25 Cassiodorus (485/90 – c. 580)26 served as the magister officiorum in the court of the Ostrogothic king, Theodoric the Great. Although a layman in the church, he was a prolific writer who shows Augustinian influence. In his commentary on Romans, he quotes lines from Paul and intersperses his brief comments. At Rom 3:21, he writes: “‘But now apart from the law, the righteousness of God’ – which has been freely given to us by God, not sought after by our toil (quae nobis a Deo gratis donata est, non nostro labore quaesita).” And at Rom 10:3, he alludes to Augustine’s line, quoted above: “It is called ‘the righteousness of God,’ not that with which God is righteous, but that which God gives to man, in order that man might be righteous through [or before] God (Iustitia Dei dicitur, non qua iustus est Deus, sed qua dat homini Deus, ut iustus sit homo per Deum).”27 Clearly, Cassiodorus interprets “the righteousness of God” as a divine gift. 3. The Medieval Period Peter Abelard (1079–1142/3)28 is unclear in his interpretation. On the one hand, in his comments on Rom 1:17 he says that the righteousness of God is “his just recompense (iusta eius remuneratio), whether in the elect unto glory, or in the ungodly unto punishment.” But at Rom 3:21, he says it is “that which God approves and through which we are justified before God, that is charity (iustitia Dei, id est quam Deus approbat et per quam apud Deum iustificamur, id est caritas).”29 There appears to be a bit of confusion in Abelard’s thought. In any case, the righteousness of God is either God’s attribute of recompense, or it is the righteousness of the believer in justification (i.e., “charity”) and it is called “of God” because it is approved before God. Abelard provides little precedent for the view that the righteousness of God is a relational concept. William of St-Thierry (1075/80–1148) was a Benedictine monk and a close friend of Bernard of Clairvaux.30 In his comment on Rom 1:17, he writes: “This righteousness which justifies believers is faith. Veiled in the Old Testament, it is revealed in the gospel. It is called righteousness because it justifies those whom 25 Luther actually claimed that he came to his interpretation of “the righteousness of God” before reading Augustine. Luther quotes several passages from Augustine in his lectures on Romans (see below). 26 ODCC 296. 27 Cassiodorus, Expositio sancti Pauli Epistulae ad Romanos 3.430; 10.476. Latin text from LLT-A; translation mine. 28 ODCC 3. 29 Peter Abelard, Commentaria in epistulam Pauli ad Romanos 1.1; 2.3. Latin text from LLT-A; translation mine. 30 ODCC 1746.

A. History of Interpretation up to the Reformation

17

it encompasses. Moreover it is ‘of God’ because faith itself is from grace.” And on Rom 3:21: “What is this righteousness? ‘The righteousness of God,’ answers the Apostle, when faith obtains what the law commands. It is the righteousness of God, not of men, not of works, not of one’s own will.”31 And a little later in the same context (on Rom 3:24-25), he writes: Then came the Man who alone was born righteous (Venit homo, qui solus iustus natus est), and who did not accept the pleasure of sin, but did not refuse sin’s punishment; and he gave this righteousness to man who was sold and who had nothing in the substance of his nature whereby he could buy himself back, so that by Christ’s punishment man might destroy the bond of his debt. And this is the righteousness of God that, clinging in faith to him who died for us, we might have from him what we cannot have from ourselves (Et haec iustitia Dei, ut per fidem inhaerentes ei qui pro nobis mortuus est, ex ipso habeamus quod non possumus ex nobis). And because this is conferred on us gratuitously, it is a grace.32

This is a remarkable set of quotes, for here William of St-Thierry appears to adumbrate the Reformation interpretation that the righteousness of God is the righteousness of Christ reckoned to the believer by faith. He speaks of Christ being “alone born righteous” and yet taking the punishment for sin that sinners deserved. He then goes on to say that the righteousness of God is that, as we cling in faith to Christ, we freely receive from Christ that righteousness which we were not capable of producing from our own resources. The righteousness of God is thus a soteriological benefit that the sinner receives by faith. It is called “of God,” according to William, because it is a free gift of God’s grace, not produced by human volition or human works. Peter Lombard (c. 1100–1160)33 does not offer his own interpretations but collects comments from earlier commentators. He quotes one named Haimo34 who interpreted the righteousness of God in Rom 1:17 as follows: “The righteousness of God is that by which he freely justifies the ungodly apart from works of the law, as the apostle says elsewhere: ‘That I may be found in him, not having my own righteousness which is by the law, but that which is by faith.’”35 31 William of St-Thierry, Expositio super epistulam ad Romanos 1.385; 2.450. Latin text from LLT-A. ET: William of St Thierry: Exposition on the Epistle to the Romans (trans. John Baptist Hasbrouck; Cistercian Fathers Series 27; Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1980), 31-32, 69, modified (e.g., among other minor changes, I have replaced “just, justice” with “righteous, righteousness”). 32 William of St-Thierry, Expositio 2.491. Latin text from LLT-A. ET: William of St Thierry: Exposition on the Epistle to the Romans, 70, modified. 33 ODCC 1266. 34 Many of the works once attributed to Haimo of Halberstadt (d. 853) are now considered to have been authored by Haimo of Auxerre (d. 855), a Benedictine monk who wrote commentaries on the letters of Paul. New Catholic Encyclopedia (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 1967), 6.898-9; C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975), 1.36 n3. 35 Peter Lombard, Collectanea in omnes Pauli apostoli Epistulas. PL 191.1322; translation mine.

18

Chapter 1: History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ

Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–1274)36 was of the opinion that iustitia Dei in Rom 1:17 could be taken in one of two ways. “In one way it can refer to the justice by which God is just.” He explains why the gospel might be said to reveal the justice of God by arguing that the justice of God may refer here to God’s faithfulness in keeping his promise to send the Messiah. This interpretation seems to echo one of Ambrosiaster’s comments and is possibly a faint precursor of the later views of Cremer in the 19th century. But judging by his subsequent commentary on Rom 3:21 and 10:3 (which he connected together), Aquinas seemed to lean toward the second, more traditional, option: “Or it can refer to the justice of God by which God makes men just. For the justice of men is that by which men presume to make themselves just by their own efforts: Not knowing the justice of God and seeking to establish their own justice, they did not submit to the justice of God (Rom 10:3). This justice [of God] is revealed in the gospel inasmuch as men are justified by faith in the gospel in every age.” Commenting on Rom 10:3, he refers back again to Rom 3:21: “for being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, i.e., by which God justifies them through faith: ‘The righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ’ (Rom 3:22)’ ... For they did not submit to God’s righteousness, i.e., they refused to be subject to Christ through faith in whom men are made just before God.”37 It is clear that for Aquinas, the righteousness of God is equivalent to justification, which he understood as God’s act of making sinners righteous or just before God. It is called “the righteousness or justice of God” to distinguish it from the righteousness or justice of humans when they “presume to make themselves just by their own efforts.” We have seen that most of the church fathers (Greek and Latin), as well as the medieval commentators who relied on them, interpreted “the righteousness of God” in Romans as the righteousness that is bestowed as a gift of God’s grace in the act of justification. This is not to say that there was perfect agreement across the board. Abelard took the righteousness of God as the recompensing justice of God shown either to the elect, resulting in their glory, or to the wicked, resulting in their judgment. Ambrosiaster and Aquinas attempted to bring in some notion of God’s faithfulness to his promises, but they followed this up with a more traditional line about the righteousness of God being that by which he makes sinners righteous. On the whole, apart from these minor deviations, the tradition up to the time of the Reformation is fairly uniform in taking the righteousness of God as a gift of grace and as something that has to do fundamentally with the righteousness given to or wrought in the sinner in the moment of justification. 36 ODCC 1614. 37 Thomas Aquinas, Lectures on the Letter to the Romans (trans. Fabian Larcher; ed. Jeremy Holmes; Ave Maria, Florida: The Aquinas Center for Theological Renewal at Ave Maria University; available online at www.aquinas.avemaria.edu/commentaries.asp), 58, 409. Accessed January 27, 2009.

B. The Reformation Tradition of Interpretation

19

This is not to say that the church fathers held what would later be known as the Reformational understanding of justification. None of them made the sharp distinction between justification and sanctification that would later characterize the Reformation’s central insight. Nevertheless, as Ben Witherington points out, “the righteousness of God” in Paul was not fundamentally understood by the church fathers as a “cipher” for “God’s covenant faithfulness,” but was interpreted (in keeping with the context in which Paul uses the phrase) as both an attribute of God and “the basis of a believer’s right-standing and so ‘justification’ as well.”38 Those who were closest to the culture, language, and worldview of Paul’s milieu, i.e., the church fathers (especially the Greek-speaking fathers), readily understood his references to “the righteousness of God” in a sense that was consistent with the ordinary meanings associated with the Greek word δικαιοσύνη rather than in some esoteric Hebraic/relational sense that bears no relationship to what the word actually means in Greek.

B. The Reformation Tradition of Interpretation To be sure, there are important points of discontinuity between the Reformation and the patristic interpretational traditions. Arguably the most significant point of discontinuity is that the Reformation tradition treats “the righteousness of God” as the imputed righteousness of Christ, making a sharp distinction between justification as a purely forensic act, on the one hand, and the moral renewal and sanctification of the believer, on the other. Alister McGrath argues that “the essential feature of the Reformation doctrines of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification and regeneration,” and that this is the primary feature which distinguishes the Reformers’ doctrine of justification from that of their patristic and medieval predecessors.39 Nevertheless, in spite of its critical theological break with the past at this key point, the Reformation tradition continues to follow in the footsteps of patristic and medieval interpretation in taking the Pauline phrase “the righteousness of God” as equivalent to “the righteousness of faith,” that is, the righteousness that believers have by virtue of Christ’s atonement, a status received by faith as a gift of God’s grace. They may have conceived of this “righteousness” in much more clearly forensic, legal, and imputative terms than the patristic and medieval exegetes, but they were one with their predecessors in viewing this “righteousness of God” in terms of the gift of righteousness received by the sinner in justification.

38 Ben Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 54 n15. 39 Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (3rd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 217.

20

Chapter 1: History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ

1. The Reformers Martin Luther (1483–1546),40 in his 1515–1516 lectures on Romans, agrees with Augustine’s interpretation of “the righteousness of God” in Rom 1:17 and 3:21. Luther’s lectures are divided into two parts: (1) his interlinear and marginal glosses on the Vulgate text, and (2) his more extended comments or scholia. In his glosses on Rom 1:17, Luther writes: “For the righteousness, by which a person is worthy of such salvation, of God, by which alone there are righteous people before God (qua sola Iusti sunt coram Deo).”41 This seems to suggest that Luther takes “of God” as equivalent to coram Deo – the righteousness of God is the righteousness by which believers are righteous in God’s sight. But in his more extended comments on Rom 1:17 (the scholia), Luther takes a slightly different tack: And here again, by the righteousness of God (Iustitia Dei) we must not understand the righteousness by which He is righteous (iustus) in Himself but the righteousness by which we are made righteous (iustificamur) by God. This happens through faith in the Gospel. Therefore blessed Augustine writes in chapter 11 of On the Spirit and the Letter: “It is called the righteousness of God because by imparting it He makes righteous people (Ideo Iustitia Dei dicitur, quod impertiendo eam Iustos facit), just as ‘Deliverance belongs to the Lord’ refers to that by which He delivers.” Augustine says the same thing in chapter 9 of the same book. The righteousness of God is so named to distinguish it from the righteousness of man, which comes from works (ad differentiam Iustitie hominum, que ex operibus fit), as Aristotle describes it very clearly in Book III of his Ethics.42

Here in the scholia on Rom 1:17, Luther leaves behind the coram Deo of the gloss and argues, in dependence on Augustine, that this righteousness is called “of God” because God imparts (impertio)43 it to us and so makes us righteous. It is precisely because it is God who imparts this righteousness to us, that it is called “of God,” to distinguish it from the righteousness “of man,” i.e., that which humans produce of themselves by their good behavior (as Aristotle says).44 40 ODCC 1007. 41 Martin Luther, “Lectures on Romans: Glosses and Scholia,” in Luther’s Works: American Edition (ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann; Saint Louis: Concordia, 1972), 25.9; “Die Vorlesung über den Römerbrief,” in D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamt­ ausgabe (Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1938), 56.10. 42 Luther’s Works, 25.151-52; Luthers Werke, 56.172. 43 The verb impertio means “to communicate, bestow, impart … to make one a sharer or partaker in any thing.” Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary Founded on Andrews’ Edition of Freund’s Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1879, 1962), 902. 44 The verb “impart” is vague and could be taken in either a transformative (infusion of righteousness) or forensic sense (imputation of righteousness). Many scholars think Luther did not hold to the concept of imputed righteousness. The scholars who belong to this camp are typically associated with the so-called Luther Renaissance that took place in the first half of the 20th century, mainly under the influence of the German church historian Karl Holl (1886– 1926). Holl argued that Luther’s discovery of the Protestant doctrine of justification occurred earlier than typically thought, during the time of his lectures on the Psalms (1513-14), before

A. History of Interpretation up to the Reformation

21

The same notes are sounded in his gloss on Rom 3:21. Luther again asserts his dependence on Augustine. His gloss after the phrase “the righteousness of God” is “by which God justifies us,” which then has an extended footnote quoting his lectures on Romans (1515-16), and before the 95 theses (1517). The problem is that at this early stage, Luther had not yet made his break with Rome. He was an Augustinian but not yet a Protestant. In his lectures on the Psalms and on Romans, he confuses justification and sanctification, views justification as a process of moral transformation, and does not affirm imputation. Holl elevated the young Luther as the benchmark of Luther’s thought, and explained the rise of the doctrine of imputed righteousness by claiming that this was Melanchthon’s creation and that this doctrine of Melanchthon was then later made the standard of Lutheran orthodoxy in the Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord. For historical overviews of the Luther Renaissance, see Heinrich Assel, Der andere Aufbruch: Der Lutherrenaissance – Ursprünge, Aporien und Wege: Karl Holl, Emmanuel Hirsch, Rudolf Hermann (1910–1935) (Forschungen zur systematischen und ökumenischen Theologie 72; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994); James M. Stayer, Martin Luther, German Saviour: German Evangelical Theological Factions and the Interpretation of Luther, 1917–1933 (McGill-Queen’s Studies in the History of Religion; Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2000); and Gregory Walter, “Karl Holl (1866–1926) and the Recovery of Promise in Luther,” LQ 25 (2011): 398-413. Holl’s historical thesis has influenced many. For example, Mark A. Seifrid argues that Melanchthon is the father of the concept of imputed righteousness, and that this is a betrayal of Luther’s more dynamic view in which justification is a verdict that takes place through the event of the cross and resurrection. Mark A. Seifrid, “Luther, Melanchthon and Paul on the Question of Imputation: Recommendations on a Current Debate,” pp. 137-52 in Justification: What’s At Stake in the Current Debates (ed. Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier; Downers Grove: IVP/Leicester, UK: Apollos, 2004). Responses to the view that Melanchthon and Luther differed on the issue of imputation include the following: Armand J. Boehme, “Tributaries into the River JDDJ [= Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification]: Karl Holl and Luther’s Doctrine of Justification,” Logia 18.3 (2009): 9ff; Lowell C. Green, How Melanchthon Helped Luther Discover the Gospel (Fallbrook: Verdict Publications, 1980); R. Scott Clark, “Iustitia Imputata Christi: Alien or Proper to Luther’s Doctrine of Justification?” CTQ 70 (2006): 269-310. Clark writes: “Scholars have too often focused on what Heiko Oberman called the ‘romantic and unrealistic’ notion of a ‘one-time breakthrough.’ For example, Holl failed to recognize the development of Luther’s theology in the period 1513–1521. As a consequence, he used as a baseline to determine Luther’s doctrine of justification things Luther said in that period but that he later rejected. It is more historical to say that gradually, from 1513 to 1521, Luther came to reject the doctrine of progressive justification in favor of the forensic doctrine of definitive justification” (287-88). According to Clark, the three places where Luther most clearly expounds his mature doctrine of justification are his lectures on Galatians (1535) (especially his comments on Gal 2:16) and in two disputations on justification (both held in 1536). To give one quote from the second disputation of 1536 in the home of Johannes Bugenhagen, right at the very outset, Melanchthon asks Luther if he believes that man is righteous by intrinsic renewal, as Augustine taught, or by a truly gracious imputation which is outside of us. Luther’s response is straightforward and unambiguous: “I think this, and am most persuaded and certain that this is the true opinion of the Gospel and of the Apostles, that only by a gracious imputation are we righteous before God” (sola imputatione gratuita sumus iusti apud Deum) (quoted by Clark, 303). The Latin text may be found in Philippi Melanchthonis epistolae, iudicia, consilia, testimonia aliorumque ad eum epistolae, quae in Corpore Reformatorum desiderantur (ed. Heinrich Ernst Bindseil; Halis Saxonum: Typis sumtibusque Gustavi Schwetschke, 1874), 344.

22

Chapter 1: History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ

Augustine’s On the Spirit and the Letter (9.15) more fully (the same quote we looked at above when dealing with Augustine’s interpretation): Blessed Augustine in chapter 9 of On the Spirit and the Letter says: “‘The righteousness of God’; he did not say ‘the righteousness of man’ or ‘the righteousness of one’s own will,’ but ‘the righteousness of God,’ not that righteousness by which God is righteous but that righteousness with which He covers man when He justifies the ungodly. As the term ‘the faith of Christ’ is used to describe not the faith by which Christ believes but the faith ‘by which we believe in Christ,’ so likewise this righteousness is not the righteousness by which God is righteous. For both are ours. But it is called God’s righteousness and Christ’s righteousness because He gives it to us out of His bounty.” The same things are said in chapter 11 [which Luther goes on to quote].45

Continuing with his glosses on Rom 3, moving now to the next verse, v 22, we come to this very brief but significant gloss: “The righteousness, that righteousness, I say, of God, from God” (Iusticia ea, inquam autem dei ex Deo).46 If it was not clear up to this point, Luther now explicitly interprets the genitive θεοῦ (Dei) as a genitive of source (ex Deo). So much for Luther’s lectures on Romans. Later, in 1545, he wrote a preface to his Latin writings that contains the famous “gates of paradise” passage in which he describes his struggle to understand the meaning of “the righteousness of God” in Rom 1:17. He writes autobiographically of the process of exegetical discovery. There is great debate among Luther scholars on when to date the event here recorded – some say as early as 1513, others up to five years later.47 Be that as it may, here is the story as recounted by Luther: I had indeed been captivated with an extraordinary ardor for understanding Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. But up till then it was not the cold blood about the heart, but a single word in chapter 1 [:17], “In it the righteousness of God is revealed,” which, according to the use and custom of all the teachers, I had been taught to understand philosophically regarding the formal or active righteousness, as they call it, with which God is righteous and punishes the unrighteous sinner. Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction. I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God, and said, “As if, indeed, it is not enough, that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the Decalogue, without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with his righteousness and wrath!” Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience. Nevertheless, I beat importunately upon Paul at that place, most ardently desiring to know what St. Paul wanted. At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, “In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, ‘He who through



Luther’s Works, 25.30; Luthers Werke, 56.36. Luther’s Works, 25.31; Luthers Werke, 56.36-37. 47 Luther’s Works, 34.326. 45 46

B. The Reformation Tradition of Interpretation

23

faith is righteous shall live.’” There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous live by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.” Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates …. And I extolled my sweetest word with a love as great as the hatred with which I had before hated the word “righteousness of God.” Thus that place in Paul was for me truly the gate to paradise. Later I read Augustine’s The Spirit and the Letter, where contrary to hope I found that he, too, interpreted God’s righteousness in a similar way, as the righteousness with which God clothes us when he justifies us.48

A year later, in the 1546 version of his preface to Romans (he wrote prefaces to each of the books of the Bible as part of his German translation), Luther said that the righteousness of faith “is called ‘the righteousness of God’ because God gives it, and counts it as righteousness for the sake of Christ our Mediator.”49 Philipp Melanchthon (1497–1560)50 placed the accent on the fact that this righteousness is imputed to us by God: “Iustitia Dei signifies the divine acceptance or the imputation of righteousness, by which God reputes and pronounces us righteous.”51 It is not clear whether Melanchthon takes θεοῦ as a genitive of source or as an objective genitive, but it is clear that for him “the righteousness of God” is not God’s own righteousness (whether conceived of as an attribute or an activity) but is the righteousness that is imputed to the believer. Martin Bucer (1491–1551)52 wrote a massive and learned 507-page commentary on Romans that is little known today.53 In his comment at Romans 3:21, he expressed his fundamental agreement with Melanchthon’s interpretation of iustitia Dei, the focus of which is the forensic benefit of acceptance before God by means of the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of righteousness: Philippus Melanchthon iustitiam Dei hîc pro acceptatione accipit, qua nos deus acceptat: id verò cum eo convenit, quòd nos per eam intelligimus incomparabilem illam Dei bonitatem in Christo exhibitam, qua & peccata condonat, & iustitiam imputat, & vitam aeternam largitur, eamque hîc adspirando mentem novam, ac pietatis studium, auspicatur. (Philipp Melanchthon takes the righteousness of God here for the acceptance with which God accepts us; this agrees with our own understanding of it as the incomparable goodness revealed in Christ by which he

48 Luther’s Works, 34.336-37. 49 Luther’s Works, 35.371. 50 ODCC 1066. 51 Melanchthon, Commentary on Romans (1532 edition), in Melanchthons Werke (ed. Robert Stupperich; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1965), 5.65 (translation mine). 52 ODCC 246. 53 Martin Bucer, Metaphrasis et enarratio in epist. d. Pauli apostoli ad Romanos (15361; 15622). For background on Bucer’s commentary, as well as a detailed outline see T. H. L. Parker, Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans, 1532–1542 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), 34-62.

24

Chapter 1: History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ

forgives sins and imputes righteousness and bestows eternal life; and he initiates it by inbreathing a new mind and a devotion to godliness.)54

Although Bucer defines the righteousness of God as the acceptance with which God accepts us, an acceptance which includes the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of righteousness, he also adds that a simultaneous benefit is the new life of the believer (“by inbreathing a new mind and a devotion to godliness”). This ambiguous formulation could be taken as including regeneration and sanctification within the iustitia Dei itself.55 On the other hand, Bucer could be speaking of the reality that the iustitia Dei, once imputed, results in the believer’s possession of eternal life, the enjoyment of which is initiated by the divine inbreathing of a new mind and devotion to godliness. John Calvin (1509–1564)56 wrote: “By the righteousness of God I understand that which is approved at His tribunal.”57 But later he adds, “By reintroducing the name of God, however, [Paul] appears to make Him the author, and not merely the approver, of the righteousness of which he speaks, as though he had said that it flows from Him alone, or that its origin is in heaven.”58 Calvin thus sees θεοῦ as a genitive of source as well as an objective genitive. There are different nuances here, but the Reformers agreed that the righteousness of God refers to the righteous status possessed by the believer, which status is “of God” in the sense that (a) it comes from and is bestowed by God (genetivus auctoris or genitive of source), and/or (b) is valid before and approved by God (objective genitive). Luther started with the objective genitive but then moved toward the genitive of source; Melanchthon was unclear; and Calvin combined both meanings. In spite of this slight variety of interpretations of the genitive, the Reformers were unanimous in taking the head-noun δικαιοσύνη as referring to the forensic status of the believer who has been credited or imputed with “righteousness,” and is therefore regarded and treated as such by God, on the legal ground of the atoning work of Christ.

54 Latin text retrieved online from The Digital Library of Classic Protestant Texts (Alexandria, Va.: Alexander Street Press, 2007) (hereafter cited as DLCPT). ET: Parker, Commentaries, 146. 55 “Bucer wishes to include regeneration and sanctification in his definition of righteousness” (Parker, Commentaries, 146). This seems to me to be reading too much into Bucer’s carefully chosen words and presumably depends on taking “he initiates it [eamque]” as “he initiates righteousness [iustitiam].” It is more likely that the word to be supplied is from the immediately preceding clause: “… bestows eternal life [vitam aeternum]; and he initiates it [eamque – sc. eternal life] by inbreathing a new mind,” etc. 56 ODCC 266. 57 Calvin’s Commentaries: The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians (trans. Ross MacKenzie; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 28 (on Rom 1:17). 58 Calvin’s Commentaries, 73 (on Rom 3:22).

B. The Reformation Tradition of Interpretation

25

2. Post-Reformation Protestant Interpretation To trace the trajectory of post-Reformation Protestant interpretation in both its Lutheran and Reformed branches would be tedious and repetitive. We need only get a glimpse of how the Reformers’ exegetical and theological insights regarding justification were taken up by a representative sampling of their successors. Robert Rollock (1555–1598) was a Scottish Presbyterian and the first principal of the newly established University of Edinburgh (est. 1582), where he was also a professor of divinity.59 Rollock was one of the earliest Reformed theologians to speak explicitly of a pre-fall “covenant of works” (foedus operum) between God and Adam in the garden, in contrast with which stands the “covenant of grace” (foedus gratiae) made between God and elect sinners after the fall.60 In his Treatise of God’s Effectual Calling, he offers a treatment of the benefits of the covenant of grace. In this context, Rollock argues that the primary benefit is imputed righteousness, and it is in this context that he explains the meaning of the Pauline phrase “the righteousness of God”: The first and principal grace promised in this covenant is righteousness; which must necessarily here have the first place, for after the breach of the covenant of works, that one first original justice, as they call it, was quite lost, and injustice did succeed in the place thereof. And this justice, which is here promised in the Covenant of Grace, is no inherent righteousness, as that original justice was, but is the righteousness of our Mediator Jesus Christ, which is ours by faith, and by the imputation of God. For which cause the Apostle calls it the righteousness of God; for without this imputative justice we cannot possibly stand before the tribunal of God, and by the imputation of this righteousness we are said to be justified before God.61

Using standard Protestant terminology, Rollock states that the righteousness of God is the righteousness of Christ imputed to the elect. However, rather than focusing on the genitive of source, he seems to emphasize the coram Deo interpretation mentioned by Luther in his original gloss on Rom 1:17. For Rollock, this imputed righteousness of Christ is designated “of God” because “by the imputation of this righteousness we are said to be justified before God” or “before the tribunal of God.” William Perkins (1558–1602) was a prominent Puritan theologian. He was educated at Cambridge University and a fellow there from 1584 to 1594, where he engaged in preaching, lecturing, and anti-Roman polemics.62 Perkins writes: This obedience of Christ, is called the Righteousness of God, and of Christ. Of God, I. not because it is in God, but of God: for it taketh all the power and merit it hath from the deity of the 59 Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (ed. John McClintock and James Strong; Harper & Brothers, 1880; reprinted by Baker, 1970), 9.68. 60 Mark Karlberg, Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock, 2004). 61 Robert Rollock, A Treatise of God’s Effectual Calling (Tractatus de Vocatione Efficaci) (Edinburgh, 1597), 39. Retrieved from DLCPT. 62 ODCC 1256.

26

Chapter 1: History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ

Son: whence it is that Jeremy saith, Jehovah our Righteousness. II. God doth only accept it for us, because that alone makes us boldly approach unto Gods [sic] throne of grace, that we may have pardon for our sins, and be received to eternal life.63

Perkins combines the two interpretations: the obedience of Christ is called “the righteousness of God” (1) because it has its origin from God (specifically taking its power and merit from the deity of the Son), and (2) because it is accepted by God so that we may boldly approach God’s throne and be received to eternal life. Andrew Willet (1561/2–1621) was a Cambridge-educated English Puritan who remained in the Church of England. He was famous in his day for a polemical treatise against the Roman Catholic Church titled Synopsis Papismi (1592). Later, he devoted himself to the more irenic task of scriptural commentary, writing “a remarkable series of encyclopaedic works of biblical exegesis” on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, 1-2 Samuel, Daniel, and Romans.64 His style of commentary writing is to ask questions about the text and then to collect quotations from previous commentators, both patristic and Protestant, although he does add his own commentary as well. On Romans 1:17 he writes: Chrysostomes [sic] exposition is best, who homil. 3 taketh this for that justice, which is communicated and infused unto us by that justice of Christ: and so Augustine understandeth that justice, not whereby God is just in himself, sed qua hominem induit, cum eum iustificat, but wherewith he judueth [sic] man when he justified him, lib. de spirit. & liter. c. 9 … This justice then consisteth only in the remission of sinns [sic], and in imputing unto us the righteousness of Christ by faith … It is called the justice of God, both because it is given us from God, not procured by our own works: and for that we thereby are made righteous, not before men, but in the sight of God.65

Franciscus Gomarus (1563–1641) was a Dutch Calvinist, a professor of theology at the University of Leiden, and a commissioner to the Synod of Dordt (1618–1619). A gifted Orientalist, his scholarly work was primarily in the area of scriptural exegesis.66 He was a vigorous opponent of Jacob Arminius and his followers, the Remonstrants, and became the leader of the movement against them, so much so that the anti-Remonstrants were styled “Gomarists.”67 In his commentary on Romans, at 1:17, Gomarus adopts the standard Reformation interpretation of “the righteousness of God” in Paul:

63 William Perkins, A Golden Chaine (1616), 82. Retrieved from DLCPT. 64 Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ed. H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 59.26-29. 65 Andrew Willet, Hexapla: That Is, A Six-Fold Commentary Upon the Most Divine Epistle of the Holy Apostle S. Paul to the Romans (Cambridge, 1611, 1620), 54-55. Retrieved from DLCPT. Willet’s work is a collection of quotes or paraphrases from patristic and Protestant commentators. In this case, the last two sentences quoted are attributed to Pareus and Gryneus, respectively.

B. The Reformation Tradition of Interpretation

27

Iustitia autem Dei is understood not subjectively, neither formally of the essential righteousness of God, as Andreas Osiander dreams (whom Calvin solidly refutes in his Institutes), but effectively, certainly given by the obedience of Christ the mediator unto death, even that of the cross. Which is called iustitia Dei, not that which is in God, nor which is God, but that which is given from God (non quod in Deo, aut Deus ist, sed quod à Deo data sit), Rom 3:21-22, which is opposed to the righteousness of man and one’s own or that which is acquired by our works, Rom 10:3-4; Phil 3:9.68

It is called “the righteousness of God,” not because it is the essential righteousness of God’s own nature, but because it is a righteousness given from God in the form of the obedience of Christ unto the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil 2:8), and because it stands in contrast with human righteousness acquired by works. Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669) was a German theologian who taught at Bremen, Franeker, and later at Leiden. Like Gomarus, he was also an expert in Oriental languages and attempted to expound dogmatics on a purely biblical basis. Although he professed adherence to Calvinist doctrine, he was critical of the spirit of scholastic orthodoxy that reigned in his day and his writings are thought to have contributed to the rise of Pietism in the 17th and 18th centuries.69 Cocceius takes much the same approach as Gomarus and the Reformation tradition generally. However, what stands out as unique is Cocceius’s appeal to the many Old Testament references to God’s righteousness. He argues that Paul’s language imitates that of the prophets: This righteousness, which was brought about when the Son assumed the condition of a servant, is called Dei iustitia, later by the Apostle (as Rom 1:17; 3:22), first by the prophets (as Psalm 5:10 [sic]; 36:6; 40:11; 50:6; 85:11; 97:6; 119:141 and especially 143:1, 11 and Isaiah 56:1). For the same he comes as “our righteousness from God” (Isa 54:17). Which language is imitated by the Apostle: “And may be found in him, not having my righteousness, which is of the law (meaning, ‘He who does these things shall live by them,’ Rom 10:5), but that which is through faith of Christ, the righteousness of God by faith” (Phil 3:9), that is, the righteousness which is given from God and of which God himself is the cause (quod à Deo datur, & cuius causa est Deus ipse), which is received through communion with Christ to the end that we may believe/ trust further and may live by the faith of the Son of God (Gal 2:20). For this reason he is called “God of our righteousness” (Ps 4:2) and “God our righteousness” (Jer 23:5-6; 33:15-16) and “we are justified in him” (Isa 45:25).70

Having traced Paul’s usage back to the Old Testament (the Psalms, Jeremiah, and Isaiah), Cocceius then concludes that there are three reasons for the “of God” appellation: 66 ODCC 689-90. 67 Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910), 12.228. 68 Franciscus Gomarus, Analysis & Explicatio Epistolae Ad Romanos (1644), 6. Retrieved from DLCPT. Translation from the Latin mine. 69 ODCC 370. 70 Johannes Cocceius, Summa Theologiae (1665), 496. Retrieved from DLCPT. Translation from the Latin mine. Psalm 5:10 should be 5:8 [5:9MT/LXX].

28

Chapter 1: History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ

In which appears the reason for this appellation: (1) because righteousness is given from God (à Deo donatum); (2) because God himself supplies the obedience of the Son, which can be the merit of life; (3) because it is in communion with God that this righteousness is obtained.71

Petrus van Mastricht (1630–1706) was a Reformed professor of Hebrew and practical theology at the University of Frankfurt and later at the University of Utrecht. He became famous for his Theoretico-Practica Theologia, a work that was translated into Dutch and English, and which had an impact on the Dutch Nadere Reformation and was also highly prized by Jonathan Edwards.72 Van Mastricht was not a highly original thinker but he represents the thinking of Reformed scholasticism at its peak. The quote below shows his dependence on the Reformed tradition. In the immediate context, van Mastricht is responding to Osiander’s view that the righteousness on account of which we are justified is the essential righteousness of the divine nature of Christ. Osiander had appealed to the verse which says that God has given us great and precious promises so that through them we might become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4). Van Mastricht responds as follows: To which we reply: (1) that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ occasionally designates produced righteousness, James 1:20; (2) that the righteousness of Christ produced is the righteousness of God, insofar as he who has produced it, θεάνθρωπος [God-man], is himself God, Acts 20:28; (3) that the righteousness of Christ produced is termed the righteousness of God, because it is constituted from God and accepted by God on our behalf (quod à Deo constituta sit, & pro nobis à Deo admittatur), Rom 3:25; 2 Cor 5:21.73

The Reformation tradition continued into the 19th and 20th centuries and remains to this day a vital force in evangelical Pauline interpretation.74 71 Johannes Cocceius, Summa Theologiae (1665), 496. Retrieved from DLCPT. Translation from the Latin mine. 72 George M. Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 318. 73 Petrus van Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia (1699), 711. Retrieved from DLCPT. Translation from the Latin mine. 74 The Reformation tradition is also continued in the following 19th- and 20th-century commentators, listed here in chronological order: Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (3rd ed.; Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1854), 60-5; Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950; originally published 1864), 30-31, 88; Robert Haldane, Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1870), 125-37; Friedrich Adolph Philippi, Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (2 vols., trans. J. S. Banks; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1878-79), 1.39-40 (“righteousness which avails before God”); William G. T. Shedd, A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1879), 17; Frederick L. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (trans. A. Cusin; rev. and ed. by Talbot W. Chambers; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956; original French edition, 1883), 96, 149; H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistle to the Romans (trans. John C. Moore and Edwin Johnson; rev. William P. Dickson; New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884), 50; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis: Augs-

C. The New View and Its Trajectory

29

C. The New View and Its Trajectory 1. The 19th Century Origins of the New View In the second half of the 19th century a significant and long-lasting shift began to occur – one that eventually culminated in the New Perspective’s understanding of “the righteousness of God” as God’s saving activity in keeping with his covenant faithfulness. The shift is first detectable in an 1860 article by Ludwig Diestel (1825–1878)75 titled “The Idea of Righteousness, particularly in the Old Testament, biblico-theologically set forth” (my translation).76 At the time of the publication of this article, Diestel was an associate professor of theology at the University of Bonn. He later held professorships in Old Testament exegesis at the Universities of Greifswald, Jena, and Tübingen. His primary contribution to the field of Old Testament studies was a major 800-page tome titled Geschichte des Alten Testaments in der christlichen Kirche (1869), in which he traced the reception history of the Old Testament in Christian theology from the apostolic fathers down to the establishment of the field of Old Testament studies as a historical discipline in the 19th century. In his article on “the idea of righteousness,” Diestel took exception to the traditional view that “righteousness” in the Old Testament has to do with iustitia distributiva, that is, God’s rewarding of the good and his recompensing of evil. This would presuppose an external norm that God is enforcing. According to Diestel, God executes this judgment according to an inner norm, which he defines as the salvation of the godly. God’s righteousness is his steadfast commitment to achieving the aim defined by that inner norm. This is why God’s righteousness in the Old Testament so frequently appears as equivalent to salvation and as grace. Diestel wrote: Bare recompense, which bestows salvation on the good and evil on the wicked, is never itself the aim, but is always only a means (nie selbst Zweck, immer nur Mittel), and therefore it is almost never attributed to righteousness. In the final analysis, then, recompense is never what defines just government, but only God’s highest aim (Zweck). Its content is the covenantal salvation of the godly.77 burg, 1961; originally, 1936), 78-80; Anders Nygren, Commentary on Romans (trans. Carl C. Rasmussen; Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1949; original Swedish edition, 1944), 74-76; John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 1.30-31; C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975), 1.96-98; William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982), 62-63; Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 100-3. 75 Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexicon. http://www.kirchenlexikon.de/d/diestel_ m.shtml. Accessed on March 8, 2011. 76 Ludwig Diestel, “Die Idee der Gerechtigkeit, vorzüglich im Alten Testament, biblischtheologisch dargestellt,” Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie 5 (1860): 173-253. 77 Diestel, “Die Idee der Gerechtigkeit,” 198. Translation mine.

30

Chapter 1: History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ

When God removes the obstacles that stand in the way of the fulfillment of his gracious aim toward the godly, then the punishment of the wicked may on occasion occur as part of this, but it is never an end in itself. Punishment arises only if the wicked attempt to hinder or thwart God’s aim of love, grace, and salvation toward the covenant community. Ultimately, God’s righteousness is not a static attribute but his steadfast commitment to fulfilling his salvific aim toward humankind.78 Albrecht Ritschl (1822–1889)79 took up Diestel’s ideas and developed them in his three-volume magnum opus, The Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation (1870–74),80 the second volume of which includes a treatment of the theme of God’s righteousness in the Scriptures.81 Under the influence of Kant and Schleiermacher (the father of liberal Protestant theology), Ritschl began with the foundational theological presupposition that God is Father, which means that he is “loving will,” and that all of his other attributes (such as holiness and righteousness) must be subsumed under that of love. The fact that God is love is not derived from scholastic metaphysical theology but is a datum revealed in the person of Jesus.82 From this presupposition he drew the corollary that God’s ultimate aim in the providential government of the world is the moral progress of humanity toward a community characterized by love for God and for one’s neighbor. This morally-improved humanity he calls “the kingdom of God,” the central theme of the teaching of Jesus, which Ritschl believed had been neglected in Protestant theology until Schleiermacher. Within this theological framework, Ritschl adapts the concept of “the righteousness of God” so that it no longer has any punitive or judicial elements, but is nothing less than God’s faithfulness to his aim of fulfilling his love toward humanity by forming humanity into “the kingdom of God.” He writes: “God’s righteousness is His self-consistent and undeviating action in behalf of the salvation of the members of His community; in essence it is identical with his grace.”83 And again, the righteousness of God is “the congruence of his activity with his

Diestel, “Die Idee der Gerechtigkeit,” 198-99. ODCC 1400. 80 Albrecht Ritschl, Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung (3 vols; Bonn: A. Marcus, 1870-74). ET of vol. 1: A Critical History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation (trans. John S. Black; Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1872). ET of vol. 3: The Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation: The Positive Development of the Doctrine (trans. H. R. Mackintosh and A. B. Macaulay; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902). 81 Albrecht Ritschl, Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung, Zweiter Band: Der biblische Stoff der Lehre (3rd ed.; Bonn: A. Marcus, 1889), 102-13. To my knowledge, no ET of vol. 2 has yet been published; hence all translations of quotes from this volume are mine. 82 Ritschl, Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation, 3.270-84. 83 Ibid., 3.473-74.

78



79

C. The New View and Its Trajectory

31

inner norm (die Congruenz seines Handelns mit seiner innern Normalität),” the inner norm, that is, of his love.84 It is important to recognize the sense of the divine righteousness in relation to the purpose (Zweck) that is predominantly pursued through God’s judging or governing … In this respect, it is found now, above all, that the righteousness of God is directed at the good or the peace of the righteous.85 Now the judgment of God here has no other meaning than that he establishes Israel’s right in the world (a right established by his own grace), so that righteousness is regarded as the motive of this procedure, how God consistently proceeds according to his own norm (wie Gott nach seiner eigenen Norm folgerecht verfährt), that is, according to his intention (nach seiner Absicht) and according to the quality in which the covenant people are presupposed. The righteousness of God stands accordingly in the nearest analogy with his faithfulness (Treue) (Ps 143:1). It signifies the constancy of his gracious purpose (die Stetigkeit seiner Gnadenabsicht) toward the chosen people.86

Note the similarity with Diestel’s formulation of God’s righteousness in terms of the inner norm of his gracious aim/intention/purpose (Zweck/Absicht). In fact, Ritschl was close friends with him and explicitly acknowledged his dependence on Diestel’s 1860 article.87 As for Diestel, so for Ritschl, “the righteousness of God” in the Old Testament has a thoroughly positive and saving significance; it never connotes divine wrath or judgment. If in a handful of cases punishment is connected with the righteousness of God, “this happens only indirectly, insofar as God’s care for the righteous is put into effect by the destruction of the wicked.”88 Any notion that righteousness is punitive comes from paganism, not from the Scriptures.89 God’s righteousness, therefore, does not stand in tension with God’s mercy, grace, and love, but is really identical with it. God’s very essence is love; therefore, his righteousness is merely his unswerving fidelity to pursuing his loving will, which will achieve its ultimate fulfillment in the kingdom of God. Under Ritschl’s influence similar views were espoused by Hermann Schultz90 in the area of Old Testament theology and by Theodor Häring91 in the field of Ritschl, Die christliche Lehre, 2.104. Translation mine. Ibid., 2.106. Translation mine. 86 Ibid., 2.111. Translation mine. 87 Ibid., 2.103 note 1. According to David L. Mueller, Diestel was Ritschl’s confidant and letter-writing correspondent. Mueller, An Introduction to the Theology of Albrecht Ritschl (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 49, 84. 88 Ritschl, Die christliche Lehre, 2.110. Translation mine. 89 Although Ritschl did acknowledge that the righteousness of God is used in a punitive sense in a handful of verses in the OT, he dismissed these verses as irrelevant since they were in the post-exilic books. Ritschl, Die christliche Lehre, 2.104-5. 90 Hermann Schultz, Alttestamentliche Theologie: Die Offenbarungsreligion auf ihrer vorchristlichen Entwickelungsstufe (5th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896), 327, 424-5. Schultz was not a student of Ritschl, but he associated himself with Ritschl. Alfred E. Garvie, “Ritschlianism,” in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (ed. James Hastings; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1918), 10.817. 91 Theodor Häring, ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ bei Paulus (Tübingen: J. J. Heckenhauer, 1896).

84



85

32

Chapter 1: History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ

Pauline studies. When applied to Paul’s language of “the righteousness of God,” German scholarship at the beginning of the 20th century tended to take θεοῦ as a subjective genitive and interpreted the lexeme as a whole not as God’s attribute of righteousness – an interpretation considered too static – but as God’s saving activity.92 It is within this late 19th-century context that Hermann Cremer (1834– 1903),93 Protestant Professor of Dogmatics at the University of Greifswald, wrote his famous treatise, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre im Zusammenhange ihrer geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen. It was first published in 1899 and reissued in a second edition in 1900, which is the edition I will be using.94 The full title of his work may be translated, The Pauline Doctrine of Justification in the Context of its Historical Presuppositions. It is widely acknowledged that Cremer was the first biblical scholar to identify “righteousness” in biblical language as a relational concept (Verhältnisbegriff), although he was not the first to call into question its essential connection with distributive justice (see Diestel and Ritschl above).95 Cremer’s primary concern in this volume is to set Paul’s doctrine of justification in its historical context, which for Cremer primarily means the theology and religion of the Old Testament and early Judaism. He quotes Rom 3:21 where Paul says that the law and prophets bear witness to the righteousness of God (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ … μαρτυρουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν). Cremer takes this to mean that Paul regards the Old Testament as a whole (“the law and the prophets”) as bearing witness to the righteousness of God, not just “two or three scattered Old Testament sayings” explicitly quoted by Paul that use “righteousness” terminology.96 Cremer argues that for Paul, the doctrine of jusHäring was a student of Ritschl and a member of the Ritschlian school. Garvie, “Ritschlianism,” Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, 10.817-18. 92 “In the latter part of last century, and the beginning of the present one, intensive research into Paul’s teaching on justification, and particularly into the meaning of ‘righteousness of God’, produced a strong emphasis on θεοῦ as a ‘subjective genitive’, meaning in this case that it is God’s own righteousness, not as a static attribute, but as an expression for the activity of the living God. A whole galaxy of German scholars held this position.” J. A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Enquiry (SNTSMS 20; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 10-11. 93 ODCC 431. 94 Hermann Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre im Zusammenhange ihrer geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen (2nd ed.; Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1900). See also Hermann Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek with Supplement (trans. William Urwick; 4th ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1895), 690-93. 95 E.g., Peter Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (2nd ed.; FRLANT 87; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 46, 50. 96 Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre, 2. Cremer does not identify what “two or three” OT sayings he has in mind, but we may venture to guess that he is thinking of Gen 15:6 (cited by Paul in Rom 4:3ff; Gal 3:6); Ps 143:2 (quoted in Rom 3:20; Gal 2:16); and Hab 2:4 (cited in Rom 1:17; Gal 3:11).

C. The New View and Its Trajectory

33

tification by faith, summarized in the lexeme, “the righteousness of God,” is “a theme that runs throughout the entire Old Testament,” reflecting “a single common view of the entire Old Testament,” and that Paul’s “explicit Old Testament citations come only as a classic expression of this Old Testament perspective.”97 Therefore, Cremer wants to investigate the Old Testament in order to see if Paul was right to view the entire Old Testament as teaching the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith. Cremer does this by examining references to the righteousness of God in the prophets (especially Deutero-Isaiah) and the Psalms.98 Beginning with DeuteroIsaiah, he quotes the passages where God’s “righteousness” stands in poetic parallelism with God’s “salvation,” e.g., in Isa 56:1b, “My salvation is about to come and my righteousness to be revealed” (NASB; also cited by Cremer: 45:8, 21; 46:13; 51:5, 6, 8; 59:17; 63:1). The fundamental concept in these passages is that the righteousness of God is God’s saving activity on behalf of Israel. In the Psalms, a similar usage prevails, though the focus is on God’s righteousness as refuge for the oppressed, e.g., as in Psalm 31:1: “In You, O Lord, I have taken refuge; let me never be ashamed; in Your righteousness deliver me” (NASB; also cited by Cremer: Pss 36:10; 51:14; 69:27; 71:2, 15, 16; 98:2-3; 103:17; 129:3-4; 143:1, 11). In addition to these passages in Deutero-Isaiah and the Psalms, Cremer points out that the Septuagint translates ‫חסד‬ ֶ   ֶ with δικαιοσύνη nine times (Gen 19:19; 20:13; 21:23; 24:27; 32:10; Ex 15:13; 34:7; Prov 20:28; Isa 63:7), and once ‫צדקה‬ is translated with ἔλεος (Isa 56:1).99 This suggests that, whereas we tend ָ   ָ   ְ      to view righteousness and grace as opposites, in Old Testament thought there is actually an affinity between the two concepts and that righteousness in fact has a gracious connotation.100 Up to this point, Cremer’s interpretation would appear to be very close if not identical to that of Ritschl, insofar as he seems to be taking the righteousness of God as a purely positive concept with no negative judicial connotations. However, at this juncture in his argument Cremer explicitly addresses the position of Ritschl, as well as that of Diestel and Schultz who were members of the Ritschlian school.101 Ritschl and his school claimed that the righteousness of God has no judicial component, or in the few cases where it does, that the judicial aspect is not essential to the concept of righteousness but only an incidental

Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre, 2, 6, 9. Ibid., 11-16. 99 Cremer only counted Isa 56:1, but ‫צדקה‬ is also rendered by ἔλεος in LXX Ezek 18:19, ָ   ָ   ְ      21, bringing the count to three. 100 Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre, 16-17. John A. Ziesler makes a similar appeal to the LXX’s translation decisions in The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Enquiry (SNTSMS 20; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 60-69. 101 Garvie, “Ritschlianism,” Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, 10.817-18.

97



98

34

Chapter 1: History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ

judgment needed to accomplish God’s unerring aim of love toward humanity.102 In response, Cremer objects to the philosophical abstraction involved in Ritschl’s interpretation of the righteousness of God, particularly Ritschl’s definition of righteousness as God’s fidelity to “the in-God-himself lying yardstick of his perfect purpose” (in Gott selbst liegenden Maßstab vollkommener Zwecke), that is, his loving will which aims to bring all humanity into the perfection of mutual love in the kingdom of God. There may be some value in Ritschl’s formulation in a dogmatic context, according to Cremer, but to Cremer’s mind it is not exegetically grounded in the linguistic usage of “righteousness” in the Scriptures.103 Given his concerns as a biblical-theologian, Cremer seeks to define righteousness in a non-philosophical manner. In opposition both to Ritschl’s notion that righteousness is an “aim concept” (Zweckbegriff)104 and to the prevailing view that it is a “norm concept” (Normbegriff),105 Cremer argues that righteousness in scriptural usage is in fact a “relational concept” (Verhältnisbegriff): ‫ צדק‬is a thoroughly relational concept (durchaus Verhältnisbegriff) based on an actual relationship between two parties, between object and subject in relation … The concept of righteousness is in fact a relational concept (Verhältnisbegriff), which derives not from a relationship to an ideal norm (nicht auf das Verhältnis zu einer idealen Norm), but from a relationship between two related parties, which brings claims/demands with itself, the fulfillment of which is righteousness (sondern auf das Verhältnis zwischen zweien beziehend, welches Ansprüche mit sich bringt, deren Erfüllung die Gerechtigkeit ist).106

The central, constitutive element of Cremer’s Verhältnisbegriff is that there is no abstract norm lying outside the relationship, to the judgment of which either God or humanity is subordinate; rather, “the relationship itself is the norm” (das Verhältnis selbst ist die Norm). Any claims, demands, or obligations (Ansprüche) “are simply given with the existing relationship” (sie sind einfach mit dem bestehenden Verhältnisse gegeben). Thus, “the basic concept of ‫ צדק‬is that something or someone complies with the claims which are set in place with the existing relationship in which he finds himself.”107 Diestel wrote that “Bare recompense, which bestows salvation on the good and evil on the wicked, is never itself the aim, but is always only a means, and therefore it is almost never attributed to righteousness.” Diestel, “Die Idee der Gerechtigkeit,” 198 (translation mine). Ritschl said that on the rare occasions in the OT where punishment is connected with the righteousness of God, “this happens only indirectly, insofar as God’s care for the righteous is put into effect by the destruction of the wicked.” Ritschl, Die christliche Lehre, 2.110 (translation mine). 103 Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre, 22. 104 Ibid., 33-34, 39, where Cremer explicitly characterizes his debate with Ritschl in terms of Zweckbegriff vs. Verhältnisbegriff. 105 E.g., Emil Kautzsch, Über die Derivate des Stammes ‫ צדק‬im alttestamentlichen Sprachgebrauch (Tübingen: Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, 1881). 106 Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre, 34, 53. 107 Ibid., 36.

102

C. The New View and Its Trajectory

35

In contrast to the traditional interpretive stream from the church fathers to the Reformers, “righteousness” for Cremer is not conformity to an external norm, but is a relational, social, or covenantal concept. And in contrast to Ritschl, “righteousness” is not merely God’s fidelity to his loving purpose, but also includes a forensic dimension, since God’s covenantal relationship with Israel demands that he come to Israel’s defense and vindicate her against her oppressors. Yet, in the final analysis, Cremer is closer to Ritschl than to the traditional interpretation, for he agrees with Ritschl that righteousness is “thoroughly positive” (durchaus positiver)108 and does not include any thought of punishment. “Righteousness, which someone possesses or which he exercises, always comes to the good of those with whom he stands in relationship (Verhältnis).”109 How does Cremer accomplish this union of Ritschl’s thoroughly positive, saving righteousness and his own recognition of the forensic or judicial dimension of righteousness? He does so by arguing that The proper purpose of God’s righteousness-activity or judging is not negative, but thoroughly positive, not punishment, but … the defense of right, the defense of those who are in the right and who desire to come to their right over against a world that treats them as having no right.110

When God comes to the aid of his oppressed people, delivering them from their enemies, and vindicating their right over against those who treat them as if they have no right, God is exercising his saving righteousness in keeping with his covenant relationship with his people. Contra Ritschl, judicial activity is involved, because God is exercising his righteousness on behalf of his covenant people, though he is punishing not them but their oppressors. So we can see that there is no conflict between God’s righteousness and God’s grace (daß kein Widerstreit zwischen Gerechtigkeit und Gnade Gottes besteht), that the exercise of righteousness on God’s part is grace (daß die Gerechtigkeitsübung seitens Gottes Gnade ist), that his judicial righteousness is salvific (seine richtende Gerechtigkeit heilschaffend ist) and stands in the closest connection with his goodness and faithfulness (Güte und Treue), so that righteousness and faithfulness (Gerechtigkeit und Treue) are synonymous, and that righteousness and grace can stand in parallel.111

In sum, the righteousness of God in the Old Testament is always a judicial act that creates salvation for God’s people who are oppressed by their enemies. God’s righteousness is his covenant faithfulness, expressed (particularly in the Psalms and Deutero-Isaiah) in the form of God’s saving activity (Heilshandeln) by which he intervenes in history to redeem his people and vindicate them from their oppressors, thus fulfilling his obligations to the covenant. To express this Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre, 23. Ibid., 37. 110 Ibid., 23. 111 Ibid., 23.



108



109



36

Chapter 1: History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ

concept, Cremer invented a new Latin phrase, iustitia salutifera or “saving righteousness,” modeled after the old interpretation of “righteousness” as iustitia distributiva that Cremer rejected: In the entire Old Testament, the righteousness of God is and remains iustitia salutifera, because its essence accords with iustitia justificatoria, that is, because its essence is to create justice for those who need it, to exercise justice on behalf of God’s people and thereby to help them.112

Taking this concept and applying it to Paul, Cremer argued that in the key Pauline texts that speak of “the righteousness of God,” the genitive θεοῦ is to be taken as a subjective genitive and that the whole phrase refers to God’s covenant faithfulness as manifested in his saving (i.e., justifying or vindicating) activity in Christ. 2. Cremer’s Reception in Old Testament Scholarship It is interesting to observe that although Cremer’s work was a study in Paul’s doctrine of justification, his thesis concerning ‫צדק‬ appears to have ֶ  ֶ and ‫צדקה‬ ָ   ָ   ְ      been taken up by Old Testament scholarship, from which point it soon came to be regarded as an assured result of modern critical study. Gerhard von Rad (1901–1971) claimed that Old Testament theology until Cremer was in the grip of the Western idea of righteousness as conformity to a norm. Yet to the question, “What is the norm according to the Old Testament?” scholars could not find a satisfactory answer. But, von Rad argues, they were asking the wrong question. “It was H. Cremer who recognized the impossibility of applying this way of thinking to Biblical thought, and succeeded in breaking through to a completely different way of thinking which has so far been rightly accepted as proven, in its basic thesis at least.”113 Von Rad goes on to give a summary of Cremer’s theory that righteousness is not conformity to an external norm, but rather fulfillment of the claims that arise from a particular relationship. Von Rad accepts Cremer’s interpretation of the phrase, “Yahweh’s righteous ָ     ְ       ׂ       ְ  ִ (Judges 5:11; 1 Sam 12:7; Mic 6:5; Ps 103:6; Dan 9:16), as acts” (‫יהוה‬ ‫)צדקות‬ God’s saving acts in history, the effects of his faithfulness to his covenant relationship with Israel.114 Von Rad agrees with Ritschl and Cremer, arguing that the righteousness of Yahweh is “always” a gift that brings salvation. “It is inconceivable that it should ever menace Israel. No references to the concept of a punitive ‫צדקה‬ ָ  ָ   ְ can be adduced – that would be a contradictio in adiecto.”115 Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre, 33. Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology (2 vols.; trans. D. M. G. Stalker; Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1962), 1.371. 114 Ibid., 1.372. 115 Ibid., 1.377. Contradictio in adiecto is a contradiction where the noun and the adjective modifying it stand in contradiction. The classic example is “deafening silence.” In this case, von Rad is saying that “punitive righteousness” is an oxymoron in Old Testament theology.

112



113

C. The New View and Its Trajectory

37

Walther Eichrodt (1890–1978) argues in much the same way as von Rad. He warns against reading the Hebrew concept of righteousness in light of the iustitia distributiva of Roman legal thought and says, “In Hebrew thinking there is no such thing as an abstract formal concept which might be classified according to an objective standard, thus presupposing a universal idea of righteousness.”116 He cites the work of Emil Kautzsch,117 who attempted to defend the older view that righteousness in Hebrew means conformity to a norm, whether that norm is God himself or the divine command or even the subjective conscience of humans. But in Eichrodt’s perspective these were alien ideas that needed to be swept away. “With the insight of genius H. Cremer recognized this and described ṣdq as a concept of relation referring to an actual relationship between two persons and implying behavior which corresponds to, or is true to, the claims arising out of such a relationship.”118 The righteousness of God, then, is a gracious gift of salvation wrought through the establishment or restoration of the covenant relationship between God and his people. Indeed, the maintenance of the covenant relation is so gracious that it is tantamount to the justification of the ungodly.119 It goes without saying that von Rad and Eichrodt were (and are) widely respected Old Testament scholars whose endorsement of Cremer helped cement in the minds of many New Testament scholars the correctness of the covenant faithfulness/iustitia salutifera interpretation. In addition to these Old Testament heavyweights, mention must also be made of Elizabeth R. Achtemeier (1926–2002)120 who wrote a 1962 article, “Righteousness in the OT,” for The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. This article is historically significant as a nexus that mediated Cremer’s theory to English-speaking New Testament scholars. James D. G. Dunn acknowledges that it exercised a profound influence on his own thinking.121 Closely following Cremer, Achtemeier defines “righteousness” as follows: Righteousness is in the OT the fulfillment of the demands of a relationship, whether that relationship be with men or with God … Each of these relationships brings with it specific deWalther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (2 vols.; trans. J. A. Baker; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961), 1.240. 117 Emil Kautzsch, Über die Derivate des Stammes ‫ צדק‬im alttestamentlichen Sprachgebrauch (Tübingen: Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, 1881). 118 Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 1.240. 119 Ibid., 1.246-47. 120 http://www.layman.org/news.aspx?article=11722. Accessed October 12, 2010. 121 Dunn writes: “The puzzle which quickly began to nag emerged from my initial probing into one of the key phrases in Paul’s justification teaching – the phrase, ‘the righteousness of God’ … I found the articles on the subject by Elizabeth and Paul Achtemeier in Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible highly illuminating – but puzzle-provoking. For the Achtemeiers brought home to me that Paul’s central phrase was drawn directly from the Old Testament, and resonated through and through with characteristic Jewish emphases. ‘Righteousness’ was a relational concept, and was to be understood ‘as meeting the demands of a relationship.’” James D. G. Dunn, “The New Perspective: whence, what and whither?” in idem, The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays (WUNT II/185; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 2.

116

38

Chapter 1: History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ

mands, the fulfillment of which constitutes righteousness. The demands may differ from relationship to relationship; righteousness in one relationship may be unrighteousness in another. Furthermore, there is no norm of righteousness outside the relationship itself.122

This entry in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible is not an isolated case. Many other Old and New Testament lexica and theological dictionaries repeat the Cremer thesis as one of the assured results of modern critical scholarship.123 For this reason, I believe it is not going too far to call it a reigning paradigm.124 3. The 20th Century Gerechtigkeit Gottes Discussion This next section is devoted to the Gerechtigkeit Gottes discussion in 20th century German New Testament scholarship from Schlatter to Käsemann to Bultmann to Stuhlmacher. The significance of this survey is that it demonstrates another important development in the shift away from the traditional patristic and Reformational reading of the genitive of source (a righteousness from God) to the subjective genitive (the saving activity of God). Cremer’s relational theory is sometimes implicitly in the background, and at other times explicitly cited by

E. R. Achtemeier, “Righteousness in the OT,” IDB 4.80. Gottlob Schrenk, “δίκη, κτλ,” in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (TWNT) (ed. Gerhard Kittel; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1935), 2.180-229; Klaus Koch, “Gerechtigkeit im Alten Testament,” in Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon (EKL) (ed. Heinz Brunotte and Otto Weber; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956), 1.1501-1502; F. Horst, “Gerechtigkeit Gottes im AT und Judentum,” in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (RGG3) (ed. Kurt Galling et al.; 3rd ed; Tübingen: Mohr, 1958), 2.1403-1406; Klaus Koch, “‫צדק‬,” in Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament (THAT) (ed. Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann; München: Chr. Kaiser, 1971-76), 2.507-30; Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (L&N) (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988), 1.452; Karl Kertelge, “δικαιοσύνη, δικαιόω, δικαίωμα,” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (EDNT) (ed. Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 1.325-35; K. L. Onesti and M. T. Brauch, “Righteousness, Righteousness of God,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (DPL) (ed. Ralph P. Martin, Gerald F. Hawthorne, and Daniel G. Reid; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 827-37; Eckart Otto, “Gerechtigkeit, Biblisch, Alter Orient und Altes Testament,” in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (RGG4) (ed. Hans Dieter Betz et al.; 4th ed.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 3.702-3; Frederick William Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG) (3rd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 247-49; Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT) (trans. M. E. J. Richardson; 2 Vol. Study Edition; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1004-7; B. Johnson, “‫צדק‬, etc.,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (TDOT) (ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 12.239-64. 124 By contrast with the preceding footnote, I could find only one dictionary of OT theology whose entry on “righteousness” was not influenced by Cremer: David J. Reimer, “‫צדק‬,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDOTTE) (ed. Willem VanGemeren; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 3.744-69.

122



123

C. The New View and Its Trajectory

39

these scholars. Although a number of scholars will be examined here, it should become obvious that one figure towers above the rest, namely Ernst Käsemann, whose views have arguably influenced those of the New Perspective even though New Perspective scholars indicate points of disagreement with him. We begin with Adolf Schlatter (1852–1938), who functioned as a pre-WWII bridge mediating Cremer to Käsemann and his successors.125 Eighteen years his senior, it was Cremer who invited Schlatter to move from the University of Bern in Switzerland to the University of Greifswald in Germany. Schlatter served as a colleague with Cremer on the theological faculty at Greifswald from 1888 to 1893, during which period the two biblical theologians developed a close bond in their mutual defense of orthodox Christianity against the then-dominant Ritschlian liberalism.126 In his 1935 commentary on Romans, titled Gottes Gerechtigkeit,127 Schlatter shows his dependence on Cremer and advances a very similar interpretation. First, like Cremer, Schlatter argues that the genitive θεοῦ is to be taken “strictly,” by which he seems to mean as the possessive or the subjective genitive, although he does not explicitly specify which. “Righteousness” is as much God’s own attribute as are “power” (“the power of God,” Rom 1:16) and “wrath” (“the wrath of God,” Rom 1:18).128 Since he makes clear that he is referring not to the static attribute of righteousness but to “God’s salvific work,”129 it would seem that Schlatter takes θεοῦ as a subjective genitive. Second, Schlatter, again in dependence on Cremer, uses the language of relationship when describing the content of “the righteousness of God.” For example, he writes: It is obvious that Paul’s statement concerning the righteousness of God could not have referred to a static substance. In every expression Paul is thinking of God as the creator, as the one who wills and acts, the one who reveals himself and who brings the person into relationship (Verhältnis) with him, as he intended. Because of the very deity of God, his work brings about justice, and he so orders the relationship (Verhältnis) of humans to him that, on account of the power of his will, everything evil is eliminated.130

Schlatter’s emphasis on the relationship between God and humans, effected by “the righteousness of God,” is connected with his Pietistic concern, throughout

125 See the article by Robert W. Yarbrough on Schlatter in the Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters (ed. Donald K. McKim; Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2007), 881-85. 126 Werner Neuer, Adolf Schlatter: A Biography of Germany’s Premier Biblical Theologian (trans. Robert W. Yarbrough; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 82-94. 127 Adolf Schlatter, Gottes Gerechtigkeit: Ein Kommentar zum Römerbrief (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1935). ET: Romans: The Righteousness of God (trans. Siegfried S. Schatzmann; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995). 128 Schlatter, Romans, 20-21. 129 Ibid., 21. 130 Ibid., 21.

40

Chapter 1: History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ

his writings, to combat an anemic and calcified Christianity – so common in the state-sanctioned Lutheran church of the time – in which faith is reduced to intellectual assent to the articles of the creed without a corresponding connection with the will as expressed in a life of obedience to God.131 Thus, for Schlatter, “the righteousness of God” must not be defined merely as the righteousness that God bestows upon or imputes to the believer (as Luther and Calvin taught), which would reduce God’s righteousness to his mercy. “The righteousness of God” is powerful and effective. It refers not only to what God does “for” the believer but also to what he does “in” the believer. It brings us into a new relationship with God in which we enjoy not only God’s favor and mercy but also his transforming power resulting in a changed life: When an individual believes and because he believes, God’s righteousness is effective for him and in him. As a result of his faith, on account of the fact that he believes, he is brought into relationship with God in which he enjoys God’s goodwill and lives in accordance with God’s will.132

In terms of the distinction upheld by traditional Protestant orthodoxy between justification and regeneration/sanctification, one may say that Schlatter strives to blur the lines as much as possible.133 In his treatment of Romans 6, Schlatter explicitly rejects the “dissection of grace” into two sequential gifts, justification and sanctification, and argues that this formulation does not originate with Paul.134 Schlatter argues that righteousness itself is so “effective” that it “establishes the fellowship between [God and humans] in a manner that everything evil remains excluded.”135 Third, Schlatter’s interpretation of “the righteousness of God” builds on Cremer’s theocentric emphasis but adds the further dimension of the authority of God the creator and the lordship of Christ who reigns in God’s name. This relates to the previous point, since the salvific activity of God in Christ is the powerful, effective, life-changing work of the creator God. This is an element of Schlatter’s theology that will be taken up by Käsemann and Stuhlmacher, though they will

131 Stuhlmacher explains this polemical context in “Adolf Schlatter as Interpreter of Paul – An Attempt” (commemorative address given at the fiftieth anniversary of Schlatter’s death, Tübingen, September 26-29, 1988); translated and published as “Foreword” in Schlatter, Romans, ix-xxiv (see xiv, xviii-xix). Schlatter lamented that Luther’s sola fide and simul peccator et justus “meant the truncation of life that separates action from it and leaves behind nothing but faith” (Romans, 104). 132 Schlatter, Romans, 23. 133 As noted earlier, Alister E. McGrath argues that the essence of the Reformation doctrine of justification is its insistence on making a clear distinction between justification and regeneration. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (3rd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 217. 134 Schlatter, Romans, 151. 135 Ibid., 20. Schlatter also speaks of “the effectiveness of Christ” (55, 151).

C. The New View and Its Trajectory

41

develop it further by tying the concept of God’s creatorhood to Paul’s Jewish “apocalyptic” worldview. “The [Reformation] interpreter began with his own self while Paul began with God.”136 Of course, Schlatter wrote prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, so he was not able to bring to bear that body of literature in defense of his interpretation of “the righteousness of God.” This would be left to the towering figure to whom we now turn. Cremer and Schlatter laid the foundations for the 20th-century, subjectivegenitive, theocentric interpretation, but it was Ernst Käsemann (1906–1998) who sparked a renewed debate in the post-WWII era over the significance of “the righteousness of God” in Pauline theology. In his famous 1961 lecture, “Gottesgerechtigkeit bei Paulus,”137 he argued that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is a technical term borrowed from Jewish apocalyptic that refers to God’s righteous activity of bringing about the cosmic restoration of creation. As appropriated by Paul, “the righteousness of God” refers to God’s gift and God’s power simultaneously, thus overcoming the divide between the forensic and the ethical dimensions of righteousness that he thought had plagued discussions since the Reformation.138 Käsemann was also concerned, in reaction to Bultmann,139 to avoid an individualizing, existentialist interpretation of justification. He wanted to stress the theocentric aspect – not denying the anthropological aspect, but making it clearly subordinate to the theocentric.140 Käsemann employed “apocalyptic thought” as a way of bringing out this theocentric dimension. The “apocalyptic worldview” (which, he argued, exercised a controlling influence on Paul’s theology) placed the accent on God’s cosmic act of making creation right again, of which the restoration of individuals to a right relationship with God is but a subordinate part.

Schlatter, Romans, 22. The lecture itself was delivered at the Oxford Congress on “The New Testament Today” on September 14, 1961. It was first published as “Gottesgerechtigkeit bei Paulus,” ZTK 58 (1961): 367-78. It was reprinted in Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, Zweiter Band (2nd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), 181-93. ET: “‘The Righteousness of God’ in Paul,” pp. 168-82 in New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969). 138 Käsemann, “The Righteousness of God,” 169-72. 139 Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (trans. K. Grobel; New York: Scribners, 1955), 1.270-329. Later, in response to Käsemann’s 1961 essay, Bultmann wrote “ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ,” JBL 83 (1964): 12-16. Bultmann argued that θεοῦ is a genetivus auctoris so that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ refers to God’s gift of righteousness bestowed on believers. 140 Stuhlmacher states that “Käsemann’s interpretation of Paul can only be understood correctly from Schlatter’s perspective.” Peter Stuhlmacher, “Adolf Schlatter as Interpreter of Paul,” xvi. Additionally, David Way documents in Κäsemann’s writings, including a letter to Bultmann in 1949, the fact of Käsemann’s indebtedness to Schlatter. David Way, The Lordship of Christ: Ernst Käsemann’s Interpretation of Paul’s Theology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991), 4244, 51, 197 n63.

136

137

42

Chapter 1: History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ

Käsemann appeals to what he sees as “the gift-power dialectic” in Paul’s theology. According to Käsemann, Paul views salvation in the context of the lordship of Christ. Salvation is not merely a private affair of receiving a gift, but a change of lordship (Herrschaftswechsel).141 The gift cannot be isolated from the Giver.142 Thus, when the gift is received, the Giver himself comes on the scene and takes hold of the recipients and transforms them. “Paul knows no gift of God which does not convey both the obligation and the capacity to serve.”143 The gift therefore has a power-character (der Machtcharakter der Gabe).144 The application of this dialectic to “the righteousness of God” is supported by Rom 1:16 (which speaks of “the power of God unto salvation” in the verse just prior to the one about “the righteousness of God”) and Rom 10:3 (which speaks of Israel’s failure to “submit” to God’s righteousness). Demonstrating the influence of Cremer, Käsemann articulates his position by contrasting “Greek” with “Hebraic” thought in regard to righteousness: In the field of the Old Testament and of Judaism in general, righteousness does not convey primarily the sense of a personal, ethical quality, but of a relationship (Relation); originally signifying trustworthiness in regard to the community (Gemeinschaftstreue). …The widely-held view that God’s righteousness is simply a property of the divine nature can now be rejected as misleading. It derives from Greek theology, which speculates about such properties; it contradicts the basic sense of “righteousness” within the tradition of the Old Testament and later Judaism – namely, faithfulness in the context of community (Gemeinschaftstreue).145

Käsemann’s use of the word Gemeinschaftstreue (as well as the almost synonymous term, Bundestreue146) is a tell-tale sign that he has been influenced by Cremer, even though he did not explicitly identify his indebtedness to Cremer’s work. Käsemann not only argues that “righteousness” is to be interpreted according to a Hebraic background as a relational or social concept; he also argues that the phrase, “the righteousness of God,” was not invented by Paul but was “a ready-made formulation”147 that Paul picked up from apocalyptic Judaism to describe God’s saving activity in Christ. This theory was originally put forward in 1953 by Oepke who cited Deut 33:21; T. Dan 6:10; Matt 6:33; and James 1:10.148 Käsemann took Oepke’s theory and augmented the list with three Qum-

Käsemann, “Righteousness of God,” 176. Ibid., 174. 143 Ibid., 170. 144 Ibid., 176. 145 Ibid., 172, 174. Cp. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (trans. G. W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 24-25. 146 Käsemann, “Righteousness of God,” 177-78. 147 Ibid., 172. 148 Albrecht Oepke, “Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ bei Paulus in neuer Beleuchtung,” TLZ 78 (1953): 257-64.

141



142

C. The New View and Its Trajectory

43

ran texts: 1QS 10:25; 11:12; 1QM 4:6.149 This was not a strong list, but right about the same time as Käsemann’s “Righteousness of God” lecture, his student Stuhl­macher was busy trying to augment the list in his dissertation, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus. In sum, the Cremer emphasis on the Hebraic/relational meaning of righteousness is strongly present in Käsemann’s thought. It is also interesting to observe the ways in which Käsemann has taken Cremer’s thesis, filtered it through Schlatter’s theocentric vision, further expanded it with his apocalyptic “gift-Giver” dialectic, and added a dollop of Qumran citations to top it off. Perhaps the most significant and lasting contribution that Käsemann made to the Cremer/Schlatter approach was to argue that Paul’s terminology and theology are governed by “apocalyptic” thought and language, as exemplified most clearly and strikingly in the Qumran sectarian literature. Thus, while Käsemann is clearly indebted to Cremer and Schlatter, neither is he enslaved to them. Käsemann appropriates Cremer’s relational interpretation of righteousness and Schlatter’s theocentrism in the service of a new (and admittedly inspiring) theological vision. As we have seen, Käsemann’s emphasis on the “power-character” of the righteousness of God was in many ways a reaction to Bultmann’s anthropological approach which emphasized the “gift-character.” The views of Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976) were originally presented in his famous Theology of the New Testament, and then later he wrote a critique of Käsemann’s 1961 lecture in a brief article published in 1964 in The Journal of Biblical Literature.150 Bultmann disagrees with Käsemann’s taking θεοῦ as a subjective genitive, arguing rather that it is a genetivus auctoris, indicating that God is the author or source of this righteousness which is a gift granted to believers. That is his main thesis in the 1964 article. What are his arguments? First, Bultmann takes Käsemann to task for assuming that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ must have the same meaning everywhere in Paul’s letters. He points out that the phrase was developed from OT usage, and in the OT itself the concept of the righteousness of God has a variety of senses, and so we should expect the same thing in Paul. In some contexts it refers to God’s judicial iustitia distributiva (e.g., Rom 3:5), and in others to Cremer’s iustitia salutifera (Bultmann recognizes that this usage occurs in the OT and Qumran, but does not see it playing a major role in Paul).151 In addition, Bultmann is not convinced that “the righteousness of God” is a fixed formula in Jewish apocalyptic literature, since a fixed formula must have a universal and totally fixed meaning in every context.152 149 Käsemann, “Righteousness of God,” 172. He also cites several passages from the Hodayoth (1QH 4:37; 7:14, 19; 11:17-18, 30-31; 13:16-17; 15:14-15; 16:10) but they do not actually contain the complete lexeme. 150 Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (trans. K. Grobel; New York: Scribners, 1955), 1.270-329; idem, “ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ,” JBL 83 (1964): 12-16. All quotes from the JBL article are my own translation from the German. 151 Bultmann, “ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ,” 12-13. 152 Ibid., 15-16.

44

Chapter 1: History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ

Second, if “the righteousness of God” is not a fixed formula, then we must consider Paul’s use of the phrase in his writings rather than allowing the background of the OT and Jewish literature to exercise such a controlling influence that Paul’s actual usage is ignored. In this case, the interpretation of “the righteousness of God” in Rom 1:17; 3:21-22 as referring to the gift of righteousness bestowed on those who believe is confirmed by three crucial cross-references (Phil 3:9; Rom 5:17; 10:3).153 Bultmann responds to Käsemann’s argument that “the righteousness of God” has a “power-character,” not merely a “gift-character,” by acknowledging that the receipt of the gift of righteousness is such that it obligates the believer to new obedience. However, he hastens to add that “this does not change the meaning of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ.”154 Bultmann is making the important distinction between a word’s sense and its referent. He acknowledges that there is a broader contextual reference to “the righteousness of God” in Paul’s thought insofar as it has systematic linkages with other aspects of Pauline theology, such as the lordship of Christ, the necessity of the new obedience, and Paul’s teaching that believers must stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give an account of their works (e.g., 2 Cor 5:10). But as true as these things may be, they are not part of the lexical sense of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. Bultmann, then, mounted a powerful critique of Käsemann’s new view and a defense of a more traditional Reformation exegesis of “the righteousness of God” in Paul. Bultmann’s critique was seconded by his followers.155 It must be acknowledged that in terms of sheer numbers Käsemann seems to have won, since more scholars appear to have lined up behind Käsemann than behind Bultmann.156 The discussion of Bultmann in the previous section is somewhat of a detour from the main path that we have been attempting to trace from Cremer to the New Perspective. We now return to the main path as we examine the work of two students of Käsemann who wrote Ph.D. dissertations developing Κäsemann’s

Bultmann, “ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ,” 12-13. Ibid., 14-15. 155 Günter Klein, “Gottes Gerechtigkeit als Thema der neuesten Paulus-Forschung,” Verkündigung und Forschung 12 (1967): 1-11; Hans Conzelmann, “Die Rechtfertigungslehre des Paulus: Theologie oder Anthropologie?” EvT 28 (1968): 389-404; idem, Grundriß der Theologie des Neuen Testaments (München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1968), 237-43; Günther Bornkamm, Paul (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 136-39; Eduard Lohse, “Die Gerechtigkeit Gottes in der paulinischen Theologie,” pp. 209-27 in Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments: Exegetische Studien zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973); Georg Strecker, Theology of the New Testament (trans. M. Eugene Boring; New York: Walter de Gruyter/Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000), 149-56. 156 Robert Jewett says that the interpretation of “righteousness” in the tradition from Cremer to Käsemann is one “that subsequent scholars have largely accepted.” Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 141.

153



154

C. The New View and Its Trajectory

45

thesis. The first is Christian Müller, whose dissertation, Gottes Gerechtigkeit und Gottes Volk: Eine Untersuchung zu Römer 9-11, was completed in 1959 and published in book form in 1964.157 As the subtitle indicates, the focus of Müller’s dissertation is on the role of “the righteousness of God” in connection with Paul’s treatment of the question of Israel’s future in Romans 9-11, although he also examines the other key “righteousness of God” passages earlier in Romans. Müller accepts Cremer’s critique of the 19th-century idealistic interpretation of “righteousness” (i.e., that righteousness denotes conformity to a norm) and accepts Cremer’s thesis that “righteousness” is a Verhältnisbegriff that when predicated of God denotes his judicial accomplishment of iustitia salutifera.158 However, he does not end there but goes on to add his own unique interpretation of righteousness by appealing to the Old Testament motif of the cosmic lawsuit (Prozeß) or legal controversy (Rechtsstreit) in which God emerges as the victor (e.g., Psalm 82:1; Isaiah 41:21-29; Joel 3:2).159 In other words, Müller accepts Cremer’s thesis but applies it in a unique way. “The righteousness of God” is for Müller a relational concept, but not in the purely positive sense that it indicates God’s saving activity on behalf of his people and nothing more (Cremer). Rather, “the righteousness of God” is a relational concept in the sense that God’s victory in the cosmic lawsuit is not complete until it has been acknowledged by humanity. “Thus δικαιοσύνη is ‘right’ not as an abstract norm or judicial idea but as the realization of [God’s] right (Rechtsverwirklichung).”160 Müller bases this primarily on the opening paragraph of Romans 3 where Paul says, “Let God be found true, and every human be found a liar,” and quotes Psalm 51:4: “That you may be justified in your words and prevail when you are judged” (Rom 3:4). This is then followed by an immediate reference to “the righteousness of God” in the very next verse: “Our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God” (v 5). Müller argues that this “demonstration” of God’s righteousness and the human acknowledgment of God’s justice presuppose a cosmic lawsuit between God and the world.161 In a lawsuit, the victory of one party necessarily involves the defeat of the other.162 As applied to the cosmic lawsuit between God and the world, the world confesses its own unrighteousness, acknowledges that God is right, and submits in obedience to God’s victory. Only then is God fully vindi 157 Christian Müller, Gottes Gerechtigkeit und Gottes Volk: Eine Untersuchung zu Römer 9-11 (FRLANT 86; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964). 158 Müller, Gottes Gerechtigkeit und Gottes Volk, 8-11. 159 Ibid., 58. 160 Ibid., 74. 161 Ibid., 65-67. 162 Ibid., 65. Müller speaks in this regard of the motif of the Gerichtsdoxologie, that is, when humans acknowledge that God is right by giving glory to God, e.g., Luke 7:29 (where the tax collectors “justified God” by submitting to John’s baptism), and Rev 11:13 (where humanity “gave glory to the God of heaven” in response to the eschatological judgments).

46

Chapter 1: History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ

cated and victorious. This context of the legal controversy, Müller believes, is a critical element lacking in views that define “the righteousness of God” merely as God’s covenant faithfulness.163 Whereas Müller focused on the concept of the legal controversy in the OT as the background to Paul’s “righteousness of God” language, Peter Stuhlmacher (1932–) provided an in-depth examination of the OT and early Jewish literature with the goal of providing substantiation for Käsemann’s thesis that “the righteousness of God” was a technical term or fixed formula in Jewish apocalyptic literature. Stuhlmacher may have the distinction of having written more on the subject of the righteousness of God than any other author. I have divided my survey of Stuhlmacher’s scholarly contribution into two phases: the early Stuhlmacher, in which I deal with his doctoral dissertation in the early 1960s; and the later Stuhlmacher, in which I survey the evolution of Stuhlmacher’s thought after his doctoral dissertation and culminating in his most recent work, the third edition of his justly famous two-volume magnum opus, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. In 1962 (a year after Käsemann’s famous 1961 lecture), Peter Stuhlmacher completed his doctoral dissertation under the supervision of Käsemann at Eberhard-Karls University in Tübingen. It was edited and published in 1965 with the title Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus, and was reissued in a second edition in 1966.164 Stuhlmacher embraced his teacher’s thesis and sought to provide further support for it by a detailed study of the phrase “the righteousness of God” in the Old Testament and a variety of post-biblical Jewish sources, with special reliance on the writings of the Qumran sect. Stuhlmacher’s method was traditionhistorical; that is, he sought to trace the tradition history of “the righteousness of God” from the Old Testament to Paul, mediated by the apocalyptic literature. He argued that “the righteousness of God” originated in the Old Testament cult. From there, it became a terminus technicus in Jewish apocalyptic literature for God’s covenant faithfulness, as exemplified most clearly in the sectarian literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Paul then took up this technical term and made it the center of his theology.165 The fact that Stuhlmacher is dependent on Cremer is evident from the very beginning. In his extensive history of the interpretation of “the righteousness of God” from the second century up to the time of his dissertation,166 Stuhlmacher identifies Cremer as the turning point. Prior to Cremer, interpreters of Paul’s doctrine of justification were held captive by a Greek, idealistic understanding. Stuhlmacher Müller, Gottes Gerechtigkeit und Gottes Volk, 64. Peter Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (2nd ed.; FRLANT 87; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966). All quotations from this book are my own translations. 165 Ibid., 71, 186-7. 166 Ibid., 11-73.

163



164

C. The New View and Its Trajectory

47

(quoting Cremer) defines the idealistic understanding of “righteousness” (which he rejects) as the pure formal fulfillment of one’s legal obligations that entitles one to be called a righteous person.167 Stuhlmacher thinks that Greek legal categories have dominated the history of Pauline interpretation. He identifies the failure to distinguish the “Hebrew” from the “Greek” concept of righteousness as a critical methodological error on the part of past interpreters. Greek legal categories have, in Stuhlmacher’s opinion, led to conceptual ambiguity and do not provide the appropriate lens for interpreting the Pauline texts in question. Only OT-Jewish legal categories, he asserts, are suitable for interpretation of the concept of “the righteousness of God” in Paul.168 In addition, “δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is an independent terminus technicus and hence may not be interpreted from the generic concept (Allgemeinbegriff) of δικαιοσύνη.”169 Because, for Stuhlmacher, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is an independent terminus technicus, it has a unique, specialized meaning in Jewish apocalyptic literature. Its meaning therefore has nothing to do with “the generic concept of δικαιοσύνη” as it is ordinarily employed in standard Greek usage – i.e., “righteousness” in the sense of upright and virtuous behavior or the status of being regarded as δίκαιος. Therefore, it is to the Old Testament and Jewish apocalyptic literature that Stuhlmacher believes we must turn; this, he thinks, will ultimately be determinative for the precise lexical and theological significance of “the righteousness of God.” The third chapter of his dissertation is titled “The Righteousness of God in the History-of-Religion Sphere” and is really the heart and soul of Stuhlmacher’s early work. This is where he attempts to demonstrate that “the righteousness of God” is a technical term that originated in the Old Testament and was carried over into the apocalyptic literature of Second Temple Judaism. Stuhlmacher’s thesis stands or falls with the outcome of his tradition-historical research in this critical section (83 pages). The tradition-historical path, in Stuhlmacher’s view, runs straight from the Hebrew Old Testament to the apocalyptic literature, which explains why he pays little attention to the Septuagint. Since the exact phrase, “the righteousness of God,” occurs only once in the singular (Deut 33:21) and only three times in the plural (Judges 5:11; 1 Sam 12:7; Micah 6:5) in the Hebrew Old Testament, Stuhlmacher’s case rests primarily on the apocalyptic literature where it

Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes, 46. The contrast posited by Stuhlmacher between “Greek” and “Hebrew” concepts of righteousness is not supported by the evidence. As we will see in Chapter 4 (“Righteousness in the Old Testament”) and Chapter 5 (“Righteousness in Jewish Literature”), the OT-Jewish concept of righteousness is just as “idealistic” as the Greek concept. In a way, we could say it is even more so, since the Old Testament and post-biblical Jewish literature both emphatically endorse the notion that human beings are called to be “righteous before God” by means of the fulfillment of their legal and moral obligations. 169 Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes, 73.

167



168

48

Chapter 1: History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ

occurs more frequently (although not impressively so). He cites the following eight occurrences of the phrase as definitive: 1QS 10:25-26; 11:12; 1QM 4:6; T. Dan 6:10; 1 (Ethiopic) Enoch 71:14; 99:10; 101:3; 4 Ezra 8:36. As a technical term, “the righteousness of God” in these texts refers to God’s own activity, God’s justice, whereby his Creatorhood (Schöpfertum), covenant faithfulness (Bundestreue), mercy, and the summons to obedience, are all brought together in a single thought. It also has an eschatological dimension. Depending on the context, the term can emphasize either realized or future eschatology. When the emphasis is on realized eschatology, the mercy-dimension of “the righteousness of God” comes to the fore. Stuhlmacher thinks that “the righteousness of God” must be viewed as the power of the creative word of God (die Macht des schaffenden Gotteswort). When God declares something to be the case, it effectually becomes the case. I cannot think of a better way to wrap up my survey of Stuhlmacher’s dissertation than to quote his extended definition of the righteousness of God: “The age-spanning, creational, in-the-beginning-existing, now-as-Word-existing and in-Christ-personified liberating right (Recht) of the Creator to and over his creation.”170 Clearly, for Stuhlmacher, the concept of the righteousness of God is pregnant with rich eschatological meaning and sits within a vast web of theological connections. The key issue with regard to the early Stuhlmacher is that he has attempted to prove that “the righteousness of God” is a technical term in apocalyptic Judaism that signifies the Creator’s saving activity and covenant faithfulness. Setting aside all of the passages that come close to but do not actually contain the complete lexeme – which is the bar he must set for himself if he is to vindicate Käsemann’s thesis – Stuhlmacher claims a grand total of eight occurrences of this phrase in extra-biblical Jewish literature, only four more than Käsemann’s list! It is amazing that after all of Stuhlmacher’s industry in his dissertation, this is all he could come up with. Perhaps for this reason it is not surprising that, as we will see, Stuhlmacher would later back away from the claim that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ was a pre-existing technical term in apocalyptic Judaism taken up by Paul. Karl Kertelge (1926–2009)171 is similar to Μüller and Stuhlmacher in that he is the author of another dissertation inspired by Käsemann’s 1961 essay that ignited a renewed discussion of “the righteousness of God” in Paul.172 However, he differs from them in two ways: first, he was not a student of Käsemann; second,

170 Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes, 11, 98. 171   http://kirchensite.de/aktuelles/news-aktuelles/datum/2009/06/29/professor-karl-kertelgegestorben. Accessed December 27, 2010. 172 Karl Kertelge, “Rechtfertigung” bei Paulus: Studien zur Struktur und zum Bedeutungsgehalt des paulinischen Rechtfertigungsbegriffs (NTAbh 3; Münster: Aschendorff, 1966). All quotations from this book are my own translations.

C. The New View and Its Trajectory

49

he wrote from a Roman Catholic perspective. Yet in spite of these differences, Kertelge follows in the same tradition. In fact, his dissertation closely resembles that of Stuhlmacher in both form and content. Kertelge begins his dissertation by focusing on the (‫ צדק)ה‬of Yahweh in the Old Testament. Rejecting the old definition of “righteousness” as conformity to a norm and appealing to Cremer, Kertelge argues that (‫ צדק)ה‬is a relational concept (Verhältnisbegriff) denoting the adequacy of conduct according to concrete relationships, rather than according to abstract norms. There is therefore a great distance between the Greek and the Hebraic understanding of the concept of righteousness.173 When applied to the (‫ צדק)ה‬of Yahweh, it denotes his covenant faithfulness. Like Stuhlmacher, Kertelge takes particular note of the passages in the Old Testament that speak of “the righteous acts of Yahweh” (Kertelge cites Judges 5:11; 1 Sam 12:7; Isa 45:24; Micah 6:5; Ps 103:6; Dan 9:16). Many of these passages have to do with Yahweh’s activity of bringing victory to Israel in her holy wars against her enemies. Therefore, Kertelge concludes, “the righteousness of God” is essentially his salvific activity on behalf of his people.174 Kertelge also examines the passages from Jewish literature cited by Oepke (especially T. Dan 6:10) and the Qumran texts cited by Käsemann (1QS 10:25; 11:12; 1QM 4:6). Kertelge does not go any deeper into the literature of early Judaism than Käsemann, thus making Stuhlmacher’s dissertation a much more wide-ranging search for parallels. Kertelge concludes, in agreement with Oepke and Käsemann, that Paul found the phrase “the righteousness of God” as a pre-existing formula. As Kertelge reads it, “the righteousness of God” in Qumran is, first and foremost, a subjective genitive that denotes the covenant faithfulness and salvific activity of God. In this, of course, he agrees with Käsemann. But Kertelge adds his own nuance when he goes on to argue that by means of this saving activity (as an expression of God’s covenant faithfulness), the Qumran members are placed in the covenant (specifically, the Qumran sect’s renewed Mosaic covenant) and preserved in it.175 The Qumran members are therefore “qualified” by this divine righteousness in a way that has an effect on their own personal holiness and righteousness. Thus, while it is a subjective genitive, it also has shades of a genetivus auctoris. For Kertelge, the righteousness of God therefore has a double sense that includes: (a) the divine salvific activity of establishing the covenant; and (b) the call to the individual members of the covenant so that they are enabled to live in the covenant relationship in personal righteousness and holiness.176 When we come to his interpretation of Paul, Kertelge’s thesis is that Paul’s doctrine of justification has a specific “forensic and eschatological structure.” Kertelge, Rechtfertigung, 16, 20. Cp. Kertelge, “δικαιοσύνη, κτλ,” EDNT 1.325-35. Kertelge, Rechtfertigung, 7. 175 Ibid., 31. 176 Ibid., 33, 44.



173



174



50

Chapter 1: History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ

What he means by this is that justification is a forensic verdict to be sure, but it is a forensic verdict that has creative power.177 The forensic nature of the verdict can be properly understood, according to Kertelge, only when it is viewed in light of the preceding discussion of righteousness as a relational and covenantal concept. When God declares the ungodly to be righteous (Rom 4:5), he thereby creates a new relationship between the sinner and himself. The new actuality of the justified, created by God, must not be thought of as a static state of humans, but as a relational reality (Beziehungsrealität), i.e., an actuality which lies in nothing less than the new relationship (neue Verhältnis) of humans to God created by God, which on God’s side consists of lordship and on the side of humans consists of obedience.178

This new relational reality is nothing less than “a new creation” in Christ (2 Cor 5:17) which overcomes the ungodliness of sinners.179 This language sounds very similar to that of Schlatter. With Ulrich Wilckens (1928–) we return to Protestant exegesis in the Käsemann tradition. His prime contribution to the discussion is his 32-page excursus on “Gerechtigkeit Gottes” in his important commentary on Romans for the Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar (EKK) series,180 the first volume of which was published in 1978. Stuhlmacher later refers to this excursus favorably, beginning in 1981 and onward. Thus, Wilckens’s excursus stands as a transitional point between the early Stuhlmacher and the later Stuhlmacher. Wilckens accepts Cremer’s theory that in the biblical tradition, righteousness is “not a judicial norm-concept but a social relational-concept (sozialen Verhältnisbegriff).”181 Relying heavily on Stuhlmacher’s dissertation, he then briefly surveys the use of “righteousness of God” in the Old Testament, the Qumran sectarian writings, and other early Jewish literature.182 Wilckens’s conclusions after surveying this literature are not radically new. Although he argues that Käsemann and Stuhlmacher went too far in identifying “the righteousness of God” as a fixed formula,183 Wilckens thinks they were fundamentally correct in their claim that “the righteousness of God” in apocalyptic Judaism is “his community faithfulness (Gemeinschaftstreue) to his own people, Kertelge, Rechtfertigung, 123. Ibid., 127. 179 Ibid., 159. 180 Ulrich Wilckens, Excursus on “Gerechtigkeit Gottes,” pp. 202-33 in Der Brief an die Römer, vol. 1 (EKK VI/I; Köln: Benziger/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978). All quotations are my translations. 181 Ibid., 212, citing Cremer, K. Koch, H. H. Schmid, and Stuhlmacher. 182 Ibid., 213-20. 183 Ibid., 212. Wilckens cites the article by Güttgemanns, who critiqued the idea that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ was a fixed formula. Erhardt Güttgemanns, “‘Gottesgerechtigkeit’ und strukturale Semantik: Linguistische Analyse zu δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ,” pp. 59-98 in Studia linguistica neotestamentica: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur linguistischen Grundlage einer neutestamentlichen Theologie (BEvT 60; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1971).

177



178

C. The New View and Its Trajectory

51

which manifests itself in his salvific acts in connection with holy war,” or, more simply, “the eschatological saving power of the covenant faithfulness of God (die eschatologische Heilsmacht der Bundestreue Gottes).”184 The notion was then taken up by Paul but Christologically determined in light of the atoning death of Jesus. In Paul, “the righteousness of God” is therefore “the infinitely superior power of God’s love by which he has abolished the universal negationpower of sin in the atoning death of Christ.”185 Aside from the fixed formula correction, there is nothing radically new here. What is new is that Wilckens wants to issue a slight corrective to Stuhlmacher’s initial formulation by returning to a better balance between the theocentric and the anthropological dimensions, between the “power-aspect” and the “gift-aspect.” Wilckens argues that we must not set up the two as a false alternative. He cites Kertelge’s dissertation favorably as a book that captures the balance between God’s saving activity and God’s saving gift, and in a way that also permits us to see the objective link between “the righteousness of faith” on the one hand and “the obedience of faith” on the other.186 Wilckens also argues that, while there is a close relationship between “the righteousness of God” and “the righteousness of faith,” we must not identify them with one another as the Reformers did. Rather, the latter is the effect (Wirkung) of the former. Just as the destruction of sinners is the effect of “the wrath of God” (Rom 1:18), so the justification of sinners is the effect of “the righteousness of God.”187 Wilckens believes that it is important to make this distinction because it has the hermeneutical function of guarding the righteousness of faith against all “self-independence” and against reducing Pauline soteriology to the anthropological plane.188 As we will see in the next section, this both/and approach is precisely the direction in which Stuhlmacher himself wants to go in his later work, and he in fact quotes Wilckens favorably to this effect.189 Gerechtigeit Gottes bei Paulus was Stuhlmacher’s first major work of scholarship as a doctoral student. So it should come as no surprise that it was not his last word on the subject. Having summarized his dissertation, I now move to the work of the later Stuhlmacher, which is characterized by more mature thought on the question of “the righteousness of God.” The later Stuhlmacher continues to adhere to the Cremer thesis concerning the relational significance of “righteousness,” arguing that in the majority of its occurrences in the OT, the term “righteousness” is “a semantically positive word used in reference to

Wilckens, 220, 221. Ibid., 222. 186 Ibid., 232. 187 Ibid., 205-6. 188 Ibid., 211. 189 Stuhlmacher, Reconciliation, Law, and Righteousness: Essays in Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 91.

184



185

52

Chapter 1: History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ

relationships,” and that “God’s righteousness” signifies God’s work of salvation, making things right, and establishing order and life.190 He continues to argue that “righteousness” in OT-Jewish thought is a relational concept having to do with community faithfulness that must be set in contrast with the Greek ethical conception of δικαιοσύνη.191 As before, he relies on the work of his predecessors – e.g., Herman Cremer, Gerhard von Rad, Klaus Koch – for this conclusion, although he also wants to supplement it with the work of H. H. Schmid, who argued that righteousness in the OT is an Ordnungsbegriff that has to do with the preservation of “good order” in the world.192 Stuhlmacher then adds that when this relational/covenantal/world-ordering concept is applied to God and his rule, righteousness becomes a “salvation concept” (Heilsbegriff). He cites the same ‫ צדקות‬YHWH (“righteous acts of Yahweh”) passages in the Old Testament as before, and then concludes: “In these texts, ‘the righteousness of God’ is the reliable power (Macht) of God which also in judgment and through judgment creates salvation and good-order.”193 In 1981, Stuhlmacher looks back on his dissertation and makes the comment that he is hereby taking “a new position” with regard to the debate concerning the meaning of “the righteousness of God.” In his original dissertation, he says, he tried to support and extend Käsemann’s position, but now he realizes that his dissertation had the fundamental weakness that he “treated the concept of the righteousness of God too rigidly as a fixed terminus technicus that always and only meant God’s own righteousness.”194 Stuhlmacher thus accepts the criticisms of Erhardt Güttgemanns195 and Ulrich Wilckens. I would argue that Stuhlmacher has not changed where he wants to go; he has merely adopted a new route to get there. Stuhlmacher still cites the same handful of proof texts from the OT and Jewish apocalyptic literature. He even goes so far as to say that the phrase is “a frequently recurring, almost fixed term” for God’s saving activity understood in a judicial context,196 and elsewhere he calls

190 Stuhlmacher, Versöhnung, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit: Aufsätze zur biblischen Theologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981). I quote from the ET: Reconciliation, Law, and Righteousness: Essays in Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 42-43, 62-63. 191 Peter Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Band 1: Grundlegung – Von Jesus zu Paulus (3rd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 326. 192 H. H. Schmid, Gerechtigkeit als Weltordnung: Hintergrund und Geschichte des alttestamentliche Gerechtigkeitsbegriffs (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968). 193 Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie, 1.327. 194 Stuhlmacher, Reconciliation, 91. 195 Erhardt Güttgemanns, “‘Gottesgerechtigkeit’ und strukturale Semantik: Linguistische Analyse zu δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ,” pp. 59-98 in Studia linguistica neotestamentica: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur linguistischen Grundlage einer neutestamentlichen Theologie (BEvT 60; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1971). 196 Stuhlmacher, Reconciliation, 82 (emphasis mine).

C. The New View and Its Trajectory

53

it a “language tradition.”197 So although it may appear that he has retracted his original thesis, what he has really done is to restate the thesis in a more cautious manner as opposed to making the questionable claim (first made by Oepke and picked up by Käsemann and the early Stuhlmacher) that “the righteousness of God” is a technical term. There is another critical difference between Stuhlmacher’s original dissertation and his “new position.” In his original thesis he was more critical of the traditional Reformation reading of Paul. (The traditional Reformation reading, recall, is that “the righteousness of God” signifies the righteous status that is from God and/or approved by God and which is bestowed on believers – in other words, what Käsemann would call the “gift-dimension” of “the righteousness of God.”) For example, in his dissertation Stuhlmacher could baldly say: “God’s δικαιοσύνη in this verse [Rom 1:17] is not God’s gift but his particularly powerful activity … the justice-creating, salvation-bringing activity.”198 But the later Stuhlmacher shifts from an either/or position to a both/and position. He admits that his original thesis suffered from “one-sidedness” and quotes Wilckens’s “Gerechtigkeit Gottes” excursus favorably.199 Therefore, now Stuhlmacher can say that he agrees with Luther but wants to “go beyond” him, so that instead of reducing “the righteousness of God” to the righteousness that is received by faith, he wants to see it as designating “both God’s own righteous action and the result of this action.”200 He wants to combine the two notions of divine activity and divine gift: “The one expression, ‘the righteousness of God,’ was always understood … to refer at the same time both to God’s own salvific activity (Rom. 3:25f) and to its effect in the form of the righteousness which is allotted to those who, in faith, confess Christ (2 Cor 5:21).”201 Stuhlmacher argues that taking “the righteousness of God” as the gift of righteousness (genitive of source) and taking it as God’s own righteousness (subjective genitive) is a “false alternative.”202 We come now to Stuhlmacher’s magnum opus, his Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments.203 In that work, he reviews the debate between Bultmann’s more Lutheran interpretation and the Schlatter/Käsemann interpretation of the righteousness of God and argues that these represent the two fundamental types of Pauline interpretation in German Paul research.204 However, Stuhlmacher rec-

197 Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (trans. Scott J. Hafemann; Edinburgh: T&T Clark; and Westminster/John Knox, 1994), 30. 198 Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes, 79-80 (emphasis mine). 199 Stuhlmacher, Reconciliation, 91-92. 200 Ibid., 78. 201 Stuhlmacher, Romans, 31. 202 Ibid., 32. 203 Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Vol. 1 (3rd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992, 1997, 2005). 204 Ibid., 1.234-35, 334.

54

Chapter 1: History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ

ognizes that the battle lines have softened since the 1960s and that now it is no longer necessary to choose one interpretation over the other, since there is an element of truth in both.205 He concludes by affirming the “synthetic” breadth of meaning of “the righteousness of God” in Paul: “Δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ denotes in Paul the activity of God that creates salvation and good-order, so that God’s own effectiveness and the result of this effectiveness can be named using one and the same term.”206 Stuhlmacher argues that “the righteousness of God” in Paul is neither purely theocentric nor purely soteriological but embraces both aspects of God’s salvific activity. The emphasis in any given passage – whether theocentric or soteriological – must be determined in context.207 4. English-Speaking Scholarship in the 20th Century In the previous section I have focused on the Gerechtigkeit Gottes debate among 20th-century German New Testament scholars. I now turn to the English-speaking world of scholarship up to but not including the New Perspective on Paul. David Hill made an important contribution in English to the discussion with his monograph Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings, published in 1967.208 Hill devoted a long chapter (81 pages) to “The Background and Meaning of δικαιοσύνη and Cognate Words.” He was aware of James Barr’s critique of Kittel’s TWNT (=TDNT) and was therefore more cautious both in his methodology and in his conclusions, even though he basically endorsed the fundamental outlines of Kittel’s approach. Hill argued that although Barr was generally correct in his criticisms, he went too far in emptying theologically significant terms found in the NT of any Hebraic coloring via the influence of the LXX. Therefore, it should not be surprising that Hill followed in the Cremer tradition of arguing for a relational meaning to Paul’s righteousness terminology based upon the theory that the Hebraic/relational idea of righteousness has been infused into the Greek words via the LXX. However, when it came to the exegetical and theological payoff, Hill did not depart radically from traditional Protestant interpretations of Paul’s Rechtfertigungslehre. Although Hill took θεοῦ in the Pauline phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as a subjective genitive (like Käsemann), he translated the whole as “God’s justifying action.”209 He interpreted the verb δικαιόω even more traditionally as a forensic term that denotes God’s act of reckoning sinners to be in the right before God on the basis of Christ’s atoning death, with the result that one is “not guilty” of sin’s charges but legally “righteous” in God’s sight.210 Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie, 1.237. Ibid., 1.334. 207 Ibid.,1.335-36. 208 David Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms (SNTSMS 5; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967). 209 Ibid., 159. 210 Ibid., 141-42.

205



206

C. The New View and Its Trajectory

55

Thus, although Hill began by emphasizing the Hebraic/relational background of righteousness, he ended up with fairly traditional conclusions with regard to Paul’s appropriation of that language. In Hill there is only a hint of the later Dunn-Wright synthesis in which the Hebraic/relational background is defined more narrowly in terms of “covenant faithfulness” and “covenant membership.” The last book-length study of the lexical semantics of Paul’s “righteousness” language was The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Inquiry by John A. Ziesler, published in 1972.211 It is one of the most important contributions in English to the topic of “righteousness” in Paul. Ziesler’s work is a comprehensive linguistic study of “righteousness” vocabulary in the Hebrew Old Testament, the Septuagint, the Jewish intertestamental literature, Philo, Josephus, the Rabbinic corpus, and the New Testament. This wide-ranging study is intended to provide the background for a more precise understanding of Paul’s usage of the ΔΙΚ-group. Ziesler argues that the verb (δικαιόω) is used forensically and relationally, while the adjective (δίκαιος) and the noun (δικαιοσύνη) are used ethically and behaviorally. Like Hill, Ziesler also accepted the Hebraic/relational interpretation of the biblical “righteousness” word-group, citing Cremer, von Rad, and Achtemeier. Like Hill, Ziesler was also aware of Barr’s strictures on the dangers of the wordstudy approach to theology and attempted to take them into account in his methodological approach. Unlike Hill, Ziesler was more favorable to Käsemann’s view that God’s gift of righteousness cannot be separated from the Giver, and therefore Ziesler saw both a forensic and a transformative aspect in justification. Believers are not only declared to be legally right with God; they are also changed and actually made ontologically or ethically righteous. The particular focus of his concern was the Protestant-Catholic debate over whether justification has a purely forensic meaning or may also have an ethical/transformational component. For this reason, I believe Ziesler’s work was methodologically unsound, given his approach of interrogating the Greek literature (biblical and nonbiblical) from the point of view of a later dogmatic debate. Still, in comparison with Dunn and Wright, Ziesler’s interpretation of Paul’s Rechtfertigungslehre was closer to traditional views in that it worked within the orbit of soteriology rather than sociology. Ziesler summarized Paul’s justification-teaching in these terms: “God’s saving righteousness does two things for men and does them inseparably: it restores their relationship with God, and it makes them new (ethical, righteous) beings.”212 The Hebraic/relational background of Paul’s righteousness terminology was thus employed by Ziesler in a way that fits within the Käsemann school broadly defined.

John A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Inquiry (SNTSMS 20; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972). 212 Ibid., 189.

211

56

Chapter 1: History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ

After Ziesler, there were several minor contributions, such as the ReumannFitzmyer ecumenical dialogue,213 but nothing of the same scale or lexicographical intensity. There appears to have been something of a hiatus of lexicographical scrutiny for the next three decades as scholarship moved into the New Perspective era. Recently, however, Mark Seifrid published two important articles in Justification and Variegated Nomism that are critical of Cremer’s thesis.214 Seifrid’s work is only a beginning and so a full-scale treatment is still needed. While Seifrid subjects the view that “righteousness” means “covenant faithfulness” to critical scrutiny, he does not bring to bear James Barr’s critique of the distinction between the so-called “Hebraic” and “Greek” thought with respect to the lexical claims made by NPP scholars concerning Paul’s “righteousness” language. 5. The New Perspective on Paul Having looked briefly at some contributions from English-speaking scholars, we turn now to the New Perspective on Paul (NPP). Arguably, the NPP would not have been possible as an intellectual movement without some influence from the Schlatter/Käsemann/early-Stuhlmacher school of thought insofar as δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is interpreted not as a soteriological righteous status from God but as God’s eschatological, saving activity as an expression of his Lordship and his faithfulness to the covenant promises. To be sure, both Dunn and Wright would want to distance themselves from Käsemann, or at least modify his position in various ways, but the fundamental conceptual kinship (especially the theocentric emphasis) is not hard to detect. Another intellectual current detectable in the NPP – a current that was present but not central in the Schlatter/Käsemann/earlyStuhlmacher school – is the notion that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ means God’s covenant faithfulness. It is here that we see even more clearly the influence of Cremer’s Verhältnisbegriff theory functioning as a crucial component of the NPP’s recasting of Paul’s doctrine of justification in terms of covenant faithfulness and covenant membership. Consider the following quotes from James Dunn and N. T. Wright. Note that the Dunn-Wright claim is not merely theological. At its base, it is a lexical claim about the semantics of Paul’s ΔΙΚ-terminology. First, there is the claim that the Hebraic usage differs significantly from the typical Hellenistic Greek usage. Dunn makes this claim explicitly:

213 John Reumann, “Righteousness” in the New Testament, with Responses by Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Jerome D. Quinn (Philadelphia: Fortress; New York: Paulist, 1982). 214 Mark A. Seifrid, “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism,” and “Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language Against Its Hellenistic Background,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism (ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien and Mark A. Seifrid; 2 vols.: WUNT II/140 and II/181; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001, 2004), 1.415-42 and 2.39-74 respectively.

C. The New View and Its Trajectory

57

More to the theological point, “righteousness” is a good example of a term whose meaning is determined more by its Hebrew background than its Greek form … In the typical Greek worldview, “righteousness” is an idea or ideal against which the individual and individual action can be measured … In contrast, in Hebrew thought “righteousness” is a more relational concept.215

The argument is that the lexical differences between the ‫צדק‬-group in Hebrew and the ΔΙΚ-group in Greek reflect broader differences between the thoughtworlds of the two cultures. Thus Dunn contrasts “Hebrew thought” with “the typical Greek worldview.” This way of speaking sounds suspiciously like the sort of thing one would find in Kittel’s TWNT. Second, once the Hebraic/relational interpretation of “righteousness” has been put on the table as an accepted fact, the theory then exercises a controlling influence on the NPP interpretation of Paul’s thematic statement in Rom 1:17. “The righteousness of God” is interpreted in Hebraic terms as “the covenant faithfulness of God.” Continuing on from the previous quote, Dunn draws out the following implication: The relevance of this observation [about Greek vs. Hebrew thought] begins to become clear when we recall Paul’s thematic statement about justification, in Rom. 1:16-17, as “the righteousness of God … from faith to faith.” For the righteousness of God, in line with the understanding of “righteousness” above, denotes God’s fulfilment of the obligations he took upon himself in creating humankind and particularly in the calling of Abraham and the choosing of Israel to be his people ... It should be equally evident why God’s righteousness could be understood as God’s faithfulness to his people. For his righteousness was simply the fulfilment of his covenant obligations as Israel’s God in delivering, saving, and vindicating Israel, despite Israel’s failure.216

N. T. Wright adopts substantially the same interpretation as Dunn: What I want to do is to sketch out the Jewish context within which the phrase would naturally be heard … For a reader of the Septuagint … ‘the righteousness of God’ would have one obvious meaning: God’s own faithfulness to his promises, to the covenant. God’s ‘righteousness’, especially in Isaiah 40-55, is that aspect of God’s character because of which he saves Israel, despite Israel’s perversity and lostness. God has made promises; Israel can trust those promises. God’s righteousness is thus cognate with his trustworthiness on the one hand, and Israel’s salvation on the other … At the heart of ‘God’s righteousness’ is his covenant with Israel, the covenant through which he will address and solve the problem of evil in and for the whole world.217 The word tsedaqah/dikaiosynē and its cognates in the Israelite scriptures seem to have the primary meaning of ‘right behavior’. But the emphasis is not merely on implicit conformity to a law or abstract standard, though that may be involved as well, but to the question of being in right relation with others.218

215

341.

Ibid., 342. N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 96-97. 218 N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 796.



216



217



James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998),

58

Chapter 1: History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ

The divine faithfulness to the covenant, spelled out in Deuteronomy and elsewhere in terms of both punishing the covenant people for sin and subsequent merciful restoration, is spoken of in several key passages in terms of the righteousness of the one God (tsedaqah elohim, dikaiosynē theou). This was seen as the divine characteristic because of which the creator would do what he had promised. The theme of ‘covenant’ and ‘covenant faithfulness’ is the full biblical setting for what has often been spoken of as the ‘relational’ aspect of the notion of tsedaqah/dikaiosynē.219 All this builds up intense pressure for us to accept the normal biblical and post-biblical reading of the phrase ‘God’s righteousness.’ The phrase does not denote a human status which Israel’s God gives, grants, imparts or imputes (‘a righteousness from God’ as in Philippians 3.9), or a human characteristic which ‘counts’ with God (‘a righteousness which avails before God’) ... It retains its primary scriptural meaning, which is that of God’s covenant faithfulness.220

Third, having redefined “the righteousness of God” as God’s covenant faithfulness, both Dunn and Wright go on to apply this to the terminology for “justification,” both the verb and the noun. Thus, when Paul says that God justifies people, this too is understood in a Hebraic/relational sense as the declaration that one is a member of the covenant people of God. In other words, “justification” means “covenant membership.” This is the new element in the NPP’s appropriation of Cremer’s Hebraic/relational interpretation that goes beyond Cremer himself. Dunn writes: [In Gal 2:15-16] Paul … prefaces his first mention of ‘being justified’ with a deliberate appeal to the standard Jewish belief, shared also by his fellow Jewish Christians, that the Jews as a race are God’s covenant people. Almost certainly, then, his concept of righteousness, both noun and verb (to be made or counted righteous, to be justified), is thoroughly Jewish too, with the same strong covenant overtones – the sort of usage we find particularly in the Psalms and Second Isaiah, where God’s righteousness is precisely God’s covenant faithfulness, his saving power and love for his people Israel … In talking of ‘being justified’ here Paul is not thinking of a distinctively initiatory act of God. God’s justification is not his act in first making his covenant with Israel, or in initially accepting someone into the covenant people. God’s justification is rather God’s acknowledgement that someone is in the covenant – whether that is an initial acknowledgement, or a repeated action of God (God’s saving acts), or his final vindication of his people.221

N. T. Wright takes a very similar approach: Though it is unfashionable to use covenantal categories in interpreting Paul, I believe, as is already clear in this book, that they are actually central; and, moreover, they are habitually ex-

219 N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 928. In note 435, Wright cites Isaiah 40-55 and Daniel 9 as the central OT passages where “the righteousness of God” is understood as his covenant faithfulness to Israel. 220 Ibid., 996. See also pp. 796-804, where Wright argues that “the righteousness of God” has four layers of meaning: right behavior, the law court, the covenant, and eschatological cosmic rectification. 221 James D. G. Dunn, “The New Perspective on Paul,” in Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990), 190.

C. The New View and Its Trajectory

59

pressed in forensic language, i.e. using the root δικ-. … δικαιοσύνη, I suggest, can often be translated, more or less, as ‘covenant membership’ (when referring to the δικαιοσύνη of humans, of course); and δικαίωμα can perfectly properly bear the meaning ‘the covenant decree’.222

And in case there is any doubt that N. T. Wright still advocates this interpretation, I quote from his more recent book, Paul in Fresh Perspective: The point is that the word ‘justification’ does not itself denote the process whereby, or the event in which, a person is brought by grace from unbelief, idolatry and sin into faith, true worship and renewal of life. Paul, clearly and unambiguously, uses a different word for that, the word ‘call’. The word ‘justification’, despite centuries of Christian misuse, is used by Paul to denote that which happens immediately after the ‘call’: ‘those whom God called, he also justified’ (Romans 8.30). In other words, those who hear the gospel and respond to it in faith are then declared by God to be his people, his elect, ‘the circumcision’, ‘the Jews’, ‘the Israel of God’. They are given the status of dikaios, ‘righteous’, ‘within the covenant’.223

Thus, the New Perspective on Paul, as exemplified by two of its most well-known advocates, interprets Paul’s Rechtfertigungslehre primarily in terms of covenant concepts and defines “justification” as God’s act of identifying someone as a member of the people of God. There are undoubtedly many additional historical, exegetical and theological considerations contributing to this interpretation, but one salient factor is clearly the lexical semantics of Paul’s “righteousness” terminology interpreted against a putative Hebraic background.224

N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 203. 223 N. T. Wright, Paul in Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 121-22. See also Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (London: SPCK, 2009). This volume is a response to John Piper’s critique, The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright (Wheaton: Crossway, 2007). 224 In addition to Dunn and Wright, it should also be noted that Richard B. Hays falls in the same general camp. See his article, “Justification” in ABD 3.1129-33. Hays has also suggested that Rom 1:17 contains an intertextual allusion to Psalm 97:2-3LXX [98:2-3MT], noting the occurrence of the three terms “salvation,” “his righteousness,” and “revealed.” Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 36-37. Earlier, Hays pointed to the reference to “his righteousness” in Ps 142:1LXX [143:1MT], followed by v 2 which is quoted by Paul in Rom 3:20. Hays, “Psalm 143 and the Logic of Romans 3,” JBL 99 (1980): 107-15. Hays’s suggestions have been taken up more recently by Douglas A. Campbell, “The Meaning of δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Romans: An Intertextual Suggestion,” in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley; SBLSymS 50; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 189-212 (= Ch. 17, §2.3 of Campbell’s tome The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009]). Campbell argues that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Paul refers to Christ’s enthronement by God and denotes “a singular, saving, liberating, life-giving, eschatological act of God in Christ” but that it does not have the added meaning of “God’s covenant faithfulness” (208-11). Campbell’s position is a modification of Käsemann’s without the entanglements of Cremer’s Verhältnisbegriff theory.

222

60

Chapter 1: History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ

D. Conclusion Until the rise of the Ritshlian school in the latter half of the 19th century, there existed a fairly strong consensus that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Paul was equivalent to the δικαιοσύνη ἐκ πίστεως, that is, that it denoted the righteousness of the human being in God’s sight. Both the Greek and Latin church fathers held this view. Augustine’s view that it refers, not to the righteousness with which God himself is righteous, but to the righteousness which believers have by faith, dominates the commentaries until the time of the Reformation. A few of the medieval commentators argued that it refers to God’s iustitia distributiva, at least in Rom 1:17, but then reverted to Augustine’s interpretation when they came to Rom 3:21-22. Augustine’s interpretation was picked up and revived by the Reformers and the post-Reformation Protestant tradition, both Lutheran and Calvinstic. They clarified that the righteousness in view is forensic only, as distinct from the transformative benefits of salvation, such as regeneration and sanctification – benefits which they affirmed to be essential components of salvation but conceptually distinct from justification. But with the rise of the New View in the latter half of the 19th century, the consensus view was challenged and replaced by the theory that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ means something different from the δικαιοσύνη ἐκ πίστεως. In the first place, it was argued that θεοῦ is to be taken as a subjective genitive, so that the δικαιοσύνη in question is an attribute or activity of God. In the second place, it was claimed that δικαιοσύνη in Paul’s usage is informed by the Old Testament concept of “righteousness,” which, it was argued, is a relational concept rather than a norm concept. The discussion over the last 110+ years has been dominated by Cremer’s 1899 thesis. A variety of interpretations of Paul’s Rechtfertigungslehre have emerged under the influence of Cremer’s Hebraic/relational interpretation of the ΔΙΚ-group – from more traditional readings like Hill’s, to apocalyptic readings such as those emanating from the Käsemann school, and finally to the more recent New Perspective school of Dunn and Wright. Yet they all have in common the assumption that the decision by the translators of the Greek Bible to translate the ‫צדק‬-group in Hebrew with the ΔΙΚ-group in Greek fundamentally changed the meaning of these Greek words by introducing covenantal ideas not present in extra-biblical Greek. Moreover, they all agree that this process of semantic change had a profound effect on Paul’s doctrine of justification – specifically, on the vocabulary with which he formulated that doctrine. In conclusion, I think it is safe to say that the Cremer theory has exercised a dominant influence on Pauline scholarship, even to the point that it may be called a reigning paradigm. It is precisely this interpretive scheme that I wish to subject to critical examination.

Chapter 2

Methodological Considerations The purpose of this chapter is to establish the methodological assumptions of the following chapters. Since much of this study overlaps with three fields – Old Testament and New Testament lexicography and Septuagint studies – it will be useful to establish the ground rules before proceeding to examine the usage of “righteousness” in the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, Jewish literature, and Paul. I will first address the broader methodological concerns regarding lexical semantics, and then I will turn to Septuagint studies – specifically, to the role of the Septuagint in influencing the lexical semantics of New Testament vocabulary. Finally, I will provide justification for my reliance on Jewish literature composed in Greek for determining whether δικαιοσύνη as used in Greek-speaking Jewish circles has undergone semantic change due to Hebraic influence.

A. Lexical Semantics An entire panoply of issues lurks here that I cannot address in detail, but I want to focus particularly on the issues that are directly relevant to the question of whether the ‫צדק‬-group in Hebrew or the ΔΙΚ-group in Greek has a relational meaning as Cremer argued. 1. Lexical Concepts vs. Discourse Concepts It is a truism that words have meanings. This feature of words is usually referred to as their “lexical sense.” It may seem to be a straightforward and simple notion, yet philososphers and linguists have struggled to understand this concept of “lexical sense” from the beginnings of modern linguistics in the 19th century. Moisés Silva defines “sense” as “the mental content called up by the symbol.”1 Peter Cotterell and Max Turner prefer to speak of a word’s “lexical concept,” which they define as “some sort of more-or-less discrete bundle of meaning, a segment of the language users’ understanding of their world, conventionally bound to a particular lexical form.”2 They emphasize two points: (1) that words 1 Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 102. 2 Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1989), 145.

62

Chapter 2: Methodological Considerations

usually have a range of senses, not just one sense; (2) that the sense or range of senses we are interested in is not the usage of an individual (i.e., an idiolect) but the conventional, agreed-upon meaning. Putting these two concepts together, “the lexical meaning is the range of senses of a word that may be counted on as being established in the public domain.”3 Having attempted a brief definition of “sense,” we now need to clarify the concept further by appealing to the distinction between sense and reference. This distinction is well established in the field of lexical semantics, although among biblical scholars the reception of this distinction has proved somewhat patchy. The “referent” of a word is the extra-linguistic reality to which the word points. The “sense” of a word we have already defined, namely, as essentially a mental concept. Words that have a denotative and hence a referential function do not directly mean that to which they refer. Rather, they do so indirectly or in a mediated manner, by means of the mental concept. This was made clear earlier in the 20th century by means of the famous Ogden-Richards triangle4 in which the two elements of meaning and their relationship are illustrated with the following diagram: sense

symbol

referent

Figure 1. The Ogden-Richards Triangle5

The vertex labeled “symbol” stands for the lexical item, or word. The vertex labeled “sense” stands for the mental content called up by that symbol or word. The vertex labeled “referent” stands for the extra-linguistic reality to which the word points. The dashed line between “symbol” and “referent” is intended to convey the notion that words do not directly relate to the referents with which they are associated. Rather, the line of meaning must first pass through a word’s Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics, 140. C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards, The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language Upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism (8th ed.; New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1946), 11. The Ogden-Richards triangle is reproduced and further discussed by Stephen Ullmann in Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning (Oxford: Blackwell, 1962), 55. 5 This is a modified version of the Ogden-Richards triangle.

3



4

A. Lexical Semantics

63

lexical “sense,” which is a mental concept, before it can reach its extra-linguistic referential destination. Thus the Ogden-Richards triangle effectively communicates the distinction between “sense” and “reference,” while also conveying the mentally-mediated nature of the relationship between words and the extra-linguistic realities to which they refer.6 One way to illustrate the distinction between “sense” and “reference” is to note that two words may be used to refer to the same extra-linguistic reality and yet have very different meanings with regard to semantic content. Consider, for example, the following paragraph: “Mr. Richard Smith was a judge on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Although well-respected by his fellow colleagues on the bench, the judge was suspected of taking bribes in exchange for lighter sentences in scores of cases. After a two-year investigation by the FBI and a federal grand jury, the disgraced judge became a defendant and was found guilty on 23 counts of corruption.” The terms “judge” and “defendant” here refer to the same person, a specific corrupt judge. But we recognize that the terms do not have the same meaning, and are usually so clearly distinct that we have to come up with a unique scenario like this in order to use them in a co-referential manner. The extra-linguistic ontological reference of these terms is identical, and yet the precise sense of each is quite distinct. The failure to recognize this distinction has created many problems in the past for biblical scholars. The classic example of this fallacy is the way the use of ἀγάπη in the New Testament is often interpreted. It is well known that the New Testament writers frequently use the word ἀγάπη in reference to God’s love for humanity, especially as expressed in the self-abnegating love of Christ in giving himself up for our sins. But failure to distinguish between sense and reference leads some scholars to argue, fallaciously, that the word ἀγάπη itself (along with its cognates) means “divine, self-sacrificial love.” This argument is made in spite of the fact that ἀγάπη is clearly used in both the Septuagint and the New Testament to refer to baser and even sinful forms of love. For example, the verb ἀγαπάω is used of Amnon’s lust for Tamar (LXX 1 Kgdms 13:15), and in the sentence, “Do not love the world” (1 John 2:15). Thus, while ἀγάπη can be used to refer to God’s love, it does not in and of itself mean God’s love. Sense and reference must be clearly distinguished.

6 John Lyons initially saw not just two but three aspects of lexical meaning: “reference,” “sense,” and “denotation.” However, in his analysis, “reference” is not an attribute of a word but of a referring expression (when a particular speaker at a particular time asserts something of a particular entity), leaving “denotation” as his equivalent to what Ogden and Richards call “reference.” John Lyons, Semantics, Vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 174-229. Later, Lyons dropped “reference,” simplifying his analysis to “sense” and “denotation” as the two components of lexical meaning, but still taking note of the “referent,” that is, the entity being referred to by a speaker at the time of utterance. Idem, Language and Linguistics: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 151-56, 160.



64

Chapter 2: Methodological Considerations

When that distinction is not made, it is easy – especially when theologically significant vocabulary is under investigation – to read the theological significance that arises from the extra-linguistic realities to which the word points in a specific context into the lexical sense of the word itself. This was one of James Barr’s chief points in his critique of Kittel’s TWNT (=TDNT). Barr wrote: The attempt to relate the individual word directly to the theological thought leads to the distortion of the semantic contribution made by words in contexts; the value of the context comes to be seen as something contributed by the word, and then it is read into the word as its contribution where the context is in fact different.7

The term he used for this was “illegitimate totality transfer.”8 Moisés Silva illustrates Barr’s concern with the use of ἐκκλησία in Act 7:38, where we read: “This is the one [i.e., Moses] who was in the ἐκκλησία in the wilderness.” Clearly, it would be invalid to read into the usage of ἐκκλησία in Acts 7:38 the same fullness of meaning that it has in Ephesians, where, for example, Paul says that “Christ is the head of the ἐκκλησία, his body” (Eph 5:23). In the former verse, it merely means “congregation,” following LXX usage in reference to the congregation of the people of Israel; in the latter instance, it is a technical term for “the church” in the sense of “the body of Christ.” Clearly, the word ἐκκλησία does not mean “the body of Christ” in Acts 7:38. In other words, “any one instance of a word will not bear all the meanings possible for that word.”9 Other scholars get at this issue using a different set of terminology, and in so doing they also add precision to Barr’s concern. Some scholars have suggested that we distinguish between “lexical concepts” and “discourse concepts.” Cotterell and Turner provide a helpful illustration to clarify this distinction: A speaker may keep referring to his Uncle’s bike, but (having formally introduced it earlier, as it were) now just speaks of it as ‘the bike’. Because the expression ‘the bike’ now still refers to Uncle George’s old red one, this is all included in the concept denoted by the expression ‘the bike’ in the speaker’s discourse, even though it is not properly part of the sense of the expression ‘the bike’ as such. We need to distinguish here between what we might call lexical concepts (i.e. the sense of the respective lexical units) and discourse concepts – the latter being used to denote not only the lexical sense of the expressions involved, but also germane elements of meaning contributed by the context. Oldness, redness, and to-Uncle-George-belongingness would not be part of the lexical concept “bike”, but would belong to the discourse concept “the bike” in this particular situation.10

This is a more precise analysis than Barr’s original formulation. If taken literally, Barr’s “totality transfer” means that the entire semantic range of a given word is

7

233.

James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961),

Ibid., 218. Silva, Biblical Words, 25-26. 10 Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics, 152; citing John Beekman, John Callow, and Michael Kopesec, The Semantic Structure of Written Communication (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1981), 41ff.

8



9

A. Lexical Semantics

65

read into every particular instance of that word. But, as Barr himself recognized, there is also a more subtle version of this error in which concepts derived from some contexts are read into the lexical sense of the word. It is this subtler form of the error that I believe has been committed by Cremer, Käsemann, Stuhlmacher, and New Perspective scholars. And I am not alone in this general concern. Mark Seifrid, for example, using Barr’s older terminology, is concerned that even the later Stuhlmacher is still in danger of engaging in “illegitimate totality transfer.”11 To reword the charge using the more precise terminology of Cotterell and Turner, Stuhlmacher is in danger of blurring the distinction between discourse concepts and lexical concepts, so that the grand theological themes (“the age-spanning, creational, in-the-beginning existing, now-as-Word-existing and in-Christ-personified liberating right of the Creator to and over his Creation”) bleed over into the lexical concept of the lexeme δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. 2. Hebrew Parallelism We must also examine the role of parallelismus membrorum in Hebrew poetry in determining the precise meanings of Hebrew words. Hermann Cremer and those who followed in his tradition, both OT and NT scholars, tended to rely on this feature of Hebrew poetry in order to draw inferences about the meaning of the ‫צדק‬-group in the Hebrew Bible.12 However, this appeal to parallelismus membrorum to determine lexical meaning is problematic because Hebrew parallelism may set up a variety of relationships between the parallel members. There are a variety of theories as to how Hebrew parallelism works. Let me briefly sketch the history of interpretation of Hebrew parallelism. In the 18th century, the Anglican bishop Robert Lowth, in his Oxford lectures De Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum (first edition published in 1753),13 argued that there were three types of Hebrew parallelism: synonymous parallelism, antithetical parallelism, and synthetic or constructive parallelism. The first two types are exemplified in Psalm 1:5-6: A1 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, A2 Nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous; B1 For the Lord knows the way of the righteous, B2 But the way of the wicked will perish (ESV).

A1 and A2 constitute a good example of synonymous parallelism, while B1 and B2 clearly constitute antithetical parallelism. Lowth’s third category was a kind Mark A. Seifrid, Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme (NovTSup 68; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 40 n136. 12 E.g., Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre, 14-17, 23, 27. 13 For a facsimile of the 1787 translation from Latin into English by G. Gregory, see Robert Lowth, Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews (1787), vols. 1-2 (Anglistica & Americana 43; Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1969).

11

66

Chapter 2: Methodological Considerations

of catch-all for the many instances that seemed to be neither strictly synonymous nor strictly antithetical.14 Although Lowth’s analysis was widely accepted for two centuries, in the 1980s James Kugel and Robert Alter challenged the received Lowthian orthodoxy. They rejected Lowth’s category of synonymous parallelism, pointing out that even when the two lines seem to be saying something roughly similar, they are never perfectly equivalent, and that the difference, however small, when viewed in light of the similarity of the two lines, produces a new meaning that goes beyond what each line contributes individually. James Kugel’s label for this was “subjunction,” i.e., line B is subjoined to line A. To explain this he invented the formula, “A, and what’s more, B.” The first line (A) is the primary statement; the second line (B) adds new information or a new perspective.15 A few years later, Robert Alter took Kugel’s approach and moved the ball down the field a few more yards. He fleshed out the specific ways in which the B line heightens, intensifies, focuses and even dramatizes the A line. Alter speaks of “parallelism of specification” and “parallelism of intensification,” although he does acknowledge that, occasionally, one finds “static synonymity.” Alter’s main point is that “literary expression abhors complete parallelism … usage always introducing small wedges of difference between closely akin terms.” He quotes Viktor Shklovsky who wrote that “the purpose of parallelism … is to transfer the usual perception of an object into the sphere of a new perception – that is, to make a unique semantic modification.”16 More recently, the Dutch scholar J. P. Fokkelman vividly explained the KugelAlter theory of parallelism with the helpful metaphor of binoculars. Just as binoculars provide depth perception by bringing two nearly identical pictures together to form a new unity, so in Hebrew parallelism the similarities and the differences between the two lines complement one another, and the result is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Parallelism helps us to see in stereo.17

“The need for this third category eventually called into question the adequacy of the older understanding of parallelism as ‘saying the same thing twice in different words.’” Mark D. Futato, Interpreting the Psalms: An Exegetical Handbook (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 38. 15 James L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), 23, 42, 54, 57-8. 16 Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, 1985), 3-26. 17 J. P. Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Poetry: An Introductory Guide (trans. Ineke Smit; Louisville: WJK, 2001), 78-79. In line with the new understanding of Hebrew parallelism, Mark Futato offers the following definition: “Parallelism is the art of saying something similar in both cola but with a difference added in the second colon. Hebrew poets thus invite us to read slowly, looking for a difference in the second colon, be that difference small or great … The new understanding [of Hebrew parallelism] opens up possibilities for a richer reading. When we read the poetic lines of a psalm slowly and by reflecting on how the second colon adds to the sense of the first, our understanding of the text deepens and our delight in the text blossoms.” Futato, Interpreting the Psalms, 38-41.

14

A. Lexical Semantics

67

Since the 1980s, scholars have added more types of parallelism, such as chiastic, staircase, emblematic, and Janus parallelism.18 One of the types of parallelism that needs to be particularly considered is that in which the two lines stand in a relationship of genus to species, i.e., where one term is a broader category and the other is a subset. Technically, words in the second category are not synonyms but hyponyms. For example, consider Isaiah 3:8: “Jerusalem has stumbled, and Judah has fallen.” Clearly the parallelism here does not mean that “Jerusalem” and “Judah” are synonymous terms. It only indicates that there is a close relationship: Jerusalem is the main city within Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem constitute a large portion of the population of Judah. But it would be a mistake for a lexicographer to write an entry on “Jerusalem” in which he cited this verse as if it proved that in some cases the word “Jerusalem” means “Judah.” This example is directly applicable to the Cremer theory. Advocates of this theory have traditionally appealed to passages such as Ps 143:1, where the terms “faithfulness” and “righteousness” are in parallel: “Hear my prayer, O Lord, give ear to my supplications! Answer me in your faithfulness, in your righteousness!” On this basis, they have argued that “righteousness” means “faithfulness.” But rather than being synonyms, the two terms are better viewed as hyponyms. Faithfulness (keeping one’s word or promise) is an important sub-category within the larger domain of righteousness. As Mark Seifrid points out, faithfulness is covenant-righteousness.19 The way God is “righteous” within the terms of a (promissory) covenant is by being faithful to keep his promises and delivering his people. But this does not mean that the lexical denotation of “righteousness” is “faithfulness to a promissory covenant.” Just as everyone who is in Jerusalem is in Judah but not everyone who is in Judah is in Jerusalem, so all instances of faithfulness to a promissory covenant may be termed “righteousness,” but not all “righteousness” is faithfulness to a promissory covenant. Thus, when examining the phenomenon of Hebrew parallelism, we must recognize the wide variety of potential relationships between the parallel lines and between their constituent words. As John Sawyer writes: There are a number of different types of parallelismus membrorum which can be detected only when the meaning of the terms involved has already been fairly closely defined …. It is clear from this that the structure of Hebrew poetry, while indicating that a meaning-relation exists between two or more terms, does not provide a built-in definition of what relation it is, and cannot therefore be taken as a starting point for semantic description.20

Adele Berlin, “Parallelism,” ABD 5.155-62. Mark A. Seifrid, “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid; WUNT II/140; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 424. 20 John F. A. Sawyer, Semantics in Biblical Research: New Methods of Defining Hebrew Words for Salvation (SBT II/24; London: SCM, 1972), 75.



18



19

68

Chapter 2: Methodological Considerations

Given the variety of conceptual, semantic, and even syntactical relationships that can be utilized in Hebrew parallelism, it is methodologically unsound to attempt to determine the semantic content of Hebrew words on this basis alone.

B. Septuagint Studies In addition to Old and New Testament lexicography, this study examines the role of the Septuagint in introducing Hebrew meanings into the Greek vocabulary of the New Testament.21 In this study, I will be examining the ΔΙΚ-group, but before looking at the specific issues related to that group, we must establish the parameters of the larger discussion. 1. Role of LXX in Mediating Hebrew Meanings into Greek With respect to the question of the role of the Septuagint in mediating Hebrew meanings from the Hebrew vocabulary of the Old Testament into the Greek vocabulary of the New, scholars tend to fall in one of two camps. One camp says that many New Testament Greek words, especially the theologically significant ones, are really “Greek words with Hebrew meanings.” They argue that the LXX is the primary driver of the importation of Hebraic semantic content into the Greek words. Although they are Greek in form, they are really Hebrew in substance. For example, in 1889, Edwin Hatch claimed that the majority of New Testament words “express in their Biblical usage the conceptions of a Semitic race,” and as a consequence their meaning must be determined by examining their usage in the LXX. He offered this canon of lexical study: “A word which is used uniformly, or with few and intelligible exceptions, as the translation of the same Hebrew word, must be held to have in Biblical Greek the same meaning as that Hebrew word.”22 In the same vein, David Hill wrote a book in 1967 titled Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings devoted to the thesis that “the language of the New Testament … reveals in its syntax and – more important for our work – in its vocabulary, a strong Semitic cast, due in large measure to its indebtedness to the Jewish biblical Greek of the Septuagint.”23 Hill then sought to vindicate this thesis by examining λύτρον, δικαιοσύνη, ζωή, ζωὴ αἰώνιος, and πνεῦμα in their LXX and NT contexts. It is also possible that Semitic meanings were introduced into the Greek of Palestinian Jews by the alternate mechanism of Aramaic usage. However, there are two reasons for setting this scenario to one side for the purpose of this study: (1) we lack a written corpus of Aramaic literature from the New Testament period, and so any appeals to Aramaic will necessarily be speculative; and (2) with regard to δικαιοσύνη, scholars have traditionally appealed to the Septuagint as the mechanism for the introduction of Hebraic meaning into this Greek word. 22 Edwin Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (Oxford: Clarendon, 1889), 34-35. 23 David Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms (SNTSMS 5; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 18.

21

B. Septuagint Studies

69

The other camp is generally dismissive of LXX influence and thinks that the vast majority of the vocabulary of the Greek New Testament remains largely unaffected by the Hebraic background and functions with the same semantic range as normal Koiné Greek. To provide illumination into the meaning of these words, these scholars argue, one would be better served studying other literature composed in Koiné Greek, especially the Greek papyri, from the period when the New Testament was written. For example, T. K. Abbott, in his review of Edwin Hatch’s Essays in Biblical Greek, wrote that “the amount of influence of the Septuagint Version on the language of the New Testament is very often exaggerated.”24 Abbott argues that in none of the instances cited by Hatch is he successful in attaching a peculiarly Septuagintal meaning to the Greek vocabulary of the New Testament, claiming rather that the meanings are best illuminated by writers of extra-biblical Koiné or by various papyri.25 Similarly, in his review of David Hill’s book, James Barr says that he formerly gave assent to the proposition “that the LXX was the primary channel bringing Hebrew meanings into New Testament Greek usage,” but that, ironically, the strength of this belief has been reduced by reading Hill’s monograph. “To me there is too much LXX idiom which is not found in the New Testament … and too much New Testament Greek which is not very like the LXX.”26 Adolf Deissmann took a similar position.27 My sympathies lie with the first camp, that is, the camp which says that the influence of the Septuagint on the vocabulary of the New Testament is significant. After having read all of the Greek New Testament several times and the original core of the Septuagint (the Pentateuch), I am convinced that the influence of the LXX on the vocabulary and syntax of the Greek New Testament is considerably greater than the scholars in the second camp suppose. However, as much as I sympathize with Hatch, Hill, and others, in their general expectation that the vocabulary of the Greek New Testament must be interpreted in light of the Septuagint’s mediation of Hebraic semantic content, I consider their work to be lacking in methodological rigor. Their work tends to operate with false assumptions about the differences between Hebraic and Greek “thought.” In particular, they tend to engage in wholesale importation of Hebraic meanings without attempting to understand how those meanings are related to or extensions of standard (extra-biblical) Greek usage. And even where greater correlation or continuity is sought between Hebrew and Greek, scholars have failed

24 T. K. Abbott, “New Testament Lexicography,” in Essays Chiefly on the Original Texts of the Old and New Testaments (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1891), 67. Several pages later, however, Abbott adds the qualifier, “except in case of terms of Hebrew theology” (p. 71). 25 Ibid., 98. 26 James Barr, “Common Sense and Biblical Language,” Biblica 49 (1968): 380. 27 Adolf Deissmann, The Philology of the Greek Bible: Its Present and Future (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1908); idem, St. Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History (trans. L. R. M. Strachan; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1912).

70

Chapter 2: Methodological Considerations

to establish that Hebraic meanings have in fact entered into the living usage of the Greek-speaking Jewish communities of the first century. Stricter criteria and more fine-toothed analytic tools are needed in order to establish Hebraic influence in the first place and then to determine the precise semantic contours of that influence in greater detail. 2. LXX as a Translation and Calques I will outline those methodological issues below, but before I do so, I must briefly introduce some technical terms and concepts from the field of LXX studies. First, we need to understand the distinction, from translation theory, between the “source language” and the “target language.”28 The source language of the LXX is Hebrew and Aramaic and the target language is Koiné Greek. In other words, translation is a complex process involving, at least minimally, the act of selecting words from the target language (Koiné Greek) that best represent the words from the text in the source language (Hebrew and Aramaic). For the sake of simplicity I will leave out Aramaic in the rest of this discussion, and I will use “Greek” to mean Koiné Greek. Second, it is well recognized that the LXX is a fairly literal translation. Parts of the LXX (which was created over centuries by various translators) show slightly more interpretive, free, or dynamic approaches to the task of translation. But for the most part the LXX may be identified as a translation that is closer to the literal (or formal-equivalence) end of the spectrum, even if there is some degree of variation within the books of the Septuagint that are translations from Hebrew.29 However, we have to be careful not to overstate the degree of literalism lest we give the impression that the translators never engaged in more idiomatic translations. The LXX translators were not consistent in their literalism, even within a single book. For example, the Hebrew idiom “he lifted up his eyes” (‫את־עיניו‬ ָ    ֵ     ֶ ‫)ויּשּׂא‬    ָ ִ  ַ is reproduced literally in Gen 13:10 (ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ) but not in Gen 33:1 and Deut 4:19 (which use ἀναβλέψας).30 Still, on the whole and with qualifications, it may be stated that most of the books of the LXX that are translations of a Hebrew (or Aramaic) original are literal. For example, the Hebraic oath-formula introduced by ‫ ִאם‬is translated with εἰ with-

Gideon Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1995). Older terminology is “source language” and “receptor language.” E.g., Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden: Brill, 1974). 29 James Barr, “The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations,” MSU 15 (1979): 275-325. 30 John A. L. Lee provides a wealth of examples from the Pentateuch where the translators depart from a literal translation of the Hebrew and employ idiomatic Greek instead. J. A. L. Lee, A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch (SBLSCS 14; Chico: Scholars Press, 1983), 25-29, 34-40, 150-51.

28

B. Septuagint Studies

71

out an apodosis in LXX Gen 14:23; Num 32:11; Deut 1:35; Ps 94:11.31 Another example is the idiom ‫יסף‬ ַ  ָ + infinitive, meaning “to do something again/further,” rendered by προστίθημι + infinitive at Gen 4:2, 12; 8:21; 18:29; 37:8; 38:26, etc.32 The frequency with which such Hebraic idioms are reproduced with wordfor-word Greek equivalents suggests that the translators intended to preserve the flavor of the original.33 Third, one of the outstanding features that scholars have noted about the literalism of the LXX is that the various translators tended to employ stereotyped equivalents. A stereotype is a word in the target language that is consistently employed as a translational equivalent for a word in the source language. The LXX consistently employs the ΔΙΚ-group in Greek to translate the corresponding nouns, verb, and adjective of the ‫צדק‬-group in Hebrew. David Hill claims that ΔΙΚ-words are used to translate ‫צדק‬-words 462 out of a possible 476 times in the LXX, that is, 97% of the time.34 This is clearly a good example of a stereotyped equivalent. Of particular interest is the observation that the LXX translators often stuck with their chosen stereotyped equivalents even in contexts where the Greek words stood in some tension with their context, thus creating readings that were often idiosyncratic and even puzzling by the standards of non-translational Greek usage. There are always exceptions to this rule, of course, for no stereotype is rigidly followed in every case, particularly if sticking with the stereotype would have resulted in an incomprehensible text (although this too occurs on occasion). In some instances, the translators felt that the need for comprehension outweighed the desirability of literalism and adopted more dynamic or idiomatic renderings. But for the most part, they permitted themselves to employ wooden renderings in Greek in order to preserve what they apparently considered to be the higher value of literalism, sometimes even at the expense of intelligibility.35

31 GKC §149; HALOT 60. This idiom has made its way into the NT, not only in scriptural quotations (Heb 3:11; 4:3, 5, quoting LXX Ps 94:11), but even in original composition (Mk 8:12). Cp. BDF §372(4); BDAG εἰ 4. 32 IBHS §39.3.1b; HALOT 418. Also used in the NT: Mk 14:25 (v.l.); Lk 19:11; 20:11-12; Acts 12:3; Heb 12:19. Cp. BDF §392(2); BDAG προστίθημι 1c. 33 John Lee writes: “In many of the books it seems that the translators deliberately chose to produce a version that preserved the flavour of the original. Certainly it is generally agreed that in most books fidelity to the original was their primary aim.” Lee, A Lexical Study of the Septuagint, 21. 34 Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings, 104. 35 “In some passages, as is generally agreed, they resorted to mechanical, word-for-word representation of the Hebrew, with little concern for the over-all result. It is doubtful that the meaning of what they wrote was always clear to others.” Lee, A Lexical Study of the Septuagint, 18.

72

Chapter 2: Methodological Considerations

Fourth, some stereotyped equivalents can become so fixed that they enter the bloodstream of the target language – or, more accurately, they become part of the mental furniture of a cultural group that uses the target language. If this happens, they are called “calques,” that is, words in the target language that have become enlarged or narrowed due to semantic borrowing from the source language.36 The actual historical process by which calques are created is difficult to discern. In the case of the Greek-speaking Jews of the Hellenistic Diaspora, it is possible that some calques predated the writing of the LXX and the translators simply adopted these Greek words as pre-existing, readily available calques for their stereotyped equivalents when writing the LXX. Many scholars think that the Greek word νόμος (= ‫)תּרה‬ is such a case.37 This is plausible because the Greek-speaking ָ Jewish communities surely would have needed some agreed-upon Greek term to use as a technical term for the “Torah.” Other calques may have arisen due to the influence of the LXX as a revered religious text. The fact that the LXX used a particular stereotyped equivalent may have contributed to that particular Greek word becoming a calque in those Greek-speaking Jewish communities that used the Greek Bible as their primary text. Let me give two additional examples of calques that are widely accepted by LXX scholars. In both cases, we do not know whether they pre-dated the LXX or came about as a result of the LXX. The first example is διαθήκη (= ‫)בּרית‬. ִ  ְ In extra-biblical Greek, both classical and Koiné, a διαθήκη is a last will and testament,38 whereas in both the LXX and the NT it has become the equivalent of “covenant,” although without completely losing its traditional meaning.39 The Septuagint translators took an existing Greek word and infused it with new meaning so that it has become practically a technical term for God’s covenant with his people.40 The second example is ἄγγελος, which means “messenger, envoy” in extra-biblical Greek.41 In the LXX it is used as a stereotype to translate ‫מלא‬, ָ   ְ    ַ

Moisés Silva, “Semantic Borrowing in the New Testament,” NTS 22 (1975-76): 104-10. Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000), 109. 38 LSJ διαθήκη, “disposition of property by a will, testament.” 39 See Gal 3:15 and Heb 9:15-17 where arguably the meaning “testament” is still sufficiently alive to be played upon. But aside from these exceptions, διαθήκη in both the LXX and the NT ought to be translated “covenant” almost all of the time. 40 “The translators did not invent an entirely new sense, but they rather drew on something already there in a minor way: ‘agreement’ is a possible sense for diathēkē already in classical and apparently Hellenistic coinage. The result of their choice, then, is the creation of what is virtually a technical term, an old word given a new, specialized meaning.” Tessa Rajak, Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 167. 41 LSJ ἄγγελος 1-2. In this sense, ἄγγελος is a synonym of πρέσβυς, as seen, e.g., in Xenophon’s reference to “the Lacedaemonian ambassadors … and other messengers (οἵ τε Λακεδαιμονίων πρέσβεις … καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι ἄγγελοι)” (Xenophon, Hellenica 1.4.2). Cited by

36



37

B. Septuagint Studies

73

which can mean either “messenger” or “angel” in Hebrew. The result is that in roughly half of the occurrences of ἄγγελος in the LXX, it retains its traditional meaning of “messenger,” but in the remaining half it means “angel.” In the NT, ἄγγελος is used with the meaning “messenger” only a handful of times.42 In the vast majority of NT occurrences (97%), it means “angel.” Here is a Greek word with a Hebrew meaning. Fifth, the critical issue with regard to the proper definition of a calque is that, as Albert Pietersma says, it is “a stereotype that has been acclimatized to the host language.”43 Not all LXX stereotypes become calques, that is, not all stereotypes become “Greek words with Hebrew meanings” available for use by speakers or writers in the host language. The critical factor that distinguishes calques from stereotypes is that calques have been acclimatized to the host language, that is, they have been incorporated into the mental habits of the culture in which the host language is spoken. In our case, we are not arguing that calques were acclimatized to Koiné Greek in general, wherever and by whomever it was spoken in the Hellenistic world, but to Koiné Greek as spoken and written by the Greekspeaking Jewish communities of the Hellenistic Diaspora and even Palestine. 3. Relevance to the Cremer Theory The above sketch provides some background for the methodology that I will use as I critically examine the Cremer theory. Directly relevant to the Cremer theory is the warning by LXX lexicographers that the mere fact that a certain Greek word is a stereotyped equivalent for a certain Hebrew word in the LXX does not ipso facto constitute evidence that it has become a calque. This, in my opinion, is the Achilles’ heel of the Cremer theory. David Hill, for example, makes this unwarranted leap from the one to the other, that is, from stereotypes to calques: From this discussion of LXX usage it will be obvious that the δίκαιος-words underwent considerable expansion and change of meaning through being consistently used to render the Hebrew root ‫ … צדק‬Through being used consistently as the means of translating the Hebrew word, δικαιοσύνη gained this new dimension of reference.44

Note well: Hill says that the meaning of the words in the ΔΙΚ-group underwent semantic change “through being consistently used to render the Hebrew root.”

Hermann Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek (trans. William Urwick; 4th ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895), 18. 42 Out of 175 NT occurrences, the ESV translates ἄγγελος as “messenger” seven times in the NT (Matt 11:10; Mk 1:2; Lk 7:24, 27; 9:52; 2 Cor 12:7; Jas 2:25). Six of these (i.e., all but 2 Cor 12:7 which probably refers to an evil spirit from Satan) are the same verses cited under BDAG ἄγγελος 1 (“a human messenger serving as an envoy”). 43 Albert Pietersma, Translation Manual for “A New English Translation of the Septuagint” (NETS) (Ada: Uncial Books for IOSCS, 1996), 40. 44 Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings, 108-9.

74

Chapter 2: Methodological Considerations

Hill here clearly rests his case for the existence of a calque on the mere fact that the words were used “consistently” to translate the ‫צדק‬-group in Hebrew. But this is far from sufficient evidence. Statements exhibiting the same methodological fallacy can be found in other scholars. For example, John Ziesler writes, “The meaning of the Greek words seems to be dominated by the Hebrew words they render.”45 Septuagint scholars widely agree that, to identify a calque in any given instance, we must have evidence that it was used with a non-standard, “Semitic” or “Hebraic” meaning in compositional – not solely translational – Greek literature of Greek-speaking Judaism. As Cameron Boyd-Taylor puts it, “The only unassailable evidence for a calque will come from non-translational documents.”46 In the case I want to examine, it is not enough to argue that the words in the ΔΙΚgroup were stereotyped translational solutions for rendering the words in the ‫צדק‬-group in the LXX. The fact that these ΔΙΚ-words functioned as stereotypes is not disputed. But it does not follow from this that a specialized Hebraic or Semitic meaning was thereby introduced into these words, making them available for use with this specialized meaning in compositional Greek by Jewish authors writings in Greek. We now have an objective criterion by which to test Cremer’s hypothesis. If Cremer’s hypothesis is correct, we would expect to find instances of ΔΙΚ-terms being used with a Hebraic/relational meaning in compositional Koiné Greek literature written by Greek-speaking Jews (e.g., The Wisdom of Solomon; 4 Maccabees; The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides; The Letter of Aristeas; The Sibylline Oracles; Philo; Josephus; and so on). By implication, if we fail to find such evidence for a Hebraic-relational usage of the ΔΙΚ-group in non-translational Jewish literature composed in Greek, the validity of Cremer’s hypothesis will be called into serious question. Now, I can anticipate a possible objection that may be raised in response to my thesis by those unwilling to give up the Cremer thesis completely. It is conceivable that a weaker form of the Cremer thesis may be put forward in place of the original, strong form. Those wishing to rehabilitate the Cremer thesis may well concede that the words in the ΔΙΚ-group have not become calques in the technical sense – Greek words with Hebraic meanings or denotations. But, while conceding that they remain Greek words with Greek denotative meanings, some

John A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Enquiry (SNTSMS 20; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 67. 46 Cameron Boyd-Taylor, “Calque-culations: Loanwords and the Lexicon,” BIOSCS 38 (2005): 90. Can recourse also be made to Jewish literature that was originally composed in Hebrew but which was translated into Greek at an early stage (e.g., Tobit, Sirach, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, Psalms of Solomon, etc.)? While such evidence may not be as “unassailable” as that derived from Jewish literature composed in Greek, it is nevertheless relevant for tracing the process of semantic change from Hebrew to Greek.

45

B. Septuagint Studies

75

may nevertheless want to maintain that they have more subtle Hebraic/relational connotations, allusions, and overtones due to their repeated use in Jewish covenantal contexts. Such a scenario is indeed conceivable. For example, the Greek word ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3:25 is probably not to be classified as a calque. It is a Greek word with a very ordinary Greek meaning, and so ought to be translated “expiatory or propitiatory object.”47 It does not mean “mercy seat,” even if it may refer to the mercy seat or atonement cover in the LXX (as we have seen above, sense and reference must be distinguished). Nevertheless, due to its repeated usage in the LXX in reference to the atonement cover on the Ark of the Covenant, it has developed an allusion to the mercy seat, at least when used in Greco-Jewish literature.48 The reality of this added connotation or referential allusion is easily demonstrated in the writings of Philo who uses the term in precisely this way, thus satisfying the requirement that Hebraic meanings for Greek words must be documented in non-translational, compositional Greek.49 Is something similar going on with the ΔΙΚ-group? Is it possible that they are Greek words with Greek meanings and with Hebraic allusions, connotations, and echoes?50 Obviously, in order to forestall this possible objection, this new kind of calque – we may call it “the soft calque” – would need to be defined more clearly. Nevertheless, the acid test for determining soft calques is the same as that for determining hard calques, namely, documentation of this usage in the Greek-speaking corpus of Jewish literature. 4. Continuity between Meaning in Extra-Biblical Greek and New Hebraic Meaning This leads to a related point – we must make room for the possibility that there is continuity between the meaning of a Greek word in extra-biblical Greek and the new Hebraic meaning or nuance that it takes on. Rather than thinking of these “The lid of the ark of the covenant is an ἱλαστήριον, but it does not follow that ἱλαστήριον means ‘lid’ either in the Septuagint, in St. Paul, or anywhere else; it can only mean ‘expiatory or propitiatory object.’” Deissmann, The Philology of the Greek Bible, 92-3. 48 LXX Exod 25:17, 18, 19, 20 (2x), 21, 22; 31:7; 35:12; 38:5, 7 (2x), 8; Lev 16:2 (2x), 13, 14 (2x), 15; Num 7:89; Amos 9:1; Ezek 43:14, 17, 20. The 20 occurrences in the Pentateuch definitely refer to the mercy seat on the Ark of the Covenant. Of the four occurrences outside the Pentateuch, Amos 9:1 is ambiguous and the three instances in Ezek 43 use the term in reference to some sort of ledge on the altar where atonement takes place. 49 Ἱλαστήριον occurs six times in Philo: Cher 25; Her 166; Fug 100, 101; and Mos 2.95, 97. Two of the occurrences are in quotations of LXX Exod 25:22 (Her 166; Fug 101). 50 One of the most frequent uses of the concept of “God’s righteousness” in Psalms and Deutero-Isaiah is in reference to God’s saving righteousness (iustitia salutifera), that is, God’s distributive justice as expressed through judging the oppressors of God’s people, delivering God’s people and thereby vindicating them. Bracketing for a moment the relational theory that in such instances “righteousness” is to be viewed as covenant faithfulness (which is doubtful), we must remain open the possibility that the language of God’s saving righteousness in

47

76

Chapter 2: Methodological Considerations

Greek words as Greek in form only but really Hebrew in substance, it is better to think of them as Greek words in both form and substance, but whose meaning has been extended in certain new directions so that they now have Hebraic applications, usages, and nuances that, while not impossible in extra-biblical Greek, are nevertheless new. I would argue that a new Hebraic meaning cannot simply be grafted onto any Greek word without regard to the semantic possibilities already inherent in extra-biblical Greek. Ordinarily, the semantic possibilities of the Greek word in extra-biblical usage must be such that its meaning (whether referential or connotative) can be reasonably and organically extended into the new Hebraic semantic territory. An example will illustrate. The word δικαιόω in extra-biblical Greek generally means one of three things: (1) to make something right; (2) to deem someone/something to be right or correct; and (3) to do justice to someone, typically by punishing them.51 Now it is clear that this usage is somewhat different from that of the New Testament where it may mean (1) to vindicate someone, or (2) to declare someone to be righteous and to treat them as righteous. In the New Testament, the meaning “to do someone justice by punishing them” is entirely absent and the word has a more positive connotation. In fact, for Paul it is a soteriological term that denotes God’s act of forgiving sins and accounting sinners as righteous in his sight. Now it is generally agreed that this new usage came about because of the influence of the Septuagint mediating a Hebraic context and connotation to the word δικαιόω. The verb ‫צדק‬ ַ   ָ is frequently translated using the Greek verb δικαιόω in the Septuagint,52 or with various circumlocutions involving the adjective δίκαιος and a verb.53 In other words, it is basically a stereotype. Since the Hebrew verb is used in a positive, judicial sense, that meaning has been introduced into the Greek word among Greek-speaking Jews. This can be documented not only in the NT but also in Philo and other Jewish Greek literature. Now the point I am trying to make is that this new, more positive connotation is organically related to that portion of the extra-biblical Greek usage which I have glossed “to deem someone to be right or correct.” The Septuagint has not added a new meaning unrelated to extra-biblical usage, but has taken the semantic possibilities of δικαιόω in extra-biblical Greek and extended them in a

the Hebrew Bible, when mediated through the LXX, could give rise to a soft calque in which δικαιοσύνη when predicated of God in certain Jewish Greek contexts carries within it overtones of or allusions to the Hebraic concept of “God’s saving righteousness.” 51 LSJ δικαιόω. 52 Qal: Gen 38:26; Ps 19:9; 51:4; 143:2; Isa 43:9, 26; 45:26; Ezek 16:52. Piel: Job 33:32; Jer 3:11; Ezek 16:51-52. Hiphil: Exod 23:7; Deut 25:1; 2 Kgdms 15:4; 3 Kgdms 8:32; Ps 82:3; Isa 5:23; 50:8; 53:11. Hithpael: Gen 44:16. 53 E.g., δίκαιος ἀναφαίνεσθαι (Job 13:18; 40:8) [both Qal]), δίκαιος ἀποφαίνειν (Job 27:5 [Piel]; 32:2 [Qal]), δίκαιος εἶναι (Job 9:2, 15, 20; 10:15; 11:2; 15:14; 25:4; 33:12; 34:5; 35:7 [all Qal]), and δίκαιον κρίνειν (Prov 17:15 [Hiphil]).

B. Septuagint Studies

77

new direction, but a direction that is anchored in an extra-biblical starting point.54 It is a short step from “to deem someone to be right or correct” (focusing nonjudicially on someone’s rightness or correctness with regard to something they said or their opinion) to “to deem someone to be righteous” (focusing on their judicial status before humans or God). It is an organic extension of semantic possibilities already present. Furthermore, the usage of the verb in the Septuagint in primarily judicial contexts (e.g., Exod 23:7) builds upon a usage that is possible in extra-biblical Greek, though in extra-biblical Greek the judicial usage usually takes the negative form, “to do someone justice by punishing them.” In the aftermath of Martin Hengel’s paradigm-altering work on the complex relationship between Hellenism and Judaism, we can no longer speak in such stark contrast between “Greek thought” and “Hebraic/Jewish thought.”55 Accordingly, it is now irresponsible to assume radical discontinuities between Hebrew words and Greek words used among Greek-speaking Jewish communities to represent Hebrew words and concepts. Rather than assuming discontinuity, we must be prepared to see significant areas of continuity and overlap between the usage of δικαιοσύνη in extra-biblical Greek literature and its usage in GrecoJewish literature. And when discontinuities are posited, strict criteria must be applied, not only to demonstrate that such discontinuities do indeed have evidentiary support in non-translational Jewish Greek literature, but also to provide a more fine-grained analysis of the precise points where the continuities end and the discontinuities begin.

C. Relevance of Jewish Literature Composed in Greek In Chapter 5, we will survey the use of δικαιοσύνη in Jewish literature composed in Greek, both Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Hellenistic Jewish writers like Philo and Josephus. It may be objected that, given Paul’s Palestinian Jewish background as a Pharisee and his rabbinic education at the feet of Gamaliel in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3), Paul’s thought is best understood against the background of Palestinian Jewish literature and that the literature of Hellenistic Judaism is less relevant for interpreting Paul. This way of thinking has resulted in privileg 54 The LXX’s use of δικαιόω to mean “acquit, declare righteous,” though strange to the nonJewish Greek reader, “bears … a certain analogy with the common Greek use of δικαιοῦν for deeming a course of action right, and may be regarded as an extension of this use.” C. H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935), 52-53. 55 Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (trans. John Bowden; WUNT 10; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974); idem, Jews, Greeks, and Barbarians: Aspects of the Hellenization of Judaism in the pre-Christian Period (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980); idem, The ‘Hellenization’ of Judaea in the First Century after Christ (London: SCM Press, 1989).

78

Chapter 2: Methodological Considerations

ing Jewish literature composed in Hebrew, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jubilees, and 1 Enoch, with far less attention given to Jewish literature composed in Greek. Paul’s origin and later ministry among Diaspora Greek-speaking Jews has been downplayed while his Palestinian roots have been given pride of place.56 But as most scholars now recognize, New Testament scholarship prior to Martin Hengel’s ground-breaking work had operated with simplistic categories, positing a binary polarity between “Palestinian Judaism” and “Hellenistic Judaism.” Hengel’s work broke down this binary schematization and showed that Palestinian Judaism was not a pristine phenomenon uninfluenced by its Hellenistic environment. In Judaism and Hellenism Hengel forcefully makes a single, simple point: “The usual distinction between Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism needs to be corrected …. From about the middle of the third century BC all Judaism must really be designated ‘Hellenistic Judaism’ in the strict sense.”57 Hengel’s overall thesis has been well received and essentially vindicated in its main outlines.58 Paul was a Jew of the Diaspora, as he said, “a Jewish man, born in Tarsus of Cilicia” (Acts 22:3; cp. 9:11; 21:39; 23:34). This is indicated by the fact that he thinks and writes in Greek. Hengel thinks that “Paul’s excellent command of his Greek mother tongue and his sovereign treatment of the Greek Bible suggest that Tarsus cannot be pushed completely into the background.”59 Hengel goes on to 56 Here are some illustrative quotes: “Contrary to Ramsay and others, [Paul’s Palestinian education] fits quite nicely with Paul’s rather scanty use of Hellenistic writers and ideas, as well as his much deeper dependence on the Pharisaic Jewish heritage.” W. Ward Gasque, “Tarsus,” ABD 6.334. “Essentially non-Palestinian sources (e.g. the Sibylline Oracles) are also of lesser value for a comparison with Paul, who despite his familiarity with the Hellenistic world, had Palestinian roots.” Mark A. Seifrid, Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme (NovTSup 68; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 79. 57 Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1.104. Hengel looks back on his work in “Judaism and Hellenism Revisited,” in Hellenism in the Land of Israel (ed. John J. Collins and Gregory E. Sterling; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001), 6-37. He acknowledges that his thesis “can surely be supplemented, improved, and sometimes corrected … but it must not be revised” (29). 58 Peder Borgen states that “scholars no longer regard the distinction between Palestinian Judaism and Hellenistic Judaism as a basic category for our understanding of Judaism.” The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism (ed. Peder Borgen and Søren Giversen; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995), 11. Similar assessments of Hengel’s work may be found in Tessa Rajak, The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome: Studies in Cultural and Social Interaction (AGJU 48; Leiden: Brill, 2001); Lee I. Levine, Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? (Seattle: The University of Washington Press, 1998); Lester L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Herod, Vol. 1: The Persian and Greek Periods (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 148, 153, 251; John J. Collins, Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule (Leiden: Brill, 2005). See also James K. Aitken’s critical reassessment of Judaism and Hellenism over 30 years later in JBL 123 (2004): 331-41. 59 Martin Hengel in collaboration with Roland Deines, The Pre-Christian Paul (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM, 1991), 38-39.

C. Relevance of Jewish Literature Composed in Greek

79

argue that even Paul’s pre-Christian habitat in Jerusalem was probably Greekspeaking Jewish communities in which the Greek Bible was used. The type of Greek that was spoken in this habitat was not the high literary Greek of the more educated elites, nor was the full canon of pagan Greek literature from Homer to Plato studied. Rather, the Greek spoken was Septuagintal and practical, although a modest degree of rhetorical skill seems to be evidenced in our sources. Hengel hypothesizes that after his Pharisaic training, Paul found himself mainly among the Hellenistic (that is, Greek-speaking) Jewish synagogues in Jerusalem. Paul may even have been a teacher in a Hellenistic synagogue in Jerusalem who sought to catechize Diaspora Jews in Pharisaic theology and practice.60 It was precisely because of Paul’s pre-conversion membership in the Jewish Hellenistic community in Jerusalem that he became involved in the persecution of Stephen and the Greek-speaking Jewish Christians in Jerusalem.61 In his acclaimed book, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, John M. G. Barclay both builds on and moves beyond Hengel in a number of important ways.62 Barclay agrees that Hengel “decisively shattered”63 the old scholarly dichotomy between Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism, but he seeks to advance the discussion by providing some important theoretical tools gleaned from the realm of sociology that enable a more fine-grained analysis of the variety of ways that Jews interacted with their Hellenistic environment. To be specific, Barclay isolates three distinct scales for describing that interaction: assimilation, acculturation, and accommodation.64 The “assimilation” scale refers to the degree of social integration, with the Jew living in an isolated Jewish ghetto at the bottom of the scale and the fully integrated Jew who has abandoned all Jewish distinctives at the top. Assimilationist and separatist forms of Judaism existed in both the Diaspora and Palestine. Assimilation is not the sole preserve of Hellenistic Judaism, nor were all Diaspora Jews assimilationists. The pre-Christian Paul (a Diaspora Jew) and the Diaspora Jews from Asia Minor who tried to kill him were clearly strict segregationists who kept themselves from Gentile entanglements. There is little evidence that Greek-speaking Jews were, as a group, more “liberal” with regard to Torah-observance or that their religion was more universalistic than their Palestinian counterparts.65 Indeed, assuming the historical reliability of Acts, Luke Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul, 58, 61. Hengel regards the persecution described in Acts 8:1-3 as directed primarily against “the Hellenists.” 62 John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117 CE) (Berkeley and Los Angeles: The University of California Press, 1996). 63 Ibid., 6. 64 Ibid., 82-102. 65 This was the standard assumption of die religionsgeschichtliche Schule. For example, Wilhelm Bousset claimed that the primary difference between Palestinian Judaism and Hellenistic Diaspora Judaism was that the former was characterized by a cramped particularism,

60



61

80

Chapter 2: Methodological Considerations

contradicts this view when he describes the non-Christian Diaspora Jews of Jerusalem (explicitly called “Hellenists”) as among those who were the first to stir up persecution against the newly-converted Saul (Acts 9:29), thus demonstrating that “Hellenistic Jews” could be just as “conservative” and “particularistic” as Palestinian Jews.66 The “acculturation” scale describes the degree of skill in the employment of Hellenistic culture. In this case, a Jew who does not know any Greek would be placed at the bottom of the scale, a Jew who had attended a Greek grammar school or gymnasium would be in the middle, and a Jew like Philo who had mastered Greek literature, rhetoric, and philosophy (i.e., the whole panoply of the Greek paideia) would be at the top. Paul clearly spoke Greek fluently, had a basic facility in the use of rhetorical conventions, and employed some terminology gleaned from popular philosophy, but he does not demonstrate the kind of profound knowledge of Greek literature and philosophy that Philo does. Paul would be somewhere in the middle of the “acculturation” scale. Paul was probably bilingual at a minimum, knowing both Greek and Aramaic, and probably Hebrew as well.67 However, his Greek does not display the same degree of sophistication as a Philo. Barclay suggests that Paul’s rabbinic training in Jerusalem was probably in a Pharisaic school in which instruction occurred in Greek.68 The “accommodation” scale has to do with the use to which a Jew put his or her acculturation. This scale differs from the other two in that it does not go from zero to 100%, but starts in the middle with a neutral stance to Hellenistic ideals and philosophy, and from that point moves in two opposite directions, upward toward increasing cultural convergence or downward toward increasing cultural antagonism. Jews like Philo and the author of The Letter of Aristeas sought cultural convergence between their Judaism and the reigning ideals of Hellenistic philosophy and ethics. By contrast, the authors of 4 Maccabees and The Wisdom of Solomon – although highly acculturated in terms of their fluency in Greek and their ability to employ rhetoric and philosophy – used their acculturation to warn their fellow Jews against becoming too assimilated to Gentile society. These Jews are cited by Barclay as examples of cultural antagonism.

whereas the latter had an out-facing, missionary openness to the Gentile world. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter ( ed. Hugo Gressmann; 3rd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1926), 432-37. 66 “So [Saul] went in and out among them in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. He spoke and argued with the Hellenists (συνεζήτει πρὸς τοὺς Ἑλληνιστάς); but they were attempting to kill him. When the believers learned of it, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus” (Acts 9:28-30 NRSV). These “Hellenists” are not Christians and are thus not the same as those mentioned in Acts 6:1. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (AB 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998), 440. 67 Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul, 37-38. 68 Barclay, Jews, 383-84, following Hengel.

C. Relevance of Jewish Literature Composed in Greek

81

Barclay concludes that Paul was born in Tarsus and can therefore be regarded as a Diaspora Jew by birth. It is true that at some point early in life he moved to Jerusalem and received considerable rabbinical training there (Acts 22:3). Yet after his conversion he spent the remaining 30 years of his life outside of Palestine (aside from occasional visits to Jerusalem), typically visiting cities that had sizeable Greek-speaking Jewish communities. For Barclay, “the Paul who preaches, disputes with Jews and Gentiles and writes to members of his churches is a Jew at work in the Diaspora.” The Diaspora is Paul’s “primary social context.” Therefore, to shed light on Paul’s socio-cultural location Barclay compares him with other Diaspora Jews, a comparison that Barclay believes has not received sufficient attention.69 This conclusion is corroborated by the recognition that Paul’s use of the Old Testament is primarily an exegetical engagement with the Greek Bible rather than the Hebrew.70 J. Ross Wagner, for example, concludes that there are no quotations of Isaiah in Romans that cannot be explained as quotations from the Septuagint or other Greek Bible traditions.71 So where does this leave us with regard to the issue of the use of Jewish literature composed in Greek for Pauline interpretation? I recognize that Paul’s thought does not show much influence either from non-Jewish Hellenistic philosophical writings or from the Hellenistic Jewish apologetic literature that attempts to package Judaism as comporting with the best of Hellenistic moral philosophy. Barclay rightly observes: “To turn to Paul after reading most other Diaspora literature is to be struck by his minimal use of Hellenistic theology, anthropology or ethics.”72 Certainly Paul had no interest, as Pseudo-Phocylides, Aristeas, Philo, 4 Maccabees and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (to name a few) did, in showing the convergence between the ethic of the Mosaic Law and that of Greco-Roman moral philosophy with its four virtues (φρόνησις,

Barclay, Jews, 381. Barclay points out that W. D. Davies, E. P. Sanders, and Alan Segal focused their efforts on comparing Paul with rabbinic or Palestinian Judaism. 70 “Paul was at home in the Greek Bible because he had used it – presumably from his earliest childhood … He also learned the Jewish Bible primarily in the form of the LXX.” Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul, 37-38. 71 “My own close examination of the wording of Paul’s quotations and allusions to Isaiah in Romans supports the consensus view that Paul cites a Greek text (or texts) of this prophetic book. In most cases, Paul’s Vorlage seems to have been nearly identical with the Septuagint version of Isaiah … Although I have given full consideration to the textual evidence provided by MT, the Qumran finds (biblical mss, pesharim, and quotations in other documents), the Targum, and the Peshitta, at no point has it been found necessary to suppose that Paul has relied on a Hebrew or Aramaic text of Isaiah … I have discovered no instance in which the hypothesis that Paul used a Greek text does not account for the data more simply and more satisfactorily than the supposition that Paul employed Hebrew and/or Aramaic texts.” J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul “In Concert” in the Letter to the Romans (NovTSup 101; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 344-45 and n8. 72 Barclay, Jews, 390-91.

69

82

Chapter 2: Methodological Considerations

δικαιοσύνη, σωφροσύνη, ἀνδρεία). Nevertheless, this diverse body of writings offers helpful lexical information regarding the way in which theological words such as δίκαιος, δικαιόω, and δικαιοσύνη were understood within the mental furniture of Greek-speaking Judaism in which Paul was raised and conducted much of his ministry. The literature of Hellenistic Judaism can be deceptively subtle in its Jewishness. A superficial reading of many of these works may initially cause one to pay more attention to the ways in which they sound so dissimilar to OT/Jewish thought and so similar to the thought-world of Hellenistic moral philosophy. Yet a more careful reading demonstrates the depth of the Jewish element, which extends not only to the content but also to the Greek vocabulary. For example, in this body of literature, as Hellenistic as it may at first appear, we find many theologically-significant terms used with a specialized Hebrew meaning typically derived from the LXX, e.g., ἄγγελος, ἀρχιερεύς, διάβολος, διαθήκη, δικαιόω, δόξα, ἱλαστήριον, κιβωτός, κύριος, νόμος, περιτομή, and so on. Thus, an examination of the usage of δικαιοσύνη in this body of Jewish literature can serve as a critical test of the theory that the semantic range of this word in Greekspeaking Judaism was enlarged due to the influence of the Hebrew background.

D. Conclusion Based on my assumption that the Septuagint has exercised a significant influence on the syntax and vocabulary of the New Testament, I have prima facie sympathy with the hypothesis that the word δικαιοσύνη may have taken on a Hebraic cast and, when combined with the genitive θεοῦ, could be translated “God’s saving activity in fulfillment of his covenant promises.” However, I find that the evidence is not compelling to conclude that in this case we have a Greek word with a Hebrew meaning, or, more precisely, with this particular Hebrew meaning. My doubts arise from two primary considerations (at least) which will be explained in greater detail in the chapters that follow. But at this point I state them here succinctly: First, looking solely at the Hebrew, Cremer’s view that the Hebrew root ‫צדק‬ has a relational meaning is doubtful. The arguments Cremer put forward are by no means compelling. In fact, I believe that Cremer engaged in the fallacy of “totality transfer” when he made the case for taking ‫ צדק‬as a Verhältnisbegriff or relational concept. He also failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the counterexamples in the Hebrew Bible where ‫ צדק‬denotes penal judgment, suggesting that the lexeme is not thoroughly positive as Cremer and von Rad claimed. Second, even when we recognize that ‫ צדק‬can be used in contexts and in ways that δικαιοσύνη ordinarily is not used – e.g., to describe God’s saving righteousness or vindicating deliverance on behalf of the oppressed – the mere fact that δικαιοσύνη in the LXX is used to render the ‫ צדק‬root does not prove that this

D. Conclusion

83

salvific usage has passed over into the mental furniture and parlance of Greekspeaking Jews, as either a hard or a soft calque. It may have, but this would need to be demonstrated by examples in Jewish literature composed in Greek where δικαιοσύνη is predicated of God (“God’s, his, or your righteousness”) in a way that clearly denotes the divine iustitia salutifera or delivering righteousness known from the OT. This very real possibility must not be eliminated a priori. Furthermore, even if it were shown to be the case that the OT iustitia salutifera usage of the Psalms and Deutero-Isaiah had been translated into Greek garb and taken up a home within the mental furniture of the Greek-speaking Jewish community, Cremer’s more specific claim that the iustitia salutifera usage is dependent on taking “righteousness” as a relational concept would remain unproven, and the particular relational element (assuming, ex hypothesi, that it exists even in Hebrew, which is doubtful) would not necessarily have carried over into the usage of δικαιοσύνη in Jewish Greek. As I said, one way of looking at this topic is to view it as a subset of the larger topic of “Greek words with Hebrew meanings” mediated via the LXX. I am writing with the presupposition that this phenomenon is very real and one that must be taken into account when doing New Testament lexicography. As applied to the specific case of the ΔΙΚ-group in the New Testament, I generally expect to find ways in which the LXX has shaped the precise contours and semantic range of the words in this group. However, I want to prosecute this with great methodological sophistication and controls in order to ensure that we are seeing Hebraic nuances that are objectively there. I aim to demonstrate that the concept of “covenant faithfulness” as proposed in Cremer’s Verhältnisbegriff theory is not one of the Hebraic meanings that has been introduced into the Greek ΔΙΚ-group among Greek-speaking Jews or Christians of the period under investigation.

Chapter 3

Righteousness in Extra-Biblical Greek In order to understand the continuities and discontinuities between biblical usage and standard Greek usage not influenced by biblical revelation, we must form a basic idea of how δικαιοσύνη is used in extra-biblical Greek. In Chapter 4, we will examine the usage of ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ   ָ     ָ   ְ in the Hebrew Bible and δικαιοσύνη in the Septuagint. Chapter 3, then, sets the baseline usage of “righteousness” in comparison with which the distinctives of biblical usage can be analyzed and hence made more apparent. My claim is that the Hebraic/relational theory of righteousness operates with a false contrast between Greek and Hebrew thought. Even extra-biblical Greek recognizes that keeping one’s promises is a subset of “righteousness.” Conversely, Hebraic usage is just as judicially stamped by the concept of iustitia distributiva as extra-biblical Greek, if not more so. The scope of this chapter is as follows: First, I am focusing only on extra-biblical Greek, that is, Greek literature that was composed by non-Jewish and non-Christian authors. Mostly these are Greek and Roman philosophers, historians, and orators (or speech writers) writing in Attic and Hellenistic Greek. Second, the chronological limits are from the first occurrence of the word δικαιοσύνη in the 6th century BC down to the 2nd century AD. Third, I have not attempted an exhaustive examination of every occurrence of δικαιοσύνη in every secular writer of this time period, as that would make the chapter unmanageably large. I aim only to provide a representative sampling of the usage of δικαιοσύνη in extra-biblical Greek that will provide a sufficient baseline for comparison with its usage in Greek-speaking Judaism. The primary method for finding occurrences of the word was by querying the full online database of Greek literature, Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG), an ongoing project by the University of California, Irvine.1 This yielded 2,184 hits up to (but not including) the occurrences in the 2nd/3rd century father, Clement of Alexandria. This must be qualified, however, by noting that many of these

1 http://www.tlg.uci.edu. The site says: “The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) is a research center at the University of California, Irvine. Founded in 1972 the TLG has collected and digitized most literary texts written in Greek from Homer to the fall of Byzantium in AD 1453. Its goal is to create a comprehensive digital library of Greek literature from antiquity to the present era.”

A. Before The Fifth Century BC

85

hits were duplicates (e.g., multiple editions of the same work; multiple occurrences of identical fragments scattered throughout the corpus; etc.). In addition, the total of 2,184 hits includes the Septuagint, the New Testament, and a number of Jewish and Christian authors. When these are removed, there are approximately 1,700 instances of the word δικαιοσύνη in extra-biblical Greek literature from the 6th century BC to the 2nd century AD – i.e., from Theognis to Sextus Empiricus. In addition to searching TLG, I also wanted to see if δικαιοσύνη occurred in the sub-literary papyri. This proved a more difficult task. Although there were certainly other papyri that could have been checked, I was able to check only the indices of each volume of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, volumes 1–69 (1898– 2005).2 The words δίκαιος, δικαίωμα, δικαίως, δικαστής, δικαστήριον, and δίκη were found, with δίκαιος and δίκη occurring frequently, in practically every volume. But δικαιοσύνη itself was found only three times: twice in the Antiphon fragment (see below) and once in a 5th century AD Byzantine letter concerning a riot.3 The latter occurrence was too fragmentary and too far outside the chronological parameters of this study to be useful. My foray into the papyri, though limited, reinforces Moulton and Milligan’s observation that “so far as we have noticed, this word is rare in the papyri.”4

A. Before the Fifth Century BC The period before the 5th century BC is shrouded in mystery. Although there are a handful of occurrences of δικαιοσύνη in the period roughly from the 8th through the 6th century, they lack textual certainty, are often suspected of being interpolations from a later time, or are extant only in fragments quoted by later writers. According to TLG, the very earliest occurrence of the word is once in Titanomachia (8th to 6th century?) and twice in apothegms attributed to the Seven Sages (who were said to have lived in the 7th/6th centuries). However, I will pass over these occurrences since they are so doubtful and exist only in fragments quoted by later authors.

The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Parts. I-LXIX (various eds.; London: The Egypt Exploration Society, 1898-2005). 3 The 5th cent. AD fragment reads: … λαβὼν παρὰ τῆς σῆς δικαιο[σύν]η[ς] ἑτέραν … (“… having taken from your righteousness another …”). The editors comment that “little consecutive sense can be extracted” from this part of the papyrus. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part XVI (ed. Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt; London: The Egypt Exploration Society, 1924), papyrus 1873. 4 J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1930), 162.

2

86

Chapter 3: Righteousness in Extra-Biblical Greek

The first secure occurrence of the word is to be found in Theognis (6th century BC), who is attributed with saying: Prefer to live righteously (εὐσεβέων) with a few possessions than to become rich by the unjust (ἀδίκως) acquisition of money. For in justice there is the sum total of every excellence (ἐν δὲ δικαιοσύνηι συλλήβδην πᾶσ’ ἀρετή ’στι), and every man who is just (δίκαιος), Cyrnus, is noble (ἀγαθός) (Theognis 145-48).5

The classical scholar Eric Havelock argued that the collection of sayings attributed to Theognis had come to serve as a textbook for students and that the italicized maxim sounded suspiciously like something from a later philosophical age that had been interpolated into the collection.6 However, there are several considerations that point to its authenticity. First, while scholars recognize that not all of the sayings traditionally collected under the name of Theognis are genuine, they place greater confidence in those sayings that are addressed to “Cyrnus.”7 Second, the proverb itself (“in justice there is the sum total of every excellence”) is well integrated into its immediate context addressed to Cyrnus. Third, the italicized proverb is quoted by Aristotle as an anonymous, ancient, authoritative saying (Ethica Nicomachea 1129b30). A 12th century AD commentator on Aristotle (Michael of Ephesus) claims that a 4th century BC successor of Aristotle (Theophrastus) assigned the saying to both Theognis and Phocylides.8 Thus, while the original author of the saying is uncertain, the evidence points to its ancient provenance. It is interesting that even this early in the usage of δικαιοσύνη, it is already understood to denote justice as a virtue and even as the sum total of all virtue. One would have expected the earliest occurrences of the word to focus on the judicial use of the term, such as we find with the earlier terms for justice, δίκη and τὸ δίκαιον, which are commonly used in Homer and Hesiod.9 The judicial aspect of δικαιοσύνη will, however, become clear in the fifth century and will continue as a part of its semantic range from that point on.

5 Greek Elegiac Poetry from the Seventh to the Fifth Centuries BC (LCL; ed. and trans. Douglas E. Gerber; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999), 192-95. 6 Eric A. Havelock, “DIKAIOSUNE: An Essay in Greek Intellectual History,” Phoenix 23 (1969): 69. 7 Based on this criterion, only 308 of the 1,400 sayings attributed to Theognis can be confidently regarded as genuine. The Oxford Classical Dictionary (OCD) (ed. Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth; 3rd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 1503. 8 Greek Elegiac Poetry (LCL), 399 n1. 9 Eric A. Havelock, The Greek Concept of Justice From Its Shadow in Homer to Its Substance in Plato (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978), 123-217.

B. The Fifth Century BC

87

B. The Fifth Century BC We next encounter the word δικαιοσύνη with certainty in Herodotus (c. 485– 424)10 who uses it eight times in five passages (it occurs more than once in two of the passages).11 We will now look at each of these passages in turn. In the first passage, Herodotus describes a certain Median named Dioces who had the ambition of gaining kingly power in a time of political and social lawlessness (Historiae 1.96). So he “began to profess and practice justice more constantly and zealously than ever” (μᾶλλόν τι καὶ προθυμότερον δικαιοσύνην ἐπιθέμενος ἤσκεε). He commenced by setting up shop as a judge (δικαστής) who would dispense equal justice for any who came to him with lawsuits or complaints. A key underpinning of Dioces’ judicial activity was his conviction that “injustice is ever the foe of justice” (τῷ δικαίῳ τὸ ἄδικον πολέμιόν ἐστι). With this commitment to rigorous justice, he gained the reputation in the surrounding villages of being “honest and just” (ἰθύς τε καὶ δίκαιος), of being a judge who “alone gave righteous judgments” (ἀνὴρ μοῦνος κατὰ τὸ ὀρθὸν δικάζων), and eventually was made monarch of the Median kingdom.12 In this context, δικαιοσύνη means the quality of justice on the part of a judge. Havelock argues that the judicial/royal context is the original Sitz im Leben of the term in the cultural and linguistic consciousness of the Greeks and accordingly provides its basic semantic content and orientation, even though it would later be expanded into other realms, such as the financial, social, covenantal, and ethical.13 The next occurrence of δικαιοσύνη in Herodotus arises in his account of an ancient confederacy of 12 Egyptian kings. There was a time when Egypt was bereft of monarchy; the land was divided into 12 regions, each governed by a king. The 12 kings promised to be mutually friendly and not seek to oust any of the others (2.147). These arrangements are called “laws” (νόμοι) which clearly have the force of a political compact, sealed by marriage alliances and the construction of an elaborate memorial. At this point we come to the key sentence, which one translator renders: “Now as time went on, the twelve kings, who had kept their compact not to molest one another, met to offer sacrifice in the temple of Hephaestus.”14 The italicized portion could be more literally translated as “when they had exercised righteousness” (τῶν δυώδεκα βασιλέων δικαιοσύνῃ χρεωμένων – genitive absolute) (2.151), but the phrase “to exercise δικαιοσύνη” is clearly used in reference to the keeping of a political compact. 10 Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopedia of the Ancient World (BNP) (ed. Hubert Cancik et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2002–), 6.265. 11 Havelock, “DIKAIOSUNE,” 50. 12 Translations from Herodotus (LCL; trans. A. D. Godley; London: William Heinemann, 1926), 1.127. 13 Havelock, “DIKAIOSUNE,” 62. 14 Herodotus, The Histories (trans. Aubrey de Sélincourt; rev. with introduction and notes by A. R. Burn; London: Penguin, 1972), 190.

88

Chapter 3: Righteousness in Extra-Biblical Greek

This passage provides an important application of the term beyond its original judicial setting. But it is a fitting application of the term, since it is just to keep a mutual compact involving multiple parties. However, it must not be assumed that δικαιοσύνη itself means “keeping a compact,” for it is the entire collocation χράομαι δικαιοσύνῃ, not merely the noun δικαιοσύνη, which has that meaning. Furthermore, rather than saying that the collocation itself means keeping a compact, it is more accurate to say that keeping a compact is here characterized as “exercising righteousness.” Other social and political interactions could be characterized the same way, since covenant-keeping is not the only species of “righteousness.” Again, the contextual concept must not be equated with the lexical concept. The fact that other social interactions can also be characterized as δικαιοσύνη is borne out by Herodotus himself, who on three occasions in a single context uses the term with reference to a certain Spartan named Glaucus who had a reputation for “honesty” (δικαιοσύνη) more than all of the other Spartans. The specific context has to do with honest dealing regarding a παρακαταθήκη, that is, a deposit of money temporarily entrusted to the care of another (6.86α). In another context, Herodotus twice uses the word δικαιοσύνη in reference to a certain Cadmos who, because of his outstanding “justice,” freely abdicated his role (inherited from his father) of tyrant of the city of Cos (7.164), and then, having thus proved his righteousness in the political realm, was entrusted with an important embassy in the face of the invasion of the Persians from the east. In both of these contexts, the term is used to describe an outstanding quality possessed by an individual, a quality that can be translated “justice, righteousness, or honesty,” but which has specific, contextually-variable references fleshing out the particular form that justice takes in any given situation. These contextual references color and flesh out the meaning of δικαιοσύνη but they are not part of its lexical sense. The eighth occurrence of δικαιοσύνη in Herodotus is significant, and that is why I have saved it for last. It shows up in the context of the scene where Xerxes and his uncle Artabanus are reviewing the vast Persian army from a high pinnacle as they prepare to invade and conquer Europe. Artabanus had previously registered his opposition to Xerxes’ desire to invade Greece, and though he lost that debate, he now warns Xerxes of some of the risks involved in this massive undertaking. In particular, Artabanus urges Xerxes to be wary of relying on the Ionians (who had been sent out by the Greeks of the mainland to colonize the western part of Asia Minor on the Aegean Sea) for military assistance in Xerxes’ attack on the Greeks of mainland Hellas. Artabanus fears that they will be put in the position of fighting against their own mother country and may end up siding with the Greeks against the Persians. But Xerxes replies that he is not worried about the Ionians. He appeals to the Ionians’ involvement in an earlier military campaign undertaken by Darius: “On that occasion, when the Ionians had it in their power to save or destroy the whole Persian army, they gave proof of jus-

B. The Fifth Century BC

89

tice and faithfulness (δικαιοσύνην καὶ πιστότητα ἐνέδωκαν), and no evil intent” (7.52).15 Δικαιοσύνη itself does not mean “faithfulness/loyalty,” or Herodotus would not have needed to add πιστότης. Yet there is a close relationship between the two nouns, and I would argue that that relationship is genus and species. They showed righteousness; specifically, they showed a particular variety of righteousness, namely, faithfulness or loyalty. This will be significant when we examine whether δικαιοσύνη in the Septuagint means “covenant faithfulness” as Cremer and those who follow him argue. I would argue that while it can be used to refer to faithfulness, since faithfulness is a species of righteousness, faithfulness is not part of the lexical sense of δικαιοσύνη. Thucydides (c. 455–c. 400)16 often speaks of “justice” but he prefers the older phrase τὸ δίκαιον. He employs the form δικαιοσύνη only once, but it is a significant passage for our study. The word occurs in the context of the first military hostilities of the Peloponnesian war, when Thebes (an ally of Sparta) attacked Plataea (an ally of Athens) in 431 BC and eventually defeated it in 427. Thucydides has the Thebans say to the subdued Plataeans: According to your own account you became allies and citizens (σύμμαχοι καὶ πολῖται) of Athens in your own self-defense. If so, then you should merely have called them in against us, and not joined them in their attacks on others …. It would have been shameful, you say, to desert your benefactors [the Athenians]; yes, but far more shameful and unjust (ἀδικώτερον) utterly to betray all the Hellenic states, your sworn allies (οἷς ξυνωμόσατε), who were liberating Hellas, than merely the Athenians, who were enslaving it. Moreover, you did for them [the Athenians] something very different from what they did for you, and this is something of which you ought to be ashamed. For you claim that you called them in because you were being wronged (ἀδικούμενοι), but you became their accomplices when they were wronging others (τοῖς ἀδικοῦσιν ἄλλους). Yet to pay back a justly incurred debt by acting unjustly is more disgraceful than not to pay at all (καίτοι τὰς ὁμοίας χάριτας μὴ ἀντιδιδόναι αἰσχρὸν μᾶλλον ἢ τὰς μετὰ δικαιοσύνης μὲν ὀφειληθείσας, ἐς ἀδικίαν δὲ ἀποδιδομένας) (Hist. 3.63).17

The debt in this case is that the Plataeans felt obligated to side with the Athenians against the Peloponnesian League (led by Sparta and including Thebes) because the Athenians defended them against the past aggression of Thebes. But the Thebans reply that, while the previous debt or obligation itself may have been incurred “justly” (μετὰ δικαιοσύνης), it would have been better to not pay back the debt at all, than to pay it back by committing injustice against others, in this case by joining Athens in what the Peloponnesian League regards as its attempt to enslave all of Hellas. The phrase μετὰ δικαιοσύνης (“with justice” or “justly”) stands in contrast to ἐς [= εἰς] ἀδικίαν (“to injustice” or “unjustly”). From the 15 Combining elements of both the Penguin (Histories, 463) and LCL (3.369) translations. 16 OCD 1516-17. 17 This translation is an admixture and modification of two English translations: Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War (trans. Rex Warner; introduction and notes by M. I. Finley; London: Penguin, 1972), 232; and Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War (trans., with introduction and notes, by Steven Lattimore; Indianapolis: Hackett, 1998), 160.

90

Chapter 3: Righteousness in Extra-Biblical Greek

perspective of the Thebans, the debt of the Plataeans to the Athenians was incurred justly but repaid unjustly, because they joined in the Athenian oppression and attempted enslavement of all Hellas. Now, in the immediate context, both the Thebans and the Plataeans in their speeches use covenantal language in describing their moral obligations and alliances. The Plataeans, in their earlier speech to the Thebans, stand as suppliants at their fathers’ tombs and summon up “the solemn oaths” which the Thebans’ fathers also “swore” (ὅρκους οὓς οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν ὤμοσαν), pleading with them not to forget their fathers’ oaths (3.59). The Thebans, for their part, accuse the Plataeans of betraying “all the Greeks with whom you swore to be confederates” (τοὺς πάντας Ἕλληνας ... οἷς ξυνωμόσατε) (3.63), claiming that they “left that alliance (ξυνωμοσία) and violated its terms” (3.64). “Who, then, more than you [Plataeans],” the Thebans rhetorically ask, “are more justly hated by all the Hellenes?” (τίνες ἂν οὖν ὑμῶν δικαιότερον πᾶσι τοῖς Ἕλλησι μισοῖντο) (3.64). The significance of this is that words from the ΔΙΚ-group, even in extra-biblical Greek, can be used with reference to covenantal relationships, even though the words themselves do not have covenantal relationships as part of their lexical sense. For the Greeks, as for the Hebrews, it is just to keep one’s oaths and alliances, and unjust to violate them. But it does not follow that δικαιοσύνη itself means keeping one’s oaths and covenants, since the term is broader and can be applied to other activities such as judging or paying back deposits. As I argued in Chapter 2 (on methodology), discourse concepts must not be confused with the lexical concepts. Before concluding our survey of the 5th century, I want to quote from two sophists of this period. The definition of δικαιοσύνη by Antiphon the sophist (active in Athens in the second half of the 5th century)18 is preserved in one of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri. He wrote: Justice, then, is not to transgress that which is the law of the city in which one is a citizen (Δικα[ιοσ]ύνη [πά]ντα τῆς πό[λεω]ς νόμιμα [ἐν] ᾗ ἂν πολι[τεύ]ηταί τις μὴ [παρ]αβαίνειν). A man therefore can best conduct himself in harmony with justice (δικαιοσύνη), if when in the company of witnesses he upholds the laws, and when alone without witnesses he upholds the edicts of nature. For the edicts of the laws are imposed artificially, but those of nature are compulsory.19

Here we see one of the older definitions of δικαιοσύνη as “observing the law,” whether the laws of a given polis, which in Antiphon’s view are artificial and 18 Scholars debate whether this Antiphon is the same as Antiphon the orator (c. 480–411). 19 The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part XI (ed. Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt; London: The Egypt Exploration Fund, 1915), papyrus 1364. Fragment 87.44 in H. Diels and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (Diels-Kranz) (2 vols.; 5th ed.; Berlin: Weidmann, 1952). Kathleen Freeman, Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers: A Complete Translation of the Fragments in Diels, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957), 147.

C. The Fourth Century BC

91

based on convention, or the law of nature, which is compulsory. In any case, the notion that δικαιοσύνη arises from observance of the law is a common motif in extra-biblical Greek literature, and it is one that will be appropriated in GrecoJewish literature, although “the law” in view will no longer be the political laws of the state but the divinely revealed Mosaic Law.20 On a different note, another 5th-century sophist, Thrasymachus, said: “The gods do not see human affairs; otherwise they would not have overlooked the greatest of all blessings among mankind, Justice (οὐ γὰρ τὸ μέγιστον τῶν ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἀγαθῶν παρεῖδον τὴν δικαιοσύνην) – for we see mankind not using this virtue.”21 This skeptical view is consistent with Plato’s characterization of Thrasymachus in The Republic, where Thrasymachus is presented as arguing for the position that “justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger” (Respublica 338c). However, the significance of this quotation lies not in its skepticism but in the implication that the conventional wisdom (here rejected by Thrasymachus) was that justice among humans was a blessing bestowed by the gods. This is another motif that we will have occasion to observe as we continue our study.

C. The Fourth Century BC Isocrates (436–338)22 is considered one of the great Athenian speech-writers. He employs δικαιοσύνη more than 40 times in his various extant speeches, and almost always as one of the chief virtues along with courage, wisdom, and selfcontrol, although he frequently couples self-control and righteousness without mentioning the other two. One interesting feature of Isocrates’ usage is that on a few occasions he makes the traditional linkage of “piety” and “righteousness,” applying the former to the gods and the latter toward other humans. For example, in praising Athens as the greatest and best of the Greek city-states, he claims that the Athenians “at all times had practiced reverence in relation to the gods and justice in relation to mankind” (ἅπαντα τὸν χρόνον ἠσκηκότας εὐσέβειαν

20 Paul recognizes the Jewish doctrine that δικαιοσύνη comes from observing the Mosaic Law: “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be deemed righteous” (Rom 2:13); “Israel pursued a law that would lead to righteousness” (Rom 9:31); “Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law” (Rom 10:5); “As to righteousness in the law, blameless” (Phil 3:6). However, in view of the Christ-event, he rejects this method of attaining righteousness: “If righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose” (Gal 2:21); “… not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith” (Phil 3:9). 21 Fragment 85.8 in Diels-Kranz; Freeman, Ancilla, 142. 22 BNP 6.979.

92

Chapter 3: Righteousness in Extra-Biblical Greek

μὲν περὶ τοὺς θεοὺς δικαιοσύνην δὲ περὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους) (Panathenaicus [= Oration 12] §§124, 204; cp. Nicocles [= Oration 3] §2).23 However, this should not be taken too strictly, as if righteousness has no relationship to the gods, for elsewhere Isocrates says that “justice is more beloved by the gods than injustice” (θεοφιλέστερον τὴν δικαιοσύνην τῆς ἀδικίας) (De pace [= Oration 8] §35).24 Yet, on the whole, the phrase “piety and righteousness” is a comprehensive description of the ideal moral life, for “those who live a life of piety and justice pass their days in security for the present and have sweeter hopes for all eternity” (τοὺς δὲ μετ’ εὐσεβείας καὶ δικαιοσύνης ζῶντας ἔν τε τοῖς παροῦσιν χρόνοις ἀσφαλῶς διάγοντας καὶ περὶ τοῦ σύμπαντος αἰῶνος ἡδίους τὰς ἐλπίδας ἔχοντας) (De pace [= Oration 8] §34).25 Xenophon (c. 430–354)26 has an interesting passage in his Cyropaedia that sheds light on our word. The context is a long dialogue between Cyrus (still a youth) and his father about how to be a good general, how to get one’s soldiers to be willingly obedient, and other military matters. At one point the young Cyrus asks his father the best way to gain an advantage over an enemy. Cyrus’s father responds that a man who would gain an advantage over the enemy must be “the most righteous and law-abiding man in the world” (δικαιότατός τε καὶ νομιμώτατος ἀνήρ) (Cyropaedia 1.6.27).27 The young Cyrus is surprised at this and asks why, then, was he taught to be the opposite, that is, why was he taught how to throw a spear and to use deceit and trickery to capture animals, and so forth? His father explains that he was instructed to deceive and to take advantage when hunting beasts, so that, if there should ever be a war, he would be prepared to treat his enemies this way (1.6.29). Cyrus’s father goes on to explain: It is said that in the time of our forefathers there was once a teacher of the boys who, it seems, used to teach them justice (δικαιοσύνη) in the very way that you propose; to lie and not to lie, to cheat and not to cheat, to slander and not to slander, to take and not to take unfair advantage (μὴ ψεύδεσθαι καὶ ψεύδεσθαι, καὶ μὴ ἐξαπατᾶν καὶ ἐξαπατᾶν, καὶ μὴ διαβάλλειν καὶ διαβάλλειν, καὶ μὴ πλεονεκτεῖν καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν). And he drew the line between what one should do to one’s friends and what to one’s enemies. And what is more, he used to teach this: that it was right (δίκαιος) to deceive friends even, provided it were for a good end, and to steal the possessions of a friend for a good purpose. (1.6.31)28

However, the practice backfired and the boys began to treat even their friends unjustly. So a law was passed that boys must be taught “to tell the truth and not to deceive and not to take unfair advantage” (ἀληθεύειν καὶ μὴ ἐξαπατᾶν καὶ μὴ 23 Isocrates (LCL; trans. George Norlin; London: William Heinemann, 1929), 2.449. 24 Translation mine. 25 Isocrates (LCL), 2.29. 26 OCD 1628. 27 Xenophon (LCL; trans. Walter Miller; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983), 5.115. 28 Ibid., 5.117.

C. The Fourth Century BC

93

πλεονεκτεῖν) (1.6.33),29 and only when they had become adults was it permitted to teach them the arts of deception and injustice, which were to be employed only against their enemies. “For it does not seem likely that you would break away and degenerate into savages after you had been brought up together in mutual respect” (1.6.34).30 Cyrus’s father explains how a general can take advantage of the enemy by using the element of surprise, coming upon the enemy when he is unarmed or asleep, and so on. The point is that δικαιοσύνη is here understood as upright behavior toward one’s friends, consisting of such things as telling the truth and not deceiving them, not slandering them, and not cheating or taking unfair advantage of them. Such behavior, however, is perfectly acceptable when dealing with one’s enemies and would not be considered ἀδικία. Plato (428/7–348/7)31 uses our word approximately 265 times. This is not surprising, given that the Socratic quest for the nature of “justice” is a significant theme that arises often in the Platonic corpus. Indeed, Plato’s greatest work, The Republic, begins with a search for the definition of “justice,” a search that leads him, through many digressions, to the clearest statement of his whole philosophy. Plato represents Socrates as arguing that “justice” can be viewed in the macrocosm (i.e., in the city-state) or in the microcosm (i.e., in the individual person or soul), and that the nature of “justice” in the city-state enables us to better comprehend the nature of “justice” at the individual level, since it is easier to reason from the larger to the smaller (Respublica 369a; 434d–435a). Now after much dialectical back-and-forth with various interlocutors, Plato has Socrates ultimately define δικαιοσύνη as a virtue of the soul (ἀρετὴ ψυχῆς) (353e) in which its three parts – the rational part (τὸ λογιστικόν), the spirited part (τὸ θυμοειδές), and the appetitive part (τὸ ἐπιθυμητικόν) – are in perfect order and harmony under the control and direction of the rational part, thus enabling the just man to live in a just and virtuous manner (443d-e). However, Plato’s philosophical definition presupposes such a specific analysis of the psychological make-up of the human soul, that it is not directly relevant to our purpose, namely, determining the lexical content of the word δικαιοσύνη. Certainly we would not want to engage in “totality transfer” and equate Plato’s philosophical definition with the lexical sense of the word. After all, not all Greek-speakers were schooled in Platonic philosophy, and many who were did not agree with it.32 C. H. Dodd rightly says that Plato’s profound philosophical treatment of δικαιοσύνη “had little effect upon current usage of the term.”33 For

29 Xenophon (LCL), 5.119. 30 Ibid., 5.119. 31 BNP 11.338. 32 See Aristotle’s friendly disagreements with the ethical theories of Socrates and Plato in Ethica Nicomachea 1096a11-18; 1144b17-20; etc., not to mention the many passages where Aristotle differs with them on other topics such as rhetoric and poetry. 33 C. H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935), 43.

94

Chapter 3: Righteousness in Extra-Biblical Greek

this reason, the non-philosophical definitions floated in the earlier parts of The Republic, only to be cast aside in favor of Socrates’ philosophical definition, are actually more relevant from a lexical point of view, because it is with them that we get some indications of the mental concepts that would be triggered by the word in the mind of the ordinary Greek. In the early stages of dialogue in The Republic, δικαιοσύνη is defined as “to speak the truth and to pay back any debt one may have contracted” (331c).34 Justice is fleshed out with more specific types of actions: to refrain from stealing other people’s property; to refrain from having sexual relations with just anyone one wants; to refrain from killing just anyone (360b-c); to offer the proper sacrifices and not neglect the gods (362c; 443a); to keep one’s oaths (363d; 443a); to not embezzle a deposit of money that has been entrusted to one; to have nothing to do with temple robberies, thefts, betrayals, and adultery; and to respect one’s parents (443a). By appealing to the poet Simonides, the concept is made more abstract: “It is just to give to each what is owed to him” (τὸ τὰ ὀφειλόμενα ἑκάστῳ ἀποδιδόναι δίκαιόν ἐστι) (331e). Though Socrates ultimately thinks this is inadequate as a definition, since it is based on common opinion and supported by the authority of the poets, it nevertheless serves as a heuristic first attempt on the path to a more formal, abstract definition. Demosthenes (384–322),35 the greatest of the Attic orators, has a passage in one of his lawcourt speeches on the traditional topos of the relationship between the laws and righteousness. He states that “obedience to the existing laws [of the city] is the greatest good” (τὸ τοῖς κειμένοις νόμοις πείθεσθαι ἡλίκον ἀγαθόν ἐστιν), for the laws “produce works of wisdom, self-control, and righteousness” (τὰ τῆς φρονήσεως καὶ σωφροσύνης καὶ δικαιοσύνης ἔργα διαπραττομένους) (In Aristogitonem 2 §25).36 The notion that the laws of the polis are able to effectuate virtue and morality among the citizenry is a common motif in Greek literature. Aristotle (384–322)37 uses the term δικαιοσύνη hundreds of times in his various treatises. For our purposes, the most important passage is Book 5 of his Nicomachean Ethics (E.N.), which is devoted entirely to “Justice and Injustice” (δικαιοσύνη καὶ ἀδικία). Aristotle begins his investigation of the topic by pointing out that the terms δικαιοσύνη and ἀδικία are equivocal, that is, they are both commonly used in two distinct but related senses (E.N. 1129a24–30). These two

34 Plato’s Republic (trans. G. M. A. Grube; Indianapolis: Hackett, 1974), 5. 35 OCD 456. 36 Translations mine. In context: “The surest way to realize the blessing of obedience to the established laws, and the curse of despising and disobeying them, is to put before your eyes and examine separately the advantages that you derive from the laws and the results of lawlessness. For you will find that the fruits of lawlessness are madness, intemperance and greed, but from the laws come wisdom, sobriety and justice.” Demosthenes (LCL; trans. J. H. Vince; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1935), 3.593. 37 OCD 165.

C. The Fourth Century BC

95

senses Aristotle terms “universal” (παρὰ τὴν ὅλην) and “particular” (ἐν μέρει) justice and injustice (1130a34–1130b7). Universal justice he defines as “perfect Virtue, though with a qualification, namely that it is displayed towards others” (αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἡ δικαιοσύνη ἀρετὴ μέν ἐστι τελεία, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ἁπλῶς ἀλλὰ πρὸς ἕτερον) (1129b25).38 It is to support this point that Aristotle quotes the saying ascribed to either Theognis or Phocylides that we examined above (“In justice there is the sum total of every excellence [or virtue]”) (1129b30). Aristotle adds, “Justice in this sense is not then a part of Virtue, but the whole of Virtue” (αὕτη μὲν οὖν ἡ δικαιοσύνη οὐ μέρος ἀρετῆς ἀλλ’ ὅλη ἀρετή ἐστιν) (1130a9–10).39 Universal justice can also be defined as that which is lawful (νόμιμος) (1129a34), since “all lawful things are just in one sense of the word” (πάντα τὰ νόμιμά ἐστί πως δίκαια) (1129b12).40 Now particular justice and injustice are species of universal justice and injustice, and they have to do with fairness or unfairness in the distribution of honor, wealth, and other assets of the community (1130b30–34). Occasions where justice and injustice in the particular sense can arise are any number of social transactions, whether voluntary (such as selling, buying, lending, depositing [παρακαταθῆκαι],41 letting for hire) or involuntary (such as theft, adultery, poisoning, procuring, enticement of slaves, assassination, false witness, assault, imprisonment, murder, robbery with violence, maiming, abusive language, and so on) (1131a1–9). Justice in the particular sense Aristotle defines as “the proportionate” (τὸ ἀνάλογον) and injustice in the particular sense is “that which violates proportion” (τὸ παρὰ τὸ ἀνάλογον) (1131b17–18).42 For example, injustice usually consists in taking more than one’s fair and rightful share of some good, whether it be stealing someone’s property, not returning a deposit to its rightful owner, damaging someone’s reputation by bearing false witness, or sleeping with someone else’s wife. When an injustice is committed, people generally resort to judges who implement “corrective justice” (τὸ διορθωτικὸν [or ἐπανορθωτικὸν] δίκαιον), and the judge’s task is to undo the damage by imposing a penalty and restoring equality or proportionality (1131b25–1132a25). Later in the chapter on justice Aristotle has an interesting comment that is highly relevant to the Cremer theory. Aristotle writes: “There seems to be some room for justice (τι δίκαιον) in the relations of every human being with every other that is capable of participating in law and contract (νόμου καὶ συνθήκης) (1161b6-7).”43 This is relevant because it shows that even in “Greek thought” the relational element of righteousness was understood, and so it is simply incorrect

38 Aristotle, Vol. XIX: The Nicomachean Ethics (LCL; trans. H. Rackham; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1934), 259. 39 Ibid., 261. 40 Ibid., 257. 41 Cp. Herodotus, Historiae 6.86α (discussed above). 42 Aristotle, Vol. XIX (LCL), 273. 43 Ibid., 497.

96

Chapter 3: Righteousness in Extra-Biblical Greek

to pit the “Greek” conception of righteousness against the “Hebraic” conception. There is much greater continuity than Cremer and his followers would have us believe. Finally, before leaving Aristotle, it is worth pointing out that he offers another definition in his Ars Rhetorica that is complementary to the discussion above: “Justice is a virtue by which all, individually, have what is due to them and as the law requires” (ἔστι δὲ δικαιοσύνη μὲν ἀρετὴ δι’ ἣν τὰ αὑτῶν ἕκαστοι ἔχουσι, καὶ ὡς ὁ νόμος) (1366b).44 Again, the law is the arbiter of what rightly belongs to each person, and hence the arbiter of justice itself.

D. Third to First Centuries BC Ariston of Chios (fl. c. 250),45 a Stoic philosopher and student of Zeno, argued that there is only one virtue, which is then applied in different situations. “When it considers what we must do or avoid, it is called prudence (φρόνησις); when it controls our desires … it is called temperance (σωφροσύνη); when it has to do with men’s relations to one another and their commercial dealings, it is called justice” (κοινωνήμασι δὲ καὶ συμβολαίοις ὁμιλοῦσα τοῖς πρὸς ἑτέρους δικαιοσύνη) (as reported by Plutarch, De virtute morali 440F–441A).46 Chrysippus (c. 280–207),47 the prolific systematizer of Stoic orthodoxy, is said to have written a treatise titled Περὶ Δικαιοσύνης.48 According to a fragment, he had this to say about δικαιοσύνη: “It is not possible to discover any other beginning of justice or any source for it other than that from Zeus and from universal nature” (οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν εὑρεῖν τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἄλλην ἀρχὴν οὐδ’ ἄλλην γένεσιν ἢ τὴν ἐκ τοῦ Διὸς καὶ τὴν ἐκ τῆς κοινῆς φύσεως) (quoted by Plutarch in De Stoicorum repugnantiis 1035C).49 Polybius (before 199 – c. 120 BC)50 was a Greek historian who sought to explain how Rome grew from a small city-state to the dominant world power in the Mediterranean. In his attempt to explain the origins of morality, he argues that sympathy is the key, for when humans observe someone being mistreated by

44 ET: Aristotle, On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse (trans. George Kennedy; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 80. 45 BNP 1.1120. 46 Plutarch’s Moralia (LCL; trans. W. C. Helmbold; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1939), 6.21. Fragment 375 in Hans F. A. von Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta (4 vols.; Lipsiae: Teubner, 1903-1924), 1.86. 47 OCD 329. 48 Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, 4.195. 49 Plutarch’s Moralia (LCL; trans. Harold Cherniss; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976), 13/2.433. Fragment 326 in Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, 3.80. 50 BNP 11.496.

D. Third to First Centuries BC

97

another, they “will notice the thing and be displeased at what is going on, looking to the future and reflecting that they may all meet with the same treatment (συλλογιζομένους ὅτι τὸ παραπλήσιον ἑκάστοις αὐτῶν συγκυρήσει) …. From all this there arises in everyone a notion of the meaning and theory of duty, which is the beginning and end of justice” (ἐξ ὧν ὑπογίνεταί τις ἔννοια παρ’ ἑκάστῳ τῆς τοῦ καθήκοντος δυνάμεως καὶ θεωρίας∙ ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλος δικαιοσύνης) (Historiae 6.6.5-7).51 In other words, the concept of justice as a moral standard of interpersonal relationships is rooted in the basic law, “do unto others as you would have them do to you.” Diodorus Siculus (fl. c. 50 – c. 30 BC) was an important historian who wrote during the turbulent closing decades of the Roman Republic.52 In the preface to his massive history of the world from its mythic beginnings down to 60 BC,53 he describes the moral benefits of the study of history. He argues that the study of history serves to promote good character, “for it is ever to be seen urging men to justice, denouncing those who are evil, lauding the good (ὁρᾶσθαι γὰρ αὐτὴν προτρεπομένην ἐπὶ δικαιοσύνην, κατηγοροῦσαν τῶν φαύλων, ἐγκωμιάζουσαν τοὺς ἀγαθούς), laying up, in a word, for its readers a mighty store of experience” (Bibliotheca historica 1.2.8).54 It would seem that δικαιοσύνη here is practically equivalent to moral goodness in its most generic sense. In the same vein, there are several passages where Diodorus uses the traditional phrase εὐσέβεια καὶ δικαιοσύνη (“piety and righteousness”) to comprehensively cover both the godward and the man-ward dimensions of moral probity (e.g., 1.2.2; 1.92.5; etc.), although the distinction must not be pressed too far, since piety and righteousness are interwoven and inseparable in the Greek tradition from Plato onward.55 Diodorus also retains the ancient original usage of δικαιοσύνη in reference to royal and/or legal justice. He reports that the Egyptian kings “exercised justice toward their subjects” (χρωμένων τῶν βασιλέων δικαιοσύνῃ πρὸς τοὺς

51 Polybius: The Histories (LCL; W. R. Paton; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1954), 3.279-81. 52 OCD 472. 53 Originally the Bibliotheca historica of Diodorus comprised 40 books, but only 15 of them have survived in full. OCD 472. 54 Diodorus of Sicily (LCL; trans. C. H. Oldfather; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960), 1.13 55 Plato: “I would say that justice is pious, and that piety is just” (τὴν δικαιοσύνην ὅσιον εἶναι καὶ τὴν ὁσιότητα δίκαιον) (Protagoras 331b). Offering sacrifices to the gods is part of δικαιοσύνη (Plato, Respublica 331b; 362c). Arius Didymus: “Holiness falls under justice toward the gods” (Liber de philosophorum sectis 67.2.21) (trans. mine). Andronicus Rhodius: “Is piety a part of δικαιοσύνη or does it follow? Holiness and truth and faithfulness and hatred of evil follow δικαιοσύνη” (De passionibus 2.7.3) (trans. mine). “Justice too has been introduced because of the connexion of men with one another and with the Gods” (ἡ δικαιοσύνη κατὰ τὴν ἐπιπλοκὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρός τε ἀλλήλους καὶ πρὸς θεοὺς εἰσῆκται) (Sextus Empiricus, Adversus mathematicos 9.126).

98

Chapter 3: Righteousness in Extra-Biblical Greek

ὑποτεταγμένους) (1.71.4),56 thus securing the goodwill and affection of the people. Diodorus notes the mythical story that Zeus surpassed all the other sons of Cronus in possessing the attribute of δικαιοσύνη and therefore was the first to establish the court of justice (δικαστήριον) where people could settle their differences (5.71.1). He then turns to the mythic king Rhadamanthys, who was appointed judge (δικαστής) in Hades to separate the good from the wicked “because of his very great justice” (διὰ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς περὶ αὐτὸν δικαιοσύνης) (5.79.2). “And the same honour has also been attained by Minos, because he ruled wholly in accordance with law and paid the greatest heed to justice” (βεβασιλευκότα νομιμώτατα καὶ μάλιστα δικαιοσύνης πεφροντικότα) (ibid.).57 Dionysius of Halicarnassus (born c. 60 BC)58 was another chronicler of Roman history in the first century BC. He tells us that he came to Rome after Augustus put an end to the civil war (c. 30/29 BC). There he wrote and worked for several decades, publishing the first part of his history 22 years after arriving in Rome (c. 8/7 BC) (Antiquitates Romanae 1.7.2).59 Many of the occurrences of δικαιοσύνη in Dionysius arise in the context of his discussion of the various laws enacted by the early Roman kings. For example, he reports that Romulus, co-founder of the city of Rome and its first king, enacted laws “with respect to reverence and dutifulness [lit. righteousness] of children toward their parents, to the end that they should honour and obey them in all things” (ἃ εἰς αἰδῶ καὶ δικαιοσύνην παίδων, ἵνα σέβωσι τοὺς πατέρας ἅπαντα) (Antiquitates Romanae 2.26.1).60 The laws established by the legendary second king of Rome, Pompilius Numa (who reigned 715–673 BC, at least according to tradition),61 tended to inspire self-control or moderation (σωφροσύνη) in the individual citizen’s personal life and “to create a passion for justice, which preserves the harmony of the State” (εἰς ἐπιθυμίαν κατασήσαντα τῆς φυλαττούσης ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ τὴν πόλιν δικαιοσύνης) (2.74.1).62 The two virtues, σωφροσύνη and δικαιοσύνη, are viewed here as connected, for if each citizen exercises moderation in the goods that he desires and takes, then this will lead to greater justice (each person taking only what belongs to him and not defrauding others), and thence to overall civic harmony. Here is another example of the common motif that the laws of the polis are thought to be effectual in shaping the ethical quality of society by promoting virtue, a thought

56 Translation mine. 57 Diodorus of Sicily (LCL), 3.313. 58 BNP 4.480. 59 OCD 478; BNP 4.480. 60 Dionysius of Halicarnassus (LCL; trans. Earnest Cary; London: William Heinemann, 1948), 1.387. 61 OCD 1217. 62 Dionysius of Halicarnassus (LCL), 1.531.

D. Third to First Centuries BC

99

that Dionysius states twice, at the beginning and end of this section (cp. 2.74.1 with 2.75.4). Dionysius then goes on to describe the legal enactments set up by Numa to promote σωφροσύνη and δικαιοσύνη. The first virtue, σωφροσύνη, was promoted by the establishment of boundary stones (ὅρια or termines) marking off the property of each citizen, with the boundary stones dedicated to Jupiter Terminalis and confirmed by an annual festival called Terminalia (2.74.2-5). Next, “in order to encourage the observance of δικαιοσύνη in the matters of contracts (περὶ τὰ συμβόλαια)” (2.75.1), Numa enjoined that all contracts must be sealed by taking an oath to the goddess “Faith” (Πίστις), to whom he also erected a temple (2.75.2). By this means, Numa sought to promote an “attitude of good faith and constancy” (ἦθος πιστὸν καὶ βέβαιον), since the citizens were thus taught to believe that good faith (τὸ πιστόν) was a “revered and inviolable thing” (σεβαστόν τι πρᾶγμα καὶ ἀμίαντον) and that “the greatest oath a man could take was by his own faith” (ὅρκον μέγιστον γενέσθαι τὴν ἰδίαν ἑκάστῳ πίστιν) (2.75.3).63 This was the means that Numa used to promote δικαιοσύνη in the city of Rome. Faithfulness in contracts, sealed with an oath, is thus viewed as included under the virtue of δικαιοσύνη.64 The sixth Roman king, Servius Tullius (who reigned 578–535 BC according to tradition),65 is represented by Dionysius as giving a lengthy speech to the people of Rome in which he says that he is “determined to make the government fair and impartial and justice the same for all and towards all” (ἴσην καὶ κοινὴν ποιεῖν τὴν πολιτείαν καὶ τὰ δίκαια πᾶσι πρὸς ἅπαντας ὅμοια), specifically by making the rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, equal in the eyes of the law. Accordingly, he promises to “establish such laws as shall prevent violence and preserve justice” (νόμους θήσομαι κωλυτὰς μὲν τῆς βίας, φύλακας δὲ τῆς δικαιοσύνης) (4.9.9).66 Here is a classic usage of δικαιοσύνη as tantamount to equality and fairness in the administration of the law. The last example from Dionysius that I will cite is found in the passage dealing with the rule of the first set of Decemvirs in the city of Rome (451-50 BC), the authors of the famous Ten Tables of Roman law (later augmented to Twelve).67 Dionysius states that the city was well governed under their rule. As an illustration of this, he relates that the Decemvirs “sat from early morning arbitrating cases involving private and public contracts in which complaints might arise

63 Dionysius of Halicarnassus (LCL), 1.535-37. 64 Plutarch relates the same story about Numa’s building temples to Faith and Terminus. “Numa reasoned that the god of boundaries was a guardian of peace and witness of just dealing” (εἰρήνης φύλακα καὶ δικαιοσύνης μάρτυν) (Numa 16.1). Plutarch’s Lives (LCL; trans. Bernadotte Perin; London: William Heinemann, 1914), 1.363. 65 OCD 1558. 66 Dionysius of Halicarnassus (LCL), 2.299. 67 OCD 435.

100

Chapter 3: Righteousness in Extra-Biblical Greek

between citizens … examining each case with complete fairness and justice” (ἐξ ἑωθινοῦ καθεζόμενοι διῄτων τὰ ἰδιωτικὰ συμβόλαια καὶ τὰ δημόσια ... μετὰ πάσης ἀνασκοποῦντες ἕκαστα ἐπιεικείας τε καὶ δικαιοσύνης) (10.57.2).68

E. First to Second Centuries AD Dio Chrysostom (also known as Dion Cocceianus of Prusa) (c. AD 40 – after AD 112)69 was a Greek rhetorician and moralist who wrote many orations, of which 80 have come down to us. Dio makes frequent reference to δικαιοσύνη, but we can look at only a handful of representative quotes. Like his contemporaries, Dio frequently uses the term as one of the traditional four virtues (courage, self-control, wisdom, and righteousness), although sometimes only two or three of the four are listed.70 Dio also uses it in keeping with Aristotle’s notion that δικαιοσύνη can refer to virtue as a whole. For example, he states that people admire virtuous men, considering their virtuous qualities to be god-like, and thus they are ready to appoint a virtuous man as their king, “any man whom they suppose to be really prudent and righteous and wise and, in a word, a good man” (ὃν ἂν σώφρονα καὶ δίκαιον καὶ φρόνιμον ὄντως ὑπολαμβάνωσι καὶ ἁπλως ἄνδρα ἀγαθόν) (69.1).71 Dio also uses the term in a more traditional context with reference to the king’s duty of providing justice for his people. He says that “the pre-eminently kingly virtues are two – courage and justice” (δύο τὰς βασιλικωτάτος ἀρετὰς τήν τε ἀνδρείαν καὶ δικαιοσύνην) (2.54)72 – kingly, not in the sense that the virtues themselves reign, but in the sense that these are the qualities that befit the “successful and exemplary king.” In another discourse, he speaks of “the good ruler” (ὁ ἀγαθός ἄρχων) as one who is not covetous, who is sparing in his pleasures, cherishing the laws, and who “is more just than any other man inasmuch as he provides justice for all” (δικαιότερος τῶν ἄλλων ἐστίν, ἅτε πᾶσι παρέχων τὴν δικαιοσύνην) (62.3).73 Finally, he says that the law is full of righteousness and benevolence (δικαιοσύνης καὶ φιλανθρωπίας μεστός), because it provides justice for the victims of injustice (75.5-6).

Dionysius of Halicarnassus (LCL), 6.357. BNP 4.466. 70 Dio Chrysostom speaks of ἀνδρεία καὶ δικαιοσύνη καὶ φρόνησις καὶ συλλήβδην ἀρετὴν πᾶσαν (69.1), σωφροσύνη καὶ ἀνδρεία καὶ δικαιοσύνη (13.32), ἀνδρεία καὶ δικαιοσύνη (2.54), and so on. 71 Dio Chrysostom (LCL; trans. H. Lamar Crosby; London: William Heinemann, 1951), 5.139. 72 Dio Chrysostom (LCL; trans. J. W. Cohoon; London: William Heinemann, 1932), 1.85. 73 Dio Chrysostom (LCL), 5.27.

68 69

E. First to Second Centuries AD

101

Plutarch (before AD 50 – after AD 120)74 uses δικαιοσύνη more than any other author treated in this chapter, displaying the full semantic range and the various contexts in which this word can be used in extra-biblical Greek. In many ways, Plutarch is a microcosm of Greek thought and his writings alone could be sampled to provide a well-rounded lexical survey of this Greek word. Plutarch’s usage is in step with that of extra-biblical Greek usage in general. Given Plutarch’s interests as a biographer and a moralist, he speaks frequently of δικιαοσύνη as a virtue – e.g., saying of Aristides (a prominent Athenian politician and commander during the Persian wars)75 that “of all his virtues, it was his justice that most impressed the multitude” (πασῶν δὲ τῶν περὶ αὐτὸν ἀρετῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη μάλιστα τοῖς πολλοῖς αἴσθησιν παρεῖχε), and for which he earned the epithet “the Just” (ὁ Δίκαιος) (Aristides 6.1).76 But “righteousness” is not only a quality that one possesses; it is also something that is exercised and thus can be used to refer to concrete actions. Thus, when Romulus carried off the 800 Sabine women to provide wives for the men of Rome, he showed “by the subsequent honour, love, and righteous treatment given to these women” (τῇ μετὰ ταῦτα τιμῇ καὶ ἀγαπήσει καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ τῇ περὶ τὰς γυναῖκας) that it was not an act of violence but an honorable deed intended to promote political partnership (Comparatio Thesei et Romuli 6.2).77 The fact that the word δικαιοσύνη is here translated “righteous treatment” is significant, since it shows that it can be used to refer not only to the abstract virtue but also to concrete actions of righteousness. Plutarch also uses the traditional topos that the laws of a given polis can be judged by how well they promote virtue. He reports that some view the city of Sparta as excelling more in the virtue of ἀνδρεία (courage, valor, manliness) than in that of δικαιοσύνη, since they consider the laws of Lycurgus (the legendary νομοθέτης of Sparta)78 to be “efficacious in producing valour, but defective in producing righteousness” (ἱκανῶς ἔχουσι πρὸς ἀνδρείαν, ἐνδεῶς δὲ πρὸς δικαιοσύνην) (Lycurgus 28.1).79 Plutarch has another passage in which he recounts the famous meeting between the philosopher Plato and Dion of Syracuse.80 The topic of discussion during the meeting was “human virtue,” specifically the virtue of ἀνδρεία. Plato maintained the paradoxical position that “tyrants least of all men had this quality” and then, “treating of justice, maintained that the life of the just was blessed,

OCD 1200. BNP 1.1094. 76 Plutarch’s Lives (LCL; trans. Bernadotte Perrin; London: William Heinemann, 1914), 2.229. 77 Plutarch’s Lives (LCL), 1.197 78 BNP 7.932. 79 Plutarch’s Lives (LCL), 1.289. 80 BNP 4.465-66. Dion was a close friend of Plato and even made a failed attempt to transform Syracuse into a city-state along the lines of the Platonic ideal.

74



75

102

Chapter 3: Righteousness in Extra-Biblical Greek

while that of the unjust was wretched” (τραπόμενος περὶ δικαιοσύνης ἐδίδασκεν ὡς μακάριος μὲν ὁ τῶν δικαίων, ἄθλιος δὲ ὁ τῶν ἀδίκων βίος) (Dion 5.1).81 Note that the noun (δικαιοσύνη) and the two adjectives (δίκαιος, ἄδικος) are inter-related, and how easily Plutarch can shift from one to the other. But more important is the thought that those who live righteously are blessed (μακάριος), whereas those who live lives characterized by injustice are wretched (ἄθλιος). This is no doubt understood in characteristically Platonic terms, since the blessedness and wretchedness in view are purely internal qualities of the soul independent of the presence or absence of physical pleasure. I found two passages in Plutarch in which the gods themselves are said to possess δικαιοσύνη or to be the font of δικαιοσύνη among humans. In the first passage, he writes that people generally have three feelings toward divinity (τὸ θεῖον): they envy the gods because they are immortal; they fear the gods because of their power; but they “love and honour and revere them for their justice” (ἀγαπᾶν δὲ καὶ τιμᾶν καὶ σέβεσθαι κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην). Ironically, however, humans most eagerly desire the two qualities that are least within reach – immortality (of which our nature is simply not capable) and power (which is bestowed by fortune). “While as for virtue, the only divine excellence within our reach, they put it at the bottom of the list, unwisely too, since a life passed in power and great fortune and authority needs justice to make it divine” (ὡς τὸν ἐν δυνάμει καὶ τύχῃ μεγάλῃ καὶ ἀρχῇ βίον ἡ μὲν δικαιοσύνη ποιεῖ θεῖον) (Aristides 6.3).82 Justice is a divine quality, both in the sense that it is an attribute of the gods, and in the sense that when found among humans it partakes of that godlike character. The second passage is in Plutarch’s discussion of whether there are other gods and other worlds besides our own. He argues that it is more consistent with reason to suppose “that the world should not be the only-begotten of God and quite alone” (τὸ τῷ θεῷ μὴ μονογενῆ μηδ’ ἔρημον εἶναι τὸν κόσμον). Why? Because God, being perfectly good, is not lacking in any of the virtues, including the social virtues of justice and friendliness. And since God does not possess anything for no purpose, we must assume the existence of other gods and other worlds in relation to which He exercises these social virtues. “For not in relation with Himself nor with any part of Himself is there any exercise of justice or benevolence or kindness, but only in relation with others” (οὐ γὰρ πρὸς αὑτòν οὐδὲ μέρος αὑτοῦ χρῆσίς ἐστι δικαιοσύνης ἢ χάριτος ἢ χρηστότητος ἀλλὰ πρὸς ἄλλους) (De defectu oraculorum 423D).83 Epictetus (c. AD 50 – c. 125)84 was a moral philosopher, a freedman who studied under the Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus. Epictetus uses the word Plutarch’s Lives (LCL), 6.11. Ibid., 2.229-31. 83 Plutarch’s Moralia (LCL; trans. Frank Cole Babbitt; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1936), 5.423. 84 BNP 4.1069.

81



82

E. First to Second Centuries AD

103

a handful of times, and in most cases it appears as Aristotle’s “universal justice,” that is, as the equivalent of all virtue. We do not have anything written by Epictetus himself, but his student Arrian collected notebooks of his teachings and discourses. In these notes, Epictetus bitterly attacks the Epicurean philosophers, who teach “that the gods do not exist, and even if they do, they pay no attention to men” (ὅτι θεοὶ οὔτ’ εἰσίν, εἴ τε καὶ εἰσίν, οὐκ ἐπιμελοῦνται ἀνθρώπων), and who from this starting point go on to argue that “this piety and sanctity (τό τ’ εὐσεβὲς τοῦτο καὶ ὅσιον) which the multitude talk about is a lie told by imposters and sophists, or, I swear, by legislators (νομοθέται) to frighten and restrain evildoers” and “how righteousness is nothing” (πῶς ἡ δικαιοσύνη οὐδέν ἐστιν) (Dissertationes ab Arriano digestae 2.23-25). With evident sarcasm Epictetus retorts, “Well done, philosopher!”85 As the consummate moralist passionate for righteousness, Epictetus is appalled by the moral license implicit in Epicurean thought. His argument is clear: if one teaches that the gods do not exist, or that they have no concern for humans, the logical implication for ethics is that there is no need to live a holy and righteous life. In another passage, Epictetus laments those who say they are better than others on the basis of flimsy arguments such as “my father has consular rank” or “I have been a tribune.” Making such appeals is like claiming that your horse is superior merely because it has plenty of fodder or pretty neck-trappings. The relevant question is not its fodder or adornment, but how fast it can run. Epictetus then asks: “Is there, then, nothing in man like running in the case of the horse, whereby the worse and the better will be recognized? Isn’t there such a thing as reverence, faith, justice (αἰδώς, πίστις, δικαιοσύνη)? Prove yourself superior in these points, in order to be superior as a human being” (3.14.11-13).86 This is not the usual quartet of Greco-Roman virtues, but it is nonetheless clear that δικαιοσύνη here is being used in the broad sense of moral virtue and uprightness. Interestingly, “faith” (or “faithfulness”) is also mentioned alongside “righteousness,” a collocation which as we have seen is not uncommon in extra-biblical Greek literature. Appian (c. AD 90/95–160),87 in his Roman history, recounts the case where one Tigranes, king of Armenia, was caught in the war between Parthia and Rome, led by the great general Pompey. Appian writes that “Pompey’s reputation among the barbarians for justice and good faith was so great (μέγα δικαιοσύνης καὶ πίστεως κλέος ἦν τοῦ Πομπηίου παρὰ τοῖς βαρβάροις)” that Tigranes decided to surrender to Pompey and come to him as a suppliant (Mithridatica 15.104). Once again we see that “good faith” is a species of “justice,” but the part should not be equated with the whole. 85 Epictetus: Discourses (LCL; trans. W. A. Oldfather; London: William Heinemann, 1925), 1.369. 86 Ibid., 2.99. 87 BNP 1.897.

104

Chapter 3: Righteousness in Extra-Biblical Greek

Sextus Empiricus (fl. toward end of 2nd cent.),88 the skeptic philosopher, writes: “Furthermore, if justice too has been introduced because of the connexion of men with one another and with the Gods, if Gods exist not, neither will justice subsist (καὶ μὴν εἴπερ καὶ ἡ δικαιοσύνη κατὰ τὴν ἐπιπλοκὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρός τε ἀλλήλους καὶ πρὸς θεοὺς εἰσῆκται, εἰ μὴ εἰσὶ θεοί, οὐδὲ δικαιοσύνη συστήσεται).” He later repeats the argument using slightly different language: “So that, if justice is conceived because of a certain fellowship between men and men and between men and Gods, if Gods do not exist, it must follow that justice also is non-existent. But justice is existent; we must declare, therefore, that Gods also exist” (Adversus mathematicos 9.126, 131).89

F. Conclusion What conclusions can we draw about the semantic range of δικαιοσύνη in extra-biblical Greek? The first thing we need to observe is a simple grammatical point, namely, that the term δικαιοσύνη is merely the abstract noun built from the adjective δίκαιος. As Westerholm argues, δικαιοσύνη simply means “dikaiosness.”90 We saw this above in many passages where the writer moves from the adjective to the noun, or vice versa, with perfect ease. Even the ancient Greek grammarians recognized this. For example, the grammarian Philoxenus pointed out that just as ἱπποσύνη is formed from the word ἵππος, so δικαιοσύνη is formed from δίκαιος.91 This means it is unlikely that we will find any radically new meanings for δικιαοσύνη that are not rooted in the word δίκαιος. Second, the history of the ΔΙΚ-group in extra-biblical Greek is hard to trace since our sources before the 5th century BC are fragmentary. Nevertheless, because the word δικαιοσύνη is rarely used prior to the 5th century, whereas the words δίκη and τὸ δίκαιον predominate in this earlier period, it is reasonable to assume that the origin of δικαιοσύνη lies in the realm of judicial procedure, picking up on the older terminology but rising to a higher level of abstraction. Havelock writes: In view of the common legal context of the two terms [dike and dikaion] from Homer onwards we need not be surprised if dikaiosune at its first appearance in extant Greek literature denotes

OCD 1398. Sextus Empiricus (LCL; trans. R. G. Bury; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1936), 3.69, 71. 90 Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 262-73. 91 Philoxenus, Fragmenta, fragment 95: εὐθημοσύνη∙ παρὰ τὸν θήσω μέλλοντα θῆμος παράγωγον καὶ θημόσυνος καὶ εὐθημοσύνη, ὡς ἵππος ἱπποσύνη καὶ δίκαιος δικαιοσύνη. Philoxenus of Alexandria (1st cent. BC) “wrote on the text of Homer, accents, metre, verbs, and Atticism, and compiled important (lost) lexica of Homeric and other dialects.” OCD 1172.

88



89

F. Conclusion

105

the quality resident in a judge who (following Homeric models) is also a prince, the repository of political power built on legal authority and designed to enforce it.92

In our sample of texts above, we saw this original judicial Sitz im Leben of the term in the following texts: Herodotus, Historiae 1.96 (the story of Dioces); 7.164 (the story of Cadmus); Didorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica 1.71.4; 5.71.11; 5.79.2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates Romanae 2.74.1; 4.9.9; 10.57.2; Plutarch, Aristides 6.1 (Aristides the Just); Dio Chrysostom 2.54; 62.3. In many of these passages, the verb χράομαι is used in the phrase, “to exercise justice.” Additionally, δικαιοσύνη when used in these legal/political/judicial contexts can mean both the abstract concept of “justice” and a particular instance of “just treatment.” Third, apparently building from the judicial context, δικαιοσύνη comes to refer to all sorts of upright behavior in the social realm, whereas their opposites are called ἀδικία. See Herodotus, Historiae 6.86α (honesty with regard to deposits of money); Xenophon, Cyropaedia 1.6.27-34 (righteousness is not lying, cheating, slandering, taking unfair advantage, or stealing from one’s friends); Plato, Respublica 331c, 360b-c, 362c, 443a (justice means not stealing, committing adultery, killing, embezzling deposits, robbing temples, failing to honor the gods, disrespecting parents); Aristotle, E.N. 1131a1-9 (justice is the opposite of theft, adultery, imprisonment, murder, robbery with violence, maiming, abusive speech); Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 2.26.1 (children respecting their parents is righteousness); Plutarch, Comp. Thesei et Romuli 6.2 (which speaks of righteous treatment of women). It is not surprising, then, that Aristotle views righteousness as a virtue that is “displayed towards others” (πρὸς ἕτερον) (E.N. 1129b25), and that Plutarch calls it one of the “social virtues” (αἱ κοινωνικαὶ ἀρεταί) (De defectu oraculorum 423D). This is also why Polybius, when attempting to explain the origins of morality, can say that when we see other people being mistreated, we reflect on the possibility that the same thing might happen to ourselves. Desiring to avoid becoming the object of such mistreatment in the future, we adopt the rule that we ought not to mistreat others ourselves. “From all this there arises in everyone a notion of the meaning and theory of duty, which is the beginning and end of justice” (Polybius, Historiae 6.6.5-7). Fourth, many (but not all) of these social relationships are formalized as promises, oaths, contracts, covenants, treaties, and so on. Thus, one finds frequent references to “the observance of δικαιοσύνη in matters of contracts” (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 2.75.1). Ariston of Chios even defines justice as virtue when applied to “men’s relations to one another and their commercial dealings” (fragment 375). Thus, faithfulness or loyalty (πιστότης) comes to be regarded as

92 Havelock, “DIKAIOSUNE,” 62. As we noted earlier, Havelock dismisses the Theognis quote as a later interpolation, so he thinks δικαιοσύνη makes its first appearance in extant Greek literature in Herodotus, Historiae 1.96 (the account of Dioces).

106

Chapter 3: Righteousness in Extra-Biblical Greek

a species of δικαιοσύνη. We have seen this in the following quotations: Herodotus, Historiae 2.151 (the 12 Egyptian kings who kept their compact); 7.52 (the loyalty of the Ionians); Thucydides, Hist. 3.63 (the debate between the Plataeans and the Thebans); Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 2.74-75 (Numa’s temples to the goddess Faith and to Jupiter Terminalis) (cp. Plutarch, Numa 16.1); Appian, Mithridatica 15.104 (Pompey’s reputation for justice and good faith); Epictetus, Dissertationes 3.14.11-13 (where πίστις is listed alongside δικαιοσύνη as a general virtue). As noted above, however, while faithfulness can be identified as δικαιοσύνη, δικαιοσύνη cannot be identified as faithfulness.93 Additionally, the fact that the Greek language outside of the sphere of Hebrew or Jewish influence knows that faithfulness is a subcategory within righteousness ought to be a warning against those who, like Cremer, want to argue that the concept of covenant faithfulness is a unique Hebraic meaning discontinuous with Greek thought. Fifth, in some of the above philosophical discussions, δικαιοσύνη is defined as iustitia distributiva. Plato quotes Simonides’s definition, “It is just to give to each what is owed to him” (Resp. 331e). And Aristotle, with whom the distributive aspect of justice is most closely identified, argues that justice is “the proportionate” (E.N. 1131b17-18) distribution of the goods of the community, whether they be material or immaterial (such as honor). And in another place he defines justice as “a virtue by which all, individually, have what is due to them and as the law requires” (Ars Rhet. 1366b). However, it is misleading to equate this philosophical definition with the meaning that δικαιοσύνη itself had “for the Greeks,”94 for as we have seen, the word is capable of being used in a multitude of senses and contexts. In fact, as we have seen, Aristotle himself begins his treatment of justice (Book 5 of the Nicomachean Ethics) by distinguishing between justice in the broad or universal sense (in which it is equivalent to virtue as a whole) and justice in the narrow or particular sense (which is his particular concern and the focal point of the distributive definition).

93 Supporting my thesis that “Greek” and “Hebrew” conceptions of “righteousness” are not substantially different, Mark Seifrid observes with regard to biblical Hebrew usage that “all ‘covenant-keeping’ is righteous behavior, but not all righteous behavior is ‘covenant-keeping.’” “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid; WUNT II/140; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 424. 94 For example, Stuhlmacher claims that “righteousness is for the Greeks always a relational concept, but not the indicator of a personal relationship, but an objectively defined existence of a norm to be kept and practiced,” followed by the oft-quoted philosophical definitions of Aristotle and Plato. Peter Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (2nd ed.; FRLANT 87; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 103 (trans. mine). Since most Greeks were not philosophically trained, philosophical definitions must not be equated with lexical analyses; at best, philosophical definitions comprise only one slice of the total semantic range of the word.

F. Conclusion

107

Sixth, the previous point now brings us to the next major usage of δικαιοσύνη, namely, as equivalent to virtue in general. We have already seen the statement of Theognis, quoted by Aristotle and perhaps to be attributed to Phocylides, that “in δικαιοσύνη there is the sum total of every excellence or virtue.” On numerous occasions, we have seen that δικαιοσύνη is used to refer to “morality” or “goodness” in the broadest sense, sometimes including “piety toward the gods” and sometimes distinguished from it. For example: Isocrates, Panathenaicus §§124, 204; Aristotle, E.N. 1130a9-10 (“Justice in this sense is not then a part of Virtue, but the whole of Virtue”); Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica 1.2.8 (the study of history urges men to justice); Dio Chrysostom 69.1 (“really prudent and righteous and wise and, in a word, a good man”); Plutarch (passim); Epictetus, Diss. 2.23-25 (in his argument against the Epicureans). Finally, let it be noted that there are several minor motifs that will be picked up by the Greco-Jewish authors, such as the following: (1) righteousness can be defined as observing the law (the Antiphon fragment; Aristotle, E.N. 1129a34; 1129b12); (2) the primary function of the laws is to promote righteousness (Demosthenes, In Aristogitonem 2, §25; Dio Chrysostom 75.5-6; Plutarch, Lycurgus 28.1); (3) righteousness as a human virtue is divine and in fact comes from the gods (the Thrasymachus fragment; the Chrysippus fragment; Plutarch, Aristides 6.3; De defectu oraculorum 423D; Sextus Empiricus, Adv. mathematicos 9.126, 131); and (4) there are both temporal and eternal rewards from the gods for those who are righteous (Isocrates, De pace §§34-35; Plutarch, Dion 5.1).

Chapter 4

Righteousness in the Old Testament In this chapter, I examine the validity of Cremer’s relational theory with respect to the Old Testament data. In other words, I will test whether ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ      ָ  ָ   ְ in the Hebrew Old Testament and δικαιοσύνη in the Septuagint do in fact have a fundamentally relational meaning as Cremer claimed. In framing the question with reference to the Old Testament in both its Hebrew original and its Greek translation(s), I am intentionally making a methodological move that requires further explanation. I begin with the assumption that the Hebrew text (in all its variety – pre-Masoretic, Masoretic, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.) and the Septuagint (where it represents translations of the Tanak) are fundamentally congruent at both the lexical and theological level. This is not to deny or overlook the large number of deviations between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint. But these must not be allowed to eclipse the significant degree of convergence. In their overall theological thrust, there is ultimate harmony between the Hebrew and the Greek witnesses to the text of the Old Testament. This is because most of the translated books that comprise the Septuagint were fundamentally conservative translations. Anneli Aejmelaeus states that “a comprehensive presentation of the religious and theological content of the Septuagint … would actually be for the most part identical with a theology of the [Hebrew] Old Testament.”1 This fundamental congruence between the Hebrew and the Greek is what leads me to discuss simultaneously the meaning of ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ      ָ  ָ   ְ in the Hebrew Old Testament and that of δικαιοσύνη in the Septuagint. My concern is that the Hebrew be interpreted in light of the Greek and the Greek in light of the Hebrew, since these two textual traditions are like two pillars that stand united in bearing witness to the theology of the Old Testament. J. Ross Wagner formulates this concern in a negative form: “It would be wrong to assume that ‘the Septuagint’ represents an alternative tradition disconnected from – and, indeed, in competition with – the Hebrew Scriptures.”2 1 Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Von Sprache zur Theologie: Methodologische Überlegungen zur Theologie der Septuaginta,” in The Septuagint and Messianism (ed. M. A. Knibb; BETL 195; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2006), 23. As quoted and translated by J. Ross Wagner, “The Septuagint and the ‘Search for the Christian Bible,’” in Scripture’s Doctrine and Theology’s Bible: How the New Testament Shapes Christian Dogmatics (ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Alan J. Torrance; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 21. 2 Wagner, “The Septuagint and the ‘Search for the Christian Bible,’” 19.

109

A. ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ        ָ  ָ   ְ in the Hebrew Old Testament

In what follows, I provide some overall statistics for the two words for “righteousness” in Hebrew, and the one word used to translate them both in the Greek Old Testament. I will not examine every occurrence of these terms in the Old Testament, but I hope to provide a useful overview that will shed light on the semantic range of these words. In addition to examining the semantic range of the words for “righteousness,” I also compare these words with other words in two semantic domains, “courts and legal procedures” and “moral and ethical qualities.” As we will see, this semantic domain analysis goes a long way toward clarifying the precise contours of the semantic profile of the words for “righteousness” and the particular social context that they presuppose. I then proceed to evaluate the arguments in support of Cremer’s relational theory, both as originally made by Cremer and as developed by those who followed him. These arguments will, I believe, prove in the final analysis to be unconvincing since the data can be explained in other ways. Finally, I conclude with more detailed exegesis of some of the Old Testament passages that speak of the righteousness of God in some fashion.

A. ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ      ָ  ָ   ְ in the Hebrew Old Testament The ‫ צדק‬root occurs 523 times3 in the Hebrew Old Testament, including the adjective (206 times), the two nouns together (276 times), and the verb in its various forms (41 times). The masculine noun ‫צדק‬ ֶ  ֶ occurs 119 times, and the feminine form ‫צדקה‬ occurs 157 times; the combined total is 276. These statisָ  ָ   ְ tics are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Occurrences of the ‫ צדק‬Root in the Hebrew Bible 4 Part of speech

Hebrew Word

Adjective Noun (masculine) Noun (feminine) Verb

‫צדּיק‬ ִַ ‫ צדק‬ ִֶ  ֶ  ‫ צדקה‬ ָ  ָ   ְ    ‫ צדק‬ ַ  ָ

Total (n = number of occurrences)

n 206 119 157 41 523

1. The Differences Between the Two Nouns Although the adjective and the verb will be mentioned at various points, the focus here is on the two nouns. To ease our way into the discussion, I begin by 3 TDOT 12.243. 4 Data from Abraham Even-Shoshan, A New Concordance of the Bible (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1990).

110

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

analyzing the subtle differences between the two nouns. Some scholars treat the two terms ‫צדק‬ ֶ  ֶ (masculine) and ‫צדקה‬ ָ    ָ   ְ (feminine) as interchangeable, seeing little or no distinction whatsoever between them.5 However, it is more accurate to say that, while the rationale for the choice of one word over the other is sometimes difficult to discern and may be motivated by little more than poetic or stylistic concerns, nevertheless the terms have distinct shades of meaning that become evident in certain contexts. To the extent that a distinction is discernible, the masculine form tends to be more abstract or generic (“justice, righteousness”), whereas the feminine is used more often with reference to discrete acts of righteousness; this may explain why only the feminine occurs in the plural (‫)צדקת‬. ָ   ְ 6 In addition to the fact that only the feminine occurs in the plural, there are two additional syntactical features that set the masculine apart: only the masculine is used (1) as an adjectival genitive,7 e.g., “righteous judgment” (‫משׁפּט־צדק‬ ֶ  ֶ ַ ְ    ִ / κρίσις δικαία) (Deut 16:18), and (2) as an adverbial accusative, e.g., “judge righteously” (‫שׁפט־צדק‬ ֶ  ֶ ָ      ְ / κρῖνε δικαίως) (Prov 31:9).8 These two unique syntactical features of the masculine support the view that it has a more abstract meaning and that the feminine tends to be used in reference to specific acts of righteousness or justice. Supporting this analysis, only the feminine is used as the direct object of the verb “to do” (‫)עשׂה‬,  ָ      ָ   a locution typically translated “to execute/administer justice.” In these cases it is usually joined with ‫משׁפּט‬   ָ    ְ    ִ which has the connotation of a verdict or judgment in reference to a specific case. For example: “And David administered [lit. was doing] justice and righteousness ָ  ָ   ְ   ָ ְ    ִ      ֶ     ֹ         ִ    ָ       ִ   ְ  ַ / καὶ ἦν Δαυιδ ποιῶν κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην) for (‫וּצדקה‬ ‫משׁפּט‬ ‫עשׂה‬ ‫דוד‬ ‫ויהי‬ all his people” (2 Sam 8:15 NASB). Thus a distinction, while perhaps subtle at times, is discernible between the masculine and feminine forms, a fact that warrants analyzing them separately.

5 J. J. Scullion, “Righteousness (OT),” ABD 5.725; Wilfred G. E. Watson, “GenderMatched Synonymous Parallelism in the OT,” JBL 99 (1980): 335; Karl H. Fahlgren, “Sedaka, nahestehende und entgegengesetzte Begriffe im Alten Testament” (Th.D. Dissertation; Uppsala University, 1932). 6 HALOT 1004-5; TDOT 12.256-7; A. Jepsen, “‫צדק‬ ֶ  ֶ und ‫צדקה‬ ָ  ָ   ְ im Alten Testament,” in Gottes Wort und Gottes Land (FS H.-W. Hertzberg; ed. H. Graf Reventlow; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), 78-89; H. H. Schmid, Gerechtigkeit als Weltordnung: Hinter­ grund und Geschichte des alttestamentlichen Gerechtigkeitsbegriffs (BHT 40; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968), 179; Diethelm Michel, Grundlegung einer hebräischen Syntax (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1977), 1.66; Bo Johnson, “Die Bedeutungsuntershied zwischen ṣädäq und ṣedaqa,” ASTI 11 (1977–78): 31-39. 7 One possible instance of the feminine noun functioning as an adjectival genitive is Jer 33:15: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch (‫צדקה‬ (ESV). But the BHS text-critical apparatus indicates textual ָ  ָ   ְ ‫”)צמח‬ ַ   ֶ uncertainty here, noting that the parallel passage in Jer 23:5 uses the adjective (‫צדּיק‬    ִ ַ ‫)צמח‬. ַ   ֶ 8 On the syntax of Hebrew nouns used as adjectival genitives and adverbial accusatives, see IBHS §§9.5.3; 10.2.2.

111

A. ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ        ָ  ָ   ְ in the Hebrew Old Testament

2. Their Semantic Range Many scholars have attempted to analyze the semantic range of these two nouns, and the results can be seen in any of the available Hebrew lexica and theological dictionaries, e.g., BDB, HALOT, TDOT, etc., and also in other more focused studies, the most notable of which is John Ziesler’s analysis.9 However, having examined each of these previous analyses for myself and having found them lacking, I here present the fruits of my own contextual examination of all 276 ָ  ָ   ְ in the Hebrew Bible. ֶ  ֶ and ‫צדקה‬ occurrences of ‫צדק‬ Table 2. Categories of Usage for ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ    ָ   ָ   ְ with Statistics10



ֶ  ֶ               ָ   ָ   ְ ‫ צדק‬ ‫ צדקה‬

Total

%

I. Legal righteousness Judging, ruling, executing justice Human judges or kings as subject God as subject Justice Human (including messianic) justice Divine justice Righteousness of God (“my, his, your”) Vindication Clothed with righteousness Rights

49 15 10 5 19 9 10 7 5 3 -

74 12 9 3 19 9 10 34 4 2 3

123 27 19 8 38 18 20 41 9 5 3

44.6 9.8 6.9 2.9 13.8 6.5 7.2 14.9 3.3 1.8 1.1

II. Ethical righteousness General With verbs of doing Righteous laws/word Gates, paths, cities, etc., of righteousness Righteousness before God Honesty

41 12 3 10 7 9 -

73 43 15 - - 14 1

114 55 18 10 7 23 1

41.3 19.9 6.5 3.6 2.5 8.3 0.4

III. Correctness Speaking righteousness, telling the truth Just balances, weights Doing something correctly

21 6 10 5

5 4 - 1

26 10 10 6

9.4 3.6 3.6 2.2

8

5

13

4.7

119

157

276

100

IV. Difficult cases Total

9 John A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Enquiry (SNTSMS 20; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 17-51. 10 See Appendix exhaustively showing all occurrences in context and categorized by usage.

112

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

Table 2 shows the semantic range of both nouns, separated into categories and subcategories of usage. The semantic range of usages can be divided into three main groups, with a fourth group reserved for cases that are difficult to assign due to the exegetical problems associated with their usage in context. The three main headings are “legal righteousness,” “ethical righteousness,” and “correctness.” The category “legal righteousness” pertains to the realm of the judicial court, whether it is a human king or judge, a Messianic figure, or God himself who is depicted as judging, administering justice, executing judgment, or vindicating someone who has been falsely accused or oppressed. This is the most common usage (44.6%). Here are two examples illustrating this first category of usage, showing that the category applies to both human and divine judicial activity: Leviticus 19:15 “You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge (‫תּשׁפּט‬ ‫בּצדק‬ ֹ   ְ   ִ ֶ   ֶ ְ / ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ κρινεῖς) your neighbor” (ESV). Psalm 96:13 [95:13LXX] “He will judge the world in righteousness (‫בּצדק‬ ֶ   ֶ ְ / ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ), and the peoples in his faithָ ֱ ֶ / ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ αὐτοῦ)” (ESV). fulness (‫בּאמוּנת‬

Arguably, the references to God “judging in righteousness” or “executing justice” (Ps 9:4, 8 [9:5, 9MT/LXX]; 98:9 [97:9LXX]; 99:4 [98:4LXX]; 103:6 [102:6LXX]; Jer 9:24 [9:23MT/LXX]; 11:20) provide the kernel sentence that, as transformational grammar would suggest, is grammaticalized as a genitive pronoun referring to the righteousness of God (“my, his, your righteousness”). Although these genitives are not always to be construed as subjective genitives, it is reasonable to assume that “the righteousness of God” is simply another way of saying that God judges in righteousness or that he executes righteousness/justice. For this reason, I have included all references to “the righteousness of God” (“my, his, your righteousness”) as a sub-category under “legal righteousness.” As will be borne out in the analysis below, almost all instances of “the righteousness of God” can be interpreted as in some way related to “legal righteousness” within a judicial context in which God is figuratively seated on his throne as the great Judge who executes justice by punishing the wicked and vindicating his people. Even the cases where “the righteousness of God” is used in a positive, saving sense (Cremer’s iustitia salutifera) can be explained in this manner. The kernel sentence that lies behind the phrases referring to the saving/delivering righteousness of God is made explicit in Psalm 103: “The Lord works righteousness and justice for all who are oppressed” (‫לכל־עשׁוּקים‬ ‫וּמשׁפּטים‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫צדקת‬ ‫)עשׂה‬ ִ  ֲ      ָ ְ         ִ   ָ ְ ִ     ָ ְ    ָ   ְ        ֵ ֹ (Ps 103:6 ESV). This verse is highly instructive for two reasons: first, “righteousness” is used along with “justice,” which shows that the forensic context is very much to the fore; second, both words are in the plural, literally “righteous acts” (‫)צדקות‬ ֹ   ָ   ְ and “judgments” (‫ׁפּטים‬ ִ   ָ ‫)מ ְש‬, ִ locutions that draw attention to the acts of God the Judge in rendering judicial verdicts in favor of the oppressed, thus securing deliverance from their oppressors.

A. ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ        ָ  ָ   ְ in the Hebrew Old Testament

113

The law-court imagery here is clear.11 There are three parties in the legal conflict or controversy (‫)ריב‬: ִ (1) the opponent at law (ἀντίδικος),12 often referred to as “the wicked,” “the enemy,” and “the oppressor”; (2) the godly one, who is being pursued and oppressed by the opponent, and who is referred to by epithets such as “the poor,” “the needy,” and “the humble”; (3) the judge, whose duty is to bring about justice by rendering a verdict against the opponent at law and in favor of the one being oppressed, a verdict that amounts to the vindication and deliverance of the oppressed. In his analysis of major Hebrew poems, J. P. Fokkelman calls this “the triangle enemies-God-I” that so frequently informs not only the conflictual context but even the strophic structure of the Psalms.13 Many concrete examples of this can be seen in both the Old Testament and the New. In the Old Testament, the Torah makes provision for judges to hear cases and disputes that may arise among the Israelites. Note the language of judging “between a man and his brother” (the classic ‫ ִריב‬scenario) and the adverbial use of ‫צדק‬ ֶ    ֶ to modify the verb “judge”: Deuteronomy 1:12-17 12 “‘How can I bear by myself the weight and burden of you and your strife (or your disputes, NIV) (‫ריבכם‬ ֶ    ְ       ִ / τὰς ἀντιλογίας ὑμῶν)? 13 Choose for your tribes wise, understanding, and experienced men, and I will appoint them as your heads.’ 14 And you answered me, ‘The thing that you have spoken is good for us to do.’ 15 So I took the heads of your tribes, wise and experienced men, and set them as heads over you, commanders of thousands, commanders of hundreds, commanders of fifties, commanders of tens, and officers, throughout your tribes. 16 And ֶ      ֵ   ֲ        ֵ    ַ     ֹ    ָ I charged your judges at that time, ‘Hear the cases between your brothers (‫בּין־אחיכם‬ ‫שׁמע‬ / Διακούετε ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν), and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the alien who is with him (‫   ֵגּרוֹ‬ ‫וּבין‬ ‫וּבין־אחיו‬ ‫בּין־אישׁ‬ ‫צדק‬ ‫וּשׁפטתּם‬ ֵ     ִ   ָ       ֵ        ִ ֵ       ֶ   ֶ    ֶ ְ   ַ    ְ / καὶ κρίνατε δικαίως ἀνὰ μέσον ἀνδρὸς καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον ἀδελφοῦ καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον προσηλύτου αὐτοῦ). 17 You shall not be partial in judgment. You shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God’s’” (ESV).14 11 N. T. Wright rightly acknowledges that the Hebrew law-court imagery is the metaphorical context of God’s righteousness in both the OT and NT. What Saint Paul Really Said, 96-99. However, he ties the law-court imagery too closely to the Abrahamic covenant, and in fact makes the covenant the primary category for interpreting the righteousness language. As a result, the law-court imagery moves into the background and, in his view, is merely there to provide “particular colour” to the covenant imagery. “The law court is the metaphorical context which gives particular colour to that covenantal language” (p. 99). In this way, the forensic character of God’s righteousness is muted and the phrase ultimately becomes a cipher for God’s faithfulness to his covenant. Once the overpowering covenant motif is removed from Wright’s construction, much of what he says about the Hebrew law court is helpful and valid. 12 See Schrenk, “ἀντίδικος,” TDNT 1.373-5. Sometimes the term can be used neutrally to refer without prejudice to the plaintiff or the defendant. 13 “In this poem [Ps 143], too, the triangle enemies-God-I is explored. Subject changes and the presence or absence of characters are useful criteria for the demarcation of strophes.” J. P. Fokkelman, Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible: At the Interface of Prosody and Structural Analysis (SSN; Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2003), 3.318. 14 Compare Moses’ statement in the parallel passage in Exodus: “When they have a dispute (‫דּבד‬ ‫וּבין‬ ָ     ָ / ἀντιλογία), it comes to me, and I judge between a man and his neighbor (‫רעהוּ‬ ֵ  ֵ       ֵ

114

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

In the New Testament, we have Jesus’ parable of the persistent widow (Luke 18:1-8). This passage, in addition to using κριτής (2x), repeatedly employs judicial language derived from the ΔΙΚ-root, such as ἐκδικέω (2x), ἐκδίκησις (2x), ἀντίδικος (1x), and ἀδικία (1x): And he told them a parable to the effect that they ought always to pray and not lose heart. 2 He said, “In a certain city there was a judge (κριτής) who neither feared God nor respected man. 3 And there was a widow in that city who kept coming to him and saying, ‘Give me justice against my adversary (ἐκδίκησόν με ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀντιδίκου μου).’ 4 For a while he refused, but afterward he said to himself, ‘Though I neither fear God nor respect man, 5 yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will give her justice (ἐκδικήσω αὐτήν), so that she will not beat me down by her continual coming.’ ” 6 And the Lord said, “Hear what the unrighteous judge (ὁ κριτὴς τῆς ἀδικίας) says. 7 And will not God give justice to his elect (ὁ δὲ θεὸς οὐ μὴ ποιήσῃ τὴν ἐκδίκησιν τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν αὐτοῦ), who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? 8 I tell you, he will give justice to them (ποιήσει τὴν ἐκδίκησιν αὐτῶν) speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?” (ESV).15

This parable not only illustrates the social reality of those who are in need appealing to human judges for redress, but also highlights the divine reality that is analogically related to the human. In its original purpose, Jesus told this parable “to the effect that they ought always to pray and not lose heart.” The indifferent human judge and the divine Judge stand in an analogical relationship, though without implying indifference on God’s part. If the poor widow cried out to the unjust judge for justice, and he eventually did respond to act in her defense, how much more (a fortiori) will God the righteous Judge respond and not delay in giving justice to his elect who cry to him day and night. The cries of the elect for justice in this parable are given voice in the OT psalms of lament in which the godly cry out to God to deliver them from their enemies “in his righteousness” (e.g., Pss 31:1; 143:1, 11)16 and in the NT apocalyptic cry of the martyrs under the heavenly altar asking God how long until he avenges their blood on their opponents who killed them because of their testimony to Jesus (Rev 6:10).

‫      ִאישׁ‬ ‫שׁפטתּי  ֵבּין‬    ִ ְ  ַ ָ / διακρίνω ἕκαστον) and make known the statutes of God and His laws” (Exod 18:16 NASB). See also Deut 17:8-13 which dictates that homicide cases, or “any case within your towns that is too difficult for you,” be referred to the priests at the central shrine. 15 Cp. the following saying of Jesus which presupposes the same OT legal controversy setting: “Make friends quickly with your opponent at law (ἀντίδικος) while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent (ἀντίδικος) may not hand you over to the judge (κριτής), and the judge (κριτής) to the officer, and you be thrown into prison” (Matt 5:25 || Luke 12:58 NASB). Satan is also called “your adversary (ἀντίδικος), the devil” (1 Pet 5:8). 16 “One also catches hints of indifferent judges who need to be roused even to hear a case (Lk 18:2-6); this situation is implied by the psalms of lament in which the speakers address God as a judge who needs to be roused to action.” “Judgment,” The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (ed. Leland Ryken, James C. Wright, and Tremper Longman III; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998), 470.

A. ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ        ָ  ָ   ְ in the Hebrew Old Testament

115

In the OT, the duty of giving justice to the oppressed, the poor, the widow, and the needy, fell particularly to the king. There are many passages that make this clear and, again, they often employ judicial language of the court, including “righteous,” “judge,” “judgment,” “justice,” etc.: Psalm 72:1-4 1 “Give the king your justice (‫משׁפּטי‬ ֶ ָ ְ ִ / τὸ κρίμα σου), O God, and your righteousness (‫צדקת‬ ְ   ָ   ְ  ִ / τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου) to the royal son! 2 May he judge your people with righteousness, (‫בצדק‬ ‫עמּ‬ ‫ידין‬ ֶ   ֶ ְ     ְ  ַ    ִ ָ / κρίνειν τὸν λαόν σου ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ) and your poor with justice! ָ   ְ  ִ   ְ          ֶ  ִ   ֲ   ַ / καὶ τοὺς πτωχούς σου ἐν κρίσει) (‫במשׁפּט‬ ‫ועניּי‬ 3 Let the mountains bear prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness! 4 May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, (‫עניּי־עם‬ ‫ישׁפּט‬ ָ    ֵ  ִ         ֹ ְ     ִ / κρινεῖ τοὺς πτωχοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ) give deliverance to the children of the needy, (‫אביוֹן‬ ‫לבני‬ ְ    ֶ   ֵ   ְ   ִ   ‫יוֹשׁיע‬ ַ    ִ / καὶ σώσει τοὺς υἱοὺς τῶν πενήτων) and crush the oppressor!” (ESV) Proverbs 29:14 “If a king faithfully judges (‫בּאמת‬ ‫ׁוֹפט‬ ֶ   ֱ    ֶ        ֵ ‫ ש‬/ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ κρίνοντος) the poor, his throne will be established forever” (ESV). Proverbs 31:4-5 “It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine, or for rulers to take strong drink, lest they drink and forget what has been decreed and pervert the rights (‫ ִדּין‬/ ὀρθὰ κρῖναι) of all the afflicted” (ESV). Proverbs 31:8-9 “Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights (‫אל־דּין‬ ִ      ֶ / κρῖνε) of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously (‫שׁפט־צדק‬ ֶ  ֶ       ָ    ְ / κρῖνε δικαίως), defend the rights (‫ ִדּין‬/ διάκρινε) of the poor and needy” (ESV). Jeremiah 22:3 – spoken to the “king of Judah, who sits on the throne of David”: ָ   ָ   ְ         ָ ְ ִ      ֲ / Ποιεῖτε κρίσιν καὶ “Thus says the Lord: Do justice and righteousness (‫וּצדקה‬ ‫משׁפּט‬ ‫עשׂוּ‬ δικαιοσύνην), and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place” (ESV). Jeremiah 22:15-16 – spoken of Shallum, son of Josiah, king of Judah: 15 “Do you think you are a king because you compete in cedar? Did not your father eat and drink and do justice and righteousness? (‫וּצדקה‬ ‫משׁפּט‬ ‫וּעשׂה‬ ָ   ָ  ְ          ָ    ְ ִ         ָ ָ   ְ / ποιεῖν κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην) Then it was well with him. 16 He judged the cause of the poor and needy; ְ    ֶ   ְ ‫דּין־עני‬ ִ ָ ִ     (‫ואביוֹן‬ ‫ ָדּן‬/ οὐκ ἔκριναν κρίσιν ταπεινῷ οὐδὲ κρίσιν πένητος) then it was well” (ESV).

116

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

The king was charged with defending the rights of the poor and needy, to “seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause” (Isa 1:17 ESV). For an illustration of this court room scenario, recall the two prostitutes who came before King Solomon as parties in a legal dispute, presumably in his “Hall of Judgment” (‫המּשׁפּט‬ ‫)אלם‬ ָ ְ ִ     ַ ָ ֻ (1 Kings 7:7),17 the one party making false accusations against the other, with Solomon rendering a just verdict that involved the vindication of the woman who was the rightful mother of the living baby (1 Kings 3:16-28).18 From this context it is a short step to making the claim that, ultimately, justice is given by God the King of Israel and Judge of all the earth. The shift of focus from the human to the divine judge who grants justice to the oppressed is a logical one, considering the failure of human judges and human kings. Since the oppressed were so often denied justice from the human king, whether because of his inability or his corruption, they ultimately placed their hope in God to provide true, lasting and eschatological justice. We see the transition from an appeal to the human king to relying on justice from the divine King in passages such as these: Proverbs 22:22-23 “Do not rob the poor, because he is poor, or crush the afflicted at the gate, for the Lord will plead their cause (‫ריבם‬ ‫יריב‬ ָ         ִ          ִ  ָ / κρινεῖ αὐτοῦ τὴν κρίσιν) and rob of life those who rob them” (ESV). Proverbs 23:10-11 “Do not move an ancient landmark or enter the fields of the fatherless, for their Redeemer (‫גּאל‬  ֵ    ֹ / ὁ λυτρούμενος) is strong; he will plead their cause (‫את־ריבם‬ ‫הוּא־יריב‬ / κρινεῖ τὴν κρίσιν ָ         ִ     ֶ        ִ  ָ αὐτῶν) against you” (ESV). Proverbs 29:26 “Many seek the face of a ruler, but it is from the Lord that a man gets justice (‫משׁפּט־אישׁ‬ ָ       ְ  ֵ        ִ          ַ ְ  ִ ‫וּמיהוה‬ / παρὰ δὲ κυρίου γίνεται τὸ δίκαιον ἀνδρί)” (ESV).

If the needy cannot get vindication from earthly judges, then they must wait for the heavenly judge to intervene. Indeed, in some cases the controversy is with a human king or judge, so the appeal must be made immediately to the divine Judge from the outset. We see this in the controversy between David and King 17 “One function of the royal court was its use as a place to hear appeals, try legal cases and dispense justice … As a place of sentencing and conviction, it arouses feelings of fear; as a place of appeal and acquittal, it assures us that justice will prevail.” “Royal Court,” Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, 742. 18 Explicitly forensic terminology occurs at the end of the story: “And all Israel heard of the judgment that the king had rendered (‫שׁפט‬ ‫אשׁר‬ ‫את־המּשׁפּט‬ ַ ָ      ֶ ֲ    ָ ְ ִ ַ    ֶ / τὸ κρίμα τοῦτο, ὃ ἔκρινεν), and they stood in awe of the king, because they perceived that the wisdom of God was in him to do ָ ְ ִ        ֲ ַ    justice (‫משׁפּט‬ ‫לעשׂת‬ / τοῦ ποιεῖν δικαίωμα)” (1 Kings 3:28 ESV). Josephus in his retelling of the story uses the following forensic terms: κρίσις (“case” [2x], “judgment” [1x]), ἀντίδικος (“opponent at law”), δίκη (“lawsuit”), προσκρίνω (“adjudge, award”), and καταγινώσκω (“pass sentence against”). Ant. 8.26-34.

A. ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ        ָ  ָ   ְ in the Hebrew Old Testament

117

Saul, who was unjustly pursuing David in the wilderness and trying to kill him. Having no recourse but to the divine court, David cried out, “May the Lord judge between me and you, may the Lord avenge me against you” (1 Sam 24:12, 15 ESV).19 Note as well that I have identified “vindication” as another sub-category under “legal righteousness.” This usage, though not common, is well established and has even found its way into the English versions. For example: Psalm 35:27 [34:27LXX]: “May those who delight in my vindication (‫צדקי‬/ ִ   ְ  ִ τὴν δικαιοσύνην μου) shout for joy and gladness” (NIV).

Of course, one could argue that this usage fits under “ethical righteousness” as well, since the vindication of the righteous often involves God’s bringing their ethical righteousness to light in the face of the false accusations of his people’s enemies. But I believe this usage is best identified as legal righteousness for the reason that the focus is not on the ethical righteousness of those vindicated but on God’s judicial act of vindicating them. A note should also be made about the cases I refer to as “clothed with righteousness.” The most famous example is: Isaiah 59:17: “He put on righteousness (‫צדקה‬ ָ  ָ   ְ / δικαιοσύνη) as a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation on his head; he put on garments of vengeance for clothing, and wrapped himself in zeal as a cloak” (ESV).

But what is not well understood is the meaning of this metaphor. That can be best illustrated by comparing Isaiah 59:17 with Job’s statement in 29:14: Job 29:14: “I put on righteousness (‫צדק‬ ֶ  ֶ / δικαιοσύνη), and it clothed me; my justice (‫משׁפּטי‬ ִ   ָ    ְ    ִ / κρίμα) was like a robe and a turban” (ESV).

In other words, putting on righteousness as a robe, cloak, breastplate, or other piece of clothing seems to be a metaphorical way of speaking of the preparation that a judge would make before going into court. Just as a modern judge will don the judicial black robe before entering the court, so in the biblical metaphor. In cases where the clothing is of a military nature (e.g., a breastplate), the judicial element is still present insofar as the warrior is perceived to be executing justice by means of warfare (e.g., Isa 59:17; Wis 5:17-20). Thus I have identified the “clothed with righteousness” passages as legal. Now that we have surveyed “legal righteousness,” it is time to turn to “ethical righteousness,” that is, the moral uprightness associated with those who are 19 Various forms of the phrase “May the Lord judge between us” also occur in Gen 16:5 (Sarai vs. Abram); 31:53 (Jacob vs. Laban); Judges 11:27 (the people of Israel vs. the people of Ammon); and Ezek 34:17, 20, 22 (the fat sheep vs. the lean sheep).

118

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

considered “the righteous” as opposed to “the wicked.” This is the second most common usage (41.3%). Under “ethical righteousness” I see several sub-categories. If the first category (“legal righteousness”) can be predicated of both humans and God, the second category (“ethical righteousness”) applies almost exclusively to humans. It can refer simply to righteous conduct, often with verbs of doing,20 or to the status of righteousness that one has in God’s eyes on the basis of such righteous conduct. This category (“righteousness before God”) is placed as a sub-category under “ethical righteousness” because moral uprightness and righteous behavior are often (though not always) the basis for the status of “righteousness” before God. However, “righteousness before God” could just as well be placed as a sub-category under “legal righteousness,” since the divine recognition of righteousness is presented as a divine judicial act. Some scholars make a strong disjunction between the “legal” and the “ethical” dimensions. For example, for N. T. Wright, “righteousness” indicates status only, meaning “in the right, vindicated.”21 From this, he concludes that “righteousness” in Paul means that the divine court has granted someone the status of membership in the people of God. But my research has turned up strong evidence pointing to a much closer conceptual relationship between righteousness as a legal status and righteousness as an ethical or behavioral reality. When “righteousness” is used as a status term, that is, in reference to someone’s righteousness before God, it means either that God has taken note of the person’s actual moral/behavioral righteousness (e.g., Deut 24:13; Ps 18:20-24), or that he has graciously reckoned righteousness to their account so that they are now treated and regarded as if they were in fact ethically righteous in his sight. This latter usage of “righteousness” to refer to a status of righteousness graciously granted to someone even though they are not actually and personally righteous (following Paul’s interpretation in Rom 4:3-5) is evident in Gen 15:6: “And he believed ָ ָ   ְ ָ    ֶ     ְ    ְ  ַ   ַ / καὶ the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness (‫צדקה‬ ‫ויּחשׁבה     לּוֹ‬ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην)” (Gen 15:6 ESV). In the former usage – a status of righteousness before God, grounded in a person’s behavioral righteousness 20 E.g., “For I have chosen [Abraham], that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice (‫ומשׁפּט‬ ‫צדקה‬ ָ ְ ִ      ָ  ָ   ְ ‫לעשׂוֹת‬ ֲ ַ / ποιεῖν δικαιοσύνην καὶ κρίσιν), so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised him” (Gen 18:19 ESV). 21 “‘Righteousness’ was the status of the successful party when the case had been decided … The word is not basically to do with morality or behavior, but rather with status in the eyes of the court.” N. T. Wright, “The Letter to the Romans,” NIB 10.399. “‘Righteousness,’ within the lawcourt setting … denotes the status that someone has when the court has found in their favor. Notice, it does not denote, within that all-important lawcourt context, ‘the moral character they are then assumed to have,’ or ‘the moral behavior they have demonstrated which has earned them the verdict.’” Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009), 90 (emphasis original). Cp. What Saint Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 98.

A. ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ        ָ  ָ   ְ in the Hebrew Old Testament

119

– the term “righteousness” does not refer so much to the behavioral righteousness per se, but to the divine recognition and acceptance of that righteousness, resulting in a person’s being treated as righteous in God’s sight. In the following example (Deut 24:13), note the important qualifier, “before the Lord your God,” which makes clear the additional nuance in view: Deuteronomy 24:10-13 “When you make your neighbor a loan of any sort, you shall not go into his house to collect his pledge. 11 You shall stand outside, and the man to whom you make the loan shall bring the pledge out to you. 12 And if he is a poor man, you shall not sleep in his pledge. 13 You shall restore to him the pledge as the sun sets, that he may sleep in his cloak and bless you. And ָ     ָ    ְ   ֶ    ְ ִ  ְ / καὶ ἔσται σοι ἐλεημοσύνη) before the it shall be righteousness for you (‫צדקה‬ ‫תּהיה‬ ‫וּל‬ Lord your God” (ESV).22

This special category of “righteousness before God” is significant, because it shows that although one can discern a broad distinction between legal righteousness and ethical righteousness, there is actually overlap between the two at this point. For “righteousness before God” is neither purely ethical nor purely legal. In some cases, such as Gen 15:6, it is purely legal. In most other cases, it is both ethical and legal, that is, the ethical righteousness is the basis of the legal recognition of that righteousness in the divine court. Taken together, these first two major categories (“legal righteousness” and “ethical righteousness”) cover more than 85% of the usages. The third category is a smaller category that I call “correctness.” It is used to refer to speaking the truth, to just weights and balances, or to doing something correctly. For example, these verses illustrate “righteousness” used in reference to speaking the truth: “All the utterances of my mouth are in righteousness (‫בצדק‬ ֶ  ֶ    ְ / μετὰ δικαιοσύνης); there is nothing crooked or perverted in them” (Prov ֶ  ֶ            ֵ   ֹ / λαλῶν δικαιοσύνην)” 8:8 NASB); and “I the Lord speak the truth (‫צדק‬ ‫דּבד‬ (Isa 45:19 ESV). The fourth category is not part of the semantic range of these words, but merely contains a handful of verses that are difficult to interpret, thus making difficult the decision as to which semantic category fits best.

22 The Hebrew of Deut 24:13 has, “It [= the act of returning the poor man’s cloak] shall be righteousness for you before the Lord your God,” whereas the Septuagint renders, “There shall be mercy for you before the Lord your God.” The use of ἐλεημοσύνη (“mercy”) here and in LXX Deut 6:25 to render ‫צדקה‬ ָ   ָ   ְ never means “mercy, act of ָ   ָ   ְ is unexpected. Although ‫צדקה‬ mercy, alms” in the Hebrew Bible, it did begin to take on that meaning in post-biblical Hebrew (e.g., in Tobit). Thus the LXX translator of Deuteronomy understood ‫צדקה‬ ָ     ָ   ְ in Deut 6:25 and 24:13 anachronistically as having a meaning (“mercy”) that emerged later, in post-biblical Hebrew. John William Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy (SBLSCS 39; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 126, 384.

120

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

3. Semantic Domain Analysis When engaging in lexicographical study it is crucial not only to perform semantic analysis by examining the different meanings that a single word can have (i.e., its semantic range), but also by comparing the word in question with different words in the same semantic domain. We have performed the first procedure, now we must turn to the second. A semantic domain is a group of different lexemes which can be clustered together because they have in common certain semantic features or are used in similar social contexts. Semantic domain theory has been hailed as “the single greatest advance in modern lexicology.”23 Its critical advantage is that by means of comparing and contrasting a word with other words that are related in meaning, or that are used in an opposite sense (antonyms), it allows a more fine-grained analysis of the meaning of a given word. By means of comparison with other words in the same semantic domain, two things, it is hoped, will begin to appear: (1) the semantic features that are distinctive of that word in contrast with other words in the same domain,24 and (2) the social setting or context presupposed by a given word and which is called to mind by the use of the word.25 Semantic domain theory has been applied to the lexicography of New Testament Greek by Eugene A. Nida and Johannes P. Louw.26 However, I am not aware of any similar lexicon of biblical Hebrew that is based on semantic domains. Therefore, I will utilize their methodology and their categorization of

23 Christopher Mitchell, “The Use of Lexicons and Word Studies in Exegesis,” Concordia Journal 11 (1985): 131. 24 Once a cluster of words has been identified as a semantic domain or subdomain, the next step in the analytical process is “determining what features separate the meanings from one another.” Eugene A. Nida and Johannes P. Louw, Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament: A Supplement to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (SBL Resources for Biblical Study 25; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 86. 25 “This approach to lexical meaning through the system of domains also forces one to recognize the dependence of language upon culture.” Nida and Louw, Lexical Semantics, 105. In this, semantic domain theory has much in common with the “base-profile” analysis of meaning proposed by Ronald W. Langacker, and with the “frame semantics” of Charles J. Fillmore. Ronald W. Langacker, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (2 vols.; Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987, 1991); idem, Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1991); Charles J. Fillmore, “Frame Semantics,” in Linguistics in the Morning Calm (ed. Linguistic Society of Korea; Seoul: Hanshin Publishing, 1982), 111137. The two methodologies are combined by William Croft and D. Alan Cruse, Cognitive Linguistics (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). 26 See J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (2 vols.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1988), and their supplementary volume, Nida and Louw, Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament, which provides additional background on the theoretical principles that guided their work in the Lexicon.

A. ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ        ָ  ָ   ְ in the Hebrew Old Testament

121

semantic domains, since their hierarchical structure of domains is applicable to a large portion of the lexical stock of biblical Hebrew, but the use of their semantic domain hierarchy is particularly transferable in this case, since the word δικαιοσύνη in biblical Greek is lexically so similar to the Hebrew words ‫צדק‬ ֶ  ֶ ָ  ָ   ְ and ‫צדקה‬. The Hebrew words ‫צדק‬ ָ  ָ   ְ belong to two of Louw and Nida’s seֶ  ֶ and ‫צדקה‬ mantic domains: the judicial usage falls under domain 56, “courts and legal procedures,” while the ethical usage falls under domain 88, “moral and ethical qualities,” subdomain B, “just, righteous.” With regard to the first semantic domain, “courts and legal procedures,” besides ‫צדק‬ ַ  ָ (Qal: “be in the right, ֶ  ֶ and ‫צדקה‬, ָ  ָ   ְ we must note the cognate verb ‫צדק‬ be just,” Piel and Hiphil: “declare righteous, acquit,” Hiphil: “obtain rights for”) and the adjective ‫צדּיק‬ ִ  ַ (“righteous, just, in the right, innocent”). Both the verb and the adjective are rooted in the realm of judicial procedure, as this example, which uses both, shows: “If there is a dispute (‫)ריב‬ ִ between men and they come into court and the judges decide between them, acquitting the innocent (‫הצדּיקוּ‬ ‫)את־הצּדּיק‬ ִ  ְ ִ   ִ ַ ַ     ֶ and condemning the guilty ...” (Deut 25:1 ESV) (here in the Hiphil). We will have more to say about the adjective below, but for now it is sufficient to observe that the verb is used in the context of judges “acquitting, declaring not guilty, or vindicating” the innocent or the righteous party in a dispute (‫)ריב‬ ִ (cp. 1 Kings 8:32). Lexicographers like to look for antonyms, since these often provide the clearest definition by way of contrast. The most obvious antonym for ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ ָ  ָ   ְ is ֶ  ָ or ‫עולה‬, ֶ   ָ is set in contrast with ‫עול‬ ָ ְ ַ which means “injustice, evil.” Doing ‫עול‬ words from the ‫ צדק‬root (Lev 19:15; Ezek 3:20; 18:24, 26; 33:13, 15, 18; cp. Zeph 3:5 where the prophet confesses that God is ‫צדּיק‬ ָ ְ ַ but ִ ַ and does no ‫עולה‬ rather dispenses his ‫משׁפּט‬ ָ ְ    ִ every morning). This is very useful information, since it shows that ‫צדק‬ ָ  ָ   ְ are the opposite of “injustice” and therefore these ֶ  ֶ and ‫צדקה‬ lexemes fundamentally denote judicial activity in which a right state of affairs, “justice,” has been achieved. After the antonym, by far the most important words that belong in this domain, are the verb ‫שׁפט‬ ַ   ָ (“judge, execute judgment”) and the cognate noun ‫משׁפּט‬ ָ ְ    ִ (“a legal decision, judgment, justice”). There are many locutions which use these with the words for “righteousness.” For example, ‫צדק‬ ֶ  ֶ is either the direct object of the verb ‫שׁפט‬ ַ   ָ ַ   ָ (“give righteous judgment”) or is used adverbially with ‫שׁפט‬ (“judge righteously”) in five instances (Deut 1:16; Ps 9:4; Prov 8:16; 31:9; Jer 11:20). Also modifying the verb ‫שׁפט‬ ַ   ָ adverbially are the prepositional phrases ֶ  ֶ ְ (“to judge with righteousness,” Lev 19:15; Ps 9:8; 96:13; Isa 11:4) and ‫בּצדק‬ ְ     ְ  ִ   ְ (“judge [i.e., vindicate] me according to your [= God’s] righteousness,” ‫כצדק‬ ֶ  ֶ and ‫צדקה‬ Ps 35:24). This close association of the words ‫צדק‬ ָ  ָ   ְ with the words ‫שׁפט‬ ָ ְ    ִ suggests that “righteousness” in the Hebrew Bible is not merely ַ ָ and ‫משׁפּט‬ the abstract concept of “justice” (though it can be used in that abstract sense) but is more frequently tied to a concrete judicial act, or judgment, in which “justice” is established by means of the carrying out of the verdict.

122

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

This insight is supported by the fact that the phrase “righteous judgment” (‫)משׁפּט־צדק‬ ֶ  ֶ     ַ ְ  ִ is used twice, once in the singular (Deut 16:18) and once in the plural (Isa 58:2). This phrase is similar to the construct phrase ‫צדק‬ ‫מאזני‬ ֶ  ֶ   ֵ    ְ ֹ (“just balances,” Lev 19:36) with the genitive noun ‫צדק‬ ֶ  ֶ again used adjectivally. It is significant that ‫צדק‬ ֶ  ֶ is the word with adjectival force modifying the noun ‫משׁפּט‬ ָ ְ ִ (rather than the other way around), which reinforces the observation that “righteousness” denotes a right act or state of affairs, whereas ‫משׁפּט‬ ָ ְ ִ can mean simply “legal decision, judgment,” without specifying whether the judgment was right. Further cementing the connection of “righteousess or justice” in the Hebrew Bible to a specific judgment, consider the following collocations involving ָ ְ ִ and ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬: ‫משׁפּט‬ ֶ  ֶ ָ  ָ   ְ ‫וּמשׁפּט‬ ָ ְ ִ ‫צדק‬ ֶ  ֶ – “righteousness (masc.) and justice” (Ps 89:14; 97:2; Hos 2:19) ‫וצדק‬ ֶ  ֶ   ָ ‫משׁפּט‬ ָ ְ ִ – “justice and righteousness (masc.)” (Ps 119:121; Eccl 5:7) ָ ְ ִ – “justice and righteousness (fem.)” (2 Sam 8:15 [= 1 Chron ‫וּצדקה‬ ָ  ָ   ְ ‫משׁפּט‬ 18:14]; 1 Kings 10:9 [= 2 Chron 9:8]; Ps 33:5; Isa 9:7; 33:5; Jer 22:3, 15; 23:5; 33:15; Ezek 18:5, 19, 21, 27; 33:14, 16, 19; 45:9). ָ ְ ִ ‫צדקה‬ ‫וּמשׁפּט‬ ָ  ָ   ְ – “righteousness (fem.) and justice” (Gen 18:19; Ps 33:5; Prov 21:3) ִ   ָ ְ ִ ‫צדקת‬ ‫וּמשׁפּטים‬ ָ  ְ – “righteous acts (fem.) and just decisions” (Ps 103:6) ִ   ָ     ֵ   ִ ‫וּמשׁפּט‬ ָ ְ ִ ‫צדק‬ ֶ  ֶ – “righteousness (masc.) and justice and equity” (Prov ‫וּמישׁרים‬ 1:3; 2:9) ‫וּצדקה‬ ָ ְ ִ ‫מישׁרים‬ ִ   ָ     ֵ   – “equity, justice, and righteousness (fem.)” (Ps ָ  ָ   ְ ‫משׁפּט‬ 99:4) ‫וּצדקה‬ ֶ   ֶ – “love, justice, and righteousness (fem.)” (Jer 9:24) ָ  ָ   ְ ‫משׁפּט‬ ָ ְ ִ ‫חסד‬ ָ  ָ   ְ Finally, ‫משׁפּט‬ is frequently found in poetic parallelism with ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ָ ְ ִ ֶ  ֶ (e.g., Deut 33:15; Ps 36:6; 72:2; 106:3; Prov 8:20; Isa 1:27; 5:7, 16; 28:17; 56:1; 58:2; Amos 5:7, 24; 6:12). This does not make the two terms perfect synonyms, but it shows that righteousness arises from or is expressed in a concrete judgment. There are two other nouns cognate with the verb ‫שׁפט‬ ַ   ָ    that should be included in this semantic domain, ‫שׁפט‬ ֶ   ֶ and ‫שׁפט‬, ְ which usually occur in the plural and are translated “judgments,” “acts of judgment,” or “punishment.” Since the primary reason for engaging in semantic domain analysis is for the purpose of comparing and contrasting words within the same domanin, we must ask what distinguishes ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ָ ְ ִ They are both nouns related to ֶ  ֶ ָ  ָ   ְ from ‫משׁפּט‬. judgment and justice, and they are found together in the Hebrew Bible very frequently. The difference seems to be that ‫משׁפּט‬ ָ ְ ִ is a more neutral term that means ֶ  ֶ ָ  ָ   ְ never a generic “judgment” of any kind (right or wrong), whereas ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ means a wrong judgment but is always a right judgment. As noted above, that is ֶ  ֶ why the phrase ‫משׁפּט־צדק‬ ַ ְ    ִ (“righteous judgment”) is so revealing. The use of

A. ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ        ָ  ָ   ְ in the Hebrew Old Testament

123

ֶ  ָ makes the same contribution, showing that ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ the antonym ‫עול‬ ֶ  ֶ ָ  ָ   ְ mean “justice” as the opposite of “injustice” or “evil.” Other terms that fall in the semantic domain of “courts and legal procedures” are ‫( ִדּין‬both verb and noun) and ‫( ִריב‬both verb and noun). Like ‫שׁפט‬, ַ   ָ these are generic terms for judging or engaging in a legal controversy, and their use does not ipso facto reveal whether the judicial activity is taking place in a right, correct, and just manner. They are also generic in the sense that their does not ipso facto reveal whether the judicial activity is condemnatory or vindicatory. They can be used for all four scenarios: unjust judgments in which the righteous are condemned, just judgments in which the righteous are vindicated, unjust judgments in which the wicked are vindicated, and just judgments in which the wicked are condemned. ֶ  ֶ and ‫צדקה‬ The words ‫צדק‬ ָ  ָ   ְ are almost synonymous with words deriving from the verb ‫ישׁר‬ ַ   ָ (“be or make straight”), namely, ‫“( ִמישׁר‬uprightness, justice”) and ‫מישׁרים‬ ִ   ָ       ֵ (“equity, fairness”). And so it is not surprising that the “straightness” meaning can be applied in a judicial setting. These words are used adverbially with the verb ‫שׁפט‬, ַ    ָ e.g., “Let the nations be glad ... for you [= God] judge the peoples justly (‫”)מישׁר‬ ִ (Ps 67:4), or the Lord “will judge the world with righteousness (‫)בּצדק‬, ֶ  ֶ ְ and the peoples with equity (‫”)בּמישׁרים‬ ִ ָ     ֵ    ְ (Ps 98:9). Some uses of the verb ‫יכח‬ ַ  ָ (“decide, judge, convict, reprove, correct”) and ָ     ֵ the cognate nouns ‫תּכחה‬ and ‫תּכחת‬ (“rebuke, correction, punishment”) also ַ ַ belong in this semantic domain. Although these words belong to the semantic domain for fathers disciplining and correcting their sons (they are especially frequent in the book of Proverbs), there are cases where these words cross over into the judical domain, e.g., “He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide ֶ  ֶ ְ he shall judge the disputes by what his ears hear, but with righteousness (‫)בּצדק‬ poor, and decide with equity (‫)בּמישׁר‬ ִ   ְ for the meek of the earth” (Isa 11:3-4 ESV), where the verb ‫יכח‬ ַ   ָ is twice rendered “decide” and used in parallel with ‫שׁפט‬ ַ     ָ along with the prepositional phrases we have seen above, “with righteousness/equity.” ִ    ָ Also belonging to the judicial semantic domain are the two cognate words ‫נקי‬ (“innocent, free from blame or punishment”) and ‫נקּין‬ ָ   ִ (“innocency, freedom from blame or punishment”), both of which are derived from the verb ‫נקה‬ ָ  ָ (“be innocent, go or leave unpunished”). We come now to the semantic domain of “moral and ethical qualities.” The primary word here is the adjective ‫צדּיק‬ ִ ַ which is found in the judicial semantic domain as well. When used of God, for example, it is primarily a statement of his righteousness as a judge. When used of humans, the boundary between the judicial and the ethical is quite blurred. It can mean “in the right” (judicial sense, as the passive recipient of a verdict), “just” (judicial sense, as the active dispenser of a verdict), and it can mean “upright, righteous” (ethical sense). As I have argued above, the words ‫צדק‬ ָ  ָ   ְ are broadly used with two main meanings: ֶ  ֶ and ‫צדקה‬

124

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

judicial righteousness (of a judge exercising justice) and ethical righteousness (of a human being deemed to be righteous in character and behavior). It seems ֶ  ֶ likely that there is a semantic bridge connecting the two broad uses: ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ָ  ָ   ְ took their starting point in the judicial realm – the conceptual world of the judge, the lawcourt, the activity of dispensing justice – and then made their way into the ethical arena by extension. That extension may have taken place in one of two ways: either (1) to express the notion that “the righteous” are those whose ethical uprightness, character, and behavior, have been recognized by God and so they have been the passive recipient of a divine verdict of “righteousness” dispensed by the divine Judge, or (2) to express the notion that “the righteous” are those who dispense justice in their relations with their fellow humans in a way that imitates the divine justice, so that, in effect, all moral behavior is viewed as judicial behavior – in other words, a person who does no wrong against their neighbor, by stealing from them, or lying to them, or lying with their wife, etc., has functioned as a “just judge,” as it were, in their dealings with their fellows, and so they are thereby considered to be “righteous.” Historically, it is impossible to determine which of these routes the semantic extension took. In fact, it is not necessary for us to determine the diachronic history of the words for “righteousness.” It is sufficient that we are able to see the direction of semantic change as essentially moving from the judicial arena and then being extended and applied to the moral arena. The adjective ‫ישׁר‬ ָ   ָ (from the verb ‫ישׁר‬ ַ   ָ which, as we noted above, means “be or make straight”) is used frequently in the Hebrew Bible (especially in the poetical books) as a synonym of ‫צדּיק‬, ִ ַ e.g., “Surely the righteous (‫)צדּיקים‬ ִ      ִ  ַ shall give thanks to your name; the upright (‫)ישׁרים‬ ִ  ָ   ְ   shall dwell in your presence” (Ps 140:13 ESV). It can also be used as an attribute of God himself (e.g., Deut 32:4; Ps 25:8; 92:15). The word ‫נכח‬ ַ   ֹ   ָ (“uprightness, rectitude, honesty”) is also used as a term descriptive of generally righteous behavior and character, e.g., “For the righteous man (‫)הצּדּיק‬ ִ ַ    ַ is taken away from calamity; he enters into peace; those who walk ֹ ְ ֵ   ֹ ) rest in their beds” (Isa 57:1-2 ESV mod.). in their uprightness (‫נכח‬ ‫הל‬ Other words for “moral and ethical qualities” must also be listed here. They tend to come from a metaphorical world that is quite different from the judicial sphere. There is the adjective ‫“( ָטהר‬pure, clean”), which comes from the world of cultic purity. Although used in the vast majority of instances as the antonym of ֵ    ָ (“unclean, impure” in the cultic sense), ‫ ָטהר‬is used occasionally with ref‫טמא‬ erence to moral purity, e.g., “Create in me a pure heart, O God” (Ps 51:10 NIV). ִ   ָ (“blameless”) likewise comes from the ceremonial realm, The adjective ‫תמים‬ where it is commonly used to denote a sacrificial animal that is “without defect” (throughout Leviticus, Numbers, and Ezekiel). But it can be applied as an ethiִ ַ      ִ blameless cal descriptor as well, e.g., “Noah was a righteous man (‫צדּיק‬ ‫)אישׁ‬, (‫)תּמים‬ ִ   ָ in his generation” (Gen 6:9 ESV).

B. Δικαιοσύνη in the Septuagint (Excluding the Apocrypha)

125

ָ        ָ (“wick An important antonym of ‫צדּיק‬ ִ ַ (“righteous”) is the adjective ‫רשׁע‬ ed”). The two words are frequently found together as a complementary pair. The type of complementarity involved, of course, is that of positive and negative.27 For example, “the Lord knows the way of the righteous (‫)צדּיקים‬, ִ       ִ   ַ but the way ִ  ָ     ְ   will perish” (Ps 1:6 ESV). Just as the term ‫צדּיק‬ of the wicked (‫)רשׁעים‬ ִ ַ    (“righteous”) is from the judicial realm, so is the term ‫רשׁע‬ ָ  ָ (“wicked”), since it is cognate with the verb ‫רשׁע‬ ַ   ָ (Qal: “be unrighteous, guilty,” Hiphil: “declare one to be unrighteous or guilty; condem”). The judicial element in both terms is brought out with startling clarity in the use of the cognate verbs for the opposite nouns: “He who justifies the wicked (‫רשׁע‬ ‫)מצדּיק‬ ָ    ָ    ִ  ְ   ַ and he who condemns the righteous       (‫צדּיק‬ ַ ‫)וּמרשׁיע‬ ַ ִ ְ ַ are both alike an abomination to the Lord” (Prov 17:15 ESV). ִ       This complementary pair will be examined in more detail below, since Hermann Cremer appealed to it as one of the pieces of evidence in support of his relational theory. The above semantic domain analysis is not complete, since there are other less common words, or uncommon uses of common words, that can be included in these two semantic domains and deserve to be explored in the future. But we may draw this initial exploration to a close by drawing the following conclusions ֶ  ֶ and ‫צדקה‬: regarding the Hebrew words ‫צדק‬ ָ  ָ   ְ First, the terms in the semantic domain “courts and legal procedures” are varied. Most of the words tend to be terms that denote judicial judgments generically, without indicating whether the judgments are right or wrong. The terms ‫צדק‬ ֶ  ֶ and ‫צדקה‬ ָ  ָ   ְ by contrast stand out in this semantic domain because they are used only with reference to judicial judgments or states of affairs that are “right,” in contrast with judgments or states of affairs that are unjust or evil. Second, there are a variety of terms in the semantic domain “moral and ethical qualities” derived from various social settings – the two main ones being the setting of ceremonial or sacrificial purity, and that of judicial activity. Just as purity terms were extended from the cultic setting and by semantic extension were applied to denote those who are morally “clean” or “pure,” in the same manner, the terms ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ ָ  ָ   ְ were extended from the judicial setting to denote those who are morally “righteous” or “just,” whether because they are regarded as judges acting righteously in their dealings with their fellow humans or because the have been deemed to be righteous by the divine Judge because of their upright behavior. ֶ  ֶ Third, it must not go unnoticed that the terms ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ָ  ָ   ְ are, to use the language of cognitive linguistics, “profiled” against “the base” of the judicial setting rather than the covenantal setting. This is most clearly revealed by the close assoֶ  ֶ ciation of ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ַ   ָ and judgment (‫)משׁפּט‬, ָ ְ ִ in ָ  ָ   ְ with words for judging (‫)שׁפט‬, contrast with the fact that proximity with ‫בּרית‬ ִ  ְ (“covenant”) terminology is rare



27

Nida and Louw, Lexical Semantics, 86.

126

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

in the Hebrew Bible.28 The “profile-base” theory of lexical semantics is simply another way of getting at the question, “What is the metaphorical or social setting presupposed by the use of this word and in the context of which it has meaning?” For example, the word “hypotenuse” is profiled against the base concept of a “right triangle,” and the word “radius” assumes that one knows what a “circle” is.29 The “base,” “frame,” “social setting” against which the Hebrew “righteousness” words are profiled, and in the context of which they have meaning, is that of the judicial court rather than that of covenant-making and covenant-keeping.

B. Δικαιοσύνη in the Septuagint (Excluding the Apocrypha) Having surveyed the semantic range of the Hebrew words for “righteousness,” we turn now to the Greek translational equivalent in the Septuagint. But before examining the categories of usage of δικαιοσύνη in the LXX, it will perhaps be useful to be aware of the fact that the LXX (excluding the Apocrypha) employs the whole panoply of Greek words based on the ΔΙΚ-root, totaling 1,293 occurrences. The most frequent word from this group is the adjective δίκαιος which occurs 304 times in the LXX, not counting the substantival adjective τὸ δίκαιον which occurs nine times. The next most common word is δικαιοσύνη which occurs 264 times.

28 “‘Covenant’ (‫ )ברית‬occurs 283 times, ‫צדק‬-terminology some 524 times, and yet in only seven passages do the terms come into any significant contact.” Mark A. Seifrid, “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism,” 423. The seven passages cited by Seifrid are the following: Isa 42:6; 61:8-11; Hos 2:16-20; Ps 50:1-6; 111:1-10; Dan 9:4-7; Neh 9:32-33. 29 William Croft and D. Alan Cruse, Cognitive Linguistics (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 15. Ronald W. Langacker puts it this way: “The profile ... ‘stands out in bas-relief’ against the base. The semantic value of an expression resides in neither the base nor the profile alone, but only in their combination; it derives from the designation of a specific entity identified and characterized by its position within a larger configuration.” Ronald W. Langacker, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1, Theoretical Prerequisites (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987), 182.

B. Δικαιοσύνη in the Septuagint (Excluding the Apocrypha)

127

Table 3. The ΔΙΚ-group in LXX 30 Part of speech

Greek word

n

Adjective Noun Noun Noun Adjective Verb Noun Verb Verb Verb Adverb Noun Noun Substantival adjective Noun Noun Verb Adverb Verb Verb Verb Noun Noun Noun

δίκαιος δικαιοσύνη ἀδικία δικαίωμα ἄδικος ἐκδικέω ἐκδίκησις ἀδικέω δικαιόω δικάζω ἀδίκως δίκη ἀδίκημα τὸ δίκαιον δικαστής ἀντίδικος καταδικάζω δικαίως ἐκδικάζω ἀντιδικέω ἀπαδικέω δικαίωσις δικαστήριον ἐκδικητής

304 264 186 125 86 68 56 54 29 22 20 18 16 9 8 7 6 5 4 2 1 1 1 1

Total (n = number of occurrences)

1,293

Table 3 shows statistics on the number of times that words from the ΔΙΚ-group are used in the Septuagint, excluding the Apocrypha.31 This study targets the 264 occurrences of the noun δικαιοσύνη for careful linguistic investigation, but it is useful to see the statistics of the related words. The adjective δίκαιος and the subֶ  ֶ stantival adjective τὸ δίκαιον are used a total of 33 times to translate ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ָ  ָ   ְ and are therefore the most relevant words outside of δικαιοσύνη for this study. ָ   ֻ in the The noun δικαίωμα is typically used as a translational equivalent for ‫חקה‬ LXX and is thus almost irrelevant for our study. It is used once to translate ‫צדק‬ ֶ  ֶ 30 For all ΔΙΚ-words listed here except δικαιοσύνη, the data were retrieved by performing electronic searches on Rahlf’s Septuaginta using Logos Bible Software, Version 4 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.). The data in Lust, Eynikel and Hausie (LEH), GreekEnglish Lexicon of the Septuagint (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003) are very close to the data yielded electronically, but sometimes differ by small amounts. The differences could be explained by text-critical issues, or by errors in the electronic data. For δικαιοσύνη, Logos and LEH have a count of 270 for the OT excluding the Apocrypha. However, I have determined that the correct count is 264. 31 The Apocrypha will be dealt with in Chapter 5.

128

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

in the LXX at 2 Kgdms 19:29 and possibly two more times at Ezek 18:21 and Prov 8:20, but these two are doubtful due to LXX text-critical issues. Table 4. LXX Translation Choices for ‫ צדק‬ ֶ  ֶ

Table 5. LXX Translation Choices for ‫צדקה‬ ָ   ָ   ְ

n

δικαιοσύνη 82 δίκαιος 32 23 τὸ δίκαιον 34 4 δικαίως 36 3 δικαιόω 37 1 – κρίσις 39 2 – [[ἐλεημοσύνη]] 41 1 – – Ιωσεδεκ 45 1

δικαιοσύνη δίκαιος 33 τὸ δίκαιον 35 – – δικαίωμα 38 – κρίμα 40 ἐλεημοσύνη 42 ἔλεος 43 εὐφροσύνη 44 –

(n = number of occurrences)

(n = number of occurrences)

n 133 5 1 1 1-2 8 3 1

32 Lev 19:36 (3x); Deut 16:18; 25:15 (2x); Job 6:29; 31:6; 35:2; 36:3; Prov 12:17; 16:13; Eccl 3:16; 7:15; Isa 32:1; 41:10; 58:2; 59:4; Jer 11:20; 31:23 [38:23LXX]; Ezek 45:10 (3x). 33 Job 37:23 (τὰ δίκαια); Prov 11:18, 19; 21:3; Isa 54:17. 34 τὸ δίκαιον = “justice” or “what is right.” Deut 16:20; Job 8:3; Isa 51:1; 64:5. 35 Isa 5:23: “Woe to those … who … deprive the innocent of his right!” (ESV); “… who take away the right of the righteous one!” (NETS). 36 Deut 1:16; 16:20; Prov 31:9. 37 Isa 42:21. 38 2 Kgdms 19:29. The translation δικαίωμα is also found at Ezek 18:21 in A only. Since Rahlfs and the Göttingen Septuagint agree in considering δικαίωμα to be a secondary reading, I do not count it here. Hatch and Redpath err in listing Prov 8:20 as another case. 39 Isa 11:4; 51:7. 40 Jer 51:10 [28:10LXX]. A second possible case is Isa 9:7 [9:6MT/LXX] “to uphold it with justice and with righteousness” (‫וּבצדקה‬ ‫בּמשׁפּט‬ ָ  ָ   ְ   ִ    ָ    ְ    ִ   ְ / ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἐν κρίματι), but some LXX MSS switch the two nouns. Other possibilities are (a) that the order of the two nouns was already switched in the Hebrew Vorlage, or (b) that the LXX translators intentionally switched the order while intending δικαιοσύνη to represent ‫צדקה‬. ָ  ָ   ְ 41 Ps 35:24 [34:24LXX]. I use double brackets to indicate significant doubt about this equivalence. Rahlfs and Göttingen agree that the reading ἐλεημοσύνη is secondary here and adopt the reading δικαιοσύνη. 42 Deut 6:25; 24:13; Ps 24:5 [23:5LXX]; 33:5 [32:5LXX]; 103:6 [102:6LXX]; Isa 1:27; 28:17; 59:16. In addition, Theodotion at Dan 9:16 (but not LXX). Also, the Aramaic word ‫צדקה‬ ָ     ְ  ִ (“right action, beneficence, charity”) is translated ἐλεημοσύνη in Dan 4:24 [4:27LXX/Th]. 43 Isa 56:1; and probably Ezek 18:19, 21. 44 Isa 61:10: “He has covered me with the robe of righteousness” (‫צדקה‬ ָ    ָ   ְ ‫מעיל‬ ִ   ְ / χιτῶνα εὐφροσύνης). Takamitsu Muraoka employs double brackets here to indicate that he regards the equivalence as implausible. Hebrew/Aramaic Index to the Septuagint Keyed to the HatchRedpath Concordance (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 124. His caution is understandable, yet there is no known textual variant in the Hebrew.

B. Δικαιοσύνη in the Septuagint (Excluding the Apocrypha)

129

ֶ  ֶ ָ   ָ  ְ in the LXX, Tables 4 and 5 show the Greek words used to translate ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ along with statistics showing the number of times. The two tables are aligned so that one can see each Greek word on the same line in both tables. If a particular ֶ  ֶ but not ‫צדקה‬ ָ   ָ  ְ (or vice versa), then a dash Greek word is used to translate ‫צדק‬ (–) is placed in the box indicating that this word is never used in the LXX as a translation for that Hebrew word. The most surprising fact is the use of ἐλεημοσύνη eight times and ἔλεος three times to translate the feminine ‫צדקה‬. ָ   ָ  ְ There is also the odd use of εὐφροσύνη once in Isaiah 61:10, an occurrence that caused Hatch and Redpath to doubt that there really was a Hebrew-Greek equivalence in this place. We turn now to another question: “What Hebrew words were translated by δικαιοσύνη in the LXX?” Table 6. Hebrew Words Translated by ∆ικαιοσύνη in LXX ‫ צדקה‬ ָ     ָ  ְ ‫ צדק‬ ֶ  ֶ ‫חסד‬ ֶ    ֶ 46 ‫משׁפּט‬ ָ    ְ ִ 47 ‫צדּיק‬ ִ  ַ 48 ‫אמת‬ ֶ  ֱ 49 ‫ טב‬50 ‫מישׁרים‬ ִ    ָ     ֵ 51  ‫נקּין‬ ָ   ִ 52 ‫שׂכל‬ ַ ָ 53 ‫ זכוּ‬ ָ 54

n 133 82 9 7 7 6 1 1 1 1 1

(n = number of occurrences) 45 Jer 23:6. 46 Gen 19:19; 20:13; 21:23; 24:27; 32:10 [32:11MT/LXX]; Exod 15:13; 34:7; Prov 20:28; Isa 63:7. 47 Prov 16:11; 17:23; Isa 61:8; Ezek 18:17, 19, 21; Mal 2:17. 48 Ps 72:7 [71:7LXX]; Prov 2:20; 11:21, 30; 15:6; 20:7; Isa 26:2. 49 Gen 24:49; Josh 24:14; Isa 38:19; 39:8; Dan 8:12; 9:13. 50 Ps 38:20 [38:21MT/37:21LXX]: “I follow after good” (ESV); “I follow after righteousness” (NETS). 511 Chron 29:17: “I know, my God, that you test the heart and have pleasure in uprightness” (ESV); “And I knew, Lord, that you are the one who tests hearts, and you love righteousness” (NETS). 52 Gen 20:5: “In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this” (ESV); “I did this with a pure heart and righteousness of hands” (NETS). 53 Prov 21:16. “The way of good sense” (ESV); “the path of righteousness” (NETS). 54 This is the one Aramaic word in the list. Dan 6:22: “My God sent his angel and shut the lions’ mouths, and they have not harmed me, because I was found blameless before him” (ESV); “… because righteousness was found in me” (NETS).

130

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament Continuation: Table 6. Hebrew Words Translated by ∆ικαιοσύνη in LXX n

[[‫]]מישׁׁר‬ ִ 56 [[‫]]מדן‬ ָ 57 [[‫]]פּתי‬ ִ   ְ No equivalent

1 1 1 13

55

(n = number of occurrences)

Table 6 shows the Hebrew words that are translated with δικαιοσύνη in the LXX, including one Aramaic word (‫)זכוּ‬ ָ in Dan 6:22. As we saw with Tables 4 and 5, the most surprising fact is the use of δικαιοσύνη nine times to translate ‫חסד‬, ֶ   ֶ an intriguing translation choice that will be discussed below. Now we turn to an analysis of the categories of usage of δικαιοσύνη. Because of the LXX’s essential literalism, it is possible to use the same categories and sub-categories. Here is a comparison of the categories of usage. Table 7. Comparison of Categories of Usage: ָ    ָ   ְ vs. LXX/Greek (∆ικαιοσύνη) MT/Hebrew (‫צדק‬/‫)צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ 

MT/Heb. n %

LXX/Gk. n %

I. Legal righteousness Judging, ruling, executing justice Human judges or kings as subject God as subject Justice Human (including messianic) justice Divine justice Righteousness of God (“my, his, your”) Vindication Clothed with righteousness Rights

123 27 19 8 38 18 20 41 9 5 3

44.6 9.8 6.9 2.9 13.8 6.5 7.2 14.9 3.3 1.8 1.1

112 23 14 9 34 19 15 44 6 4 1

42.4 8.7 5.3 3.4 12.9 7.2 5.7 16.7 2.3 1.5 0.4

II.

114 55 18 10 7 23 1

41.3 19.9 6.5 3.6 2.5 8.3 0.4

122 68 19 10 4 19 2

46.2 25.8 7.2 3.8 1.5 7.2 0.8

Ethical righteousness General With verbs of doing Righteous laws/word Gates, paths, cities, etc. of righteousness Righteousness before God Honesty

55 Ps 67:4 [67:5MT/66:5LXX]. Rahlfs and Göttingen read εὐθύς. 56 Prov 17:14. Rationale for LXX translation of “strife” (Hebrew) as “righteousness” (LXX) unclear. 57 Prov 1:22. Muraoka doubts this equivalence. Hebrew/Aramaic Index to the Septuagint, 123.

131

C. Analysis of Arguments for the Relational Interpretation III. Correctness Speaking righteousness, telling the truth Just balances, weights Doing something correctly

26 10 10 6

9.4 3.6 3.6 2.2

14 7 1 6

5.3 2.7 0.4 2.3

IV. Difficult cases

13

4.7

16

6.1

276

100

264

100

Total

Table 7 shows the categories of usage, comparing the semantic range of ‫צדק‬/ ֶ  ֶ ‫צדקה‬ ָ   ָ  ְ in the Hebrew Bible with that of δικαιοσύνη in the LXX (excluding the Apocrypha). The differences are statistically insignificant and are to be expected in any attempt to translate from one language to another, where the semantic ranges of words may be overlapping but not exact; such differences are especially to be expected in a translation done by various translators over a period of several centuries. The decrease in the “legal righteousness” category from 123 (MT) to 112 (LXX) should not be interpreted to mean that the LXX is less interested in legal righteousness than the MT. The explanation is that the LXX uses other words to translate “righteousness,” such as δίκαιος, δικαίως, etc. The increase in the “ethical righteousness” category from 114 (MT) to 122 (LXX) is caused primarily by the use of δικαιοσύνη to render words other than ‫צדק‬/ ֶ  ֶ ‫צדקה‬ ָ   ָ  ְ or words for which there is no Hebrew equivalent, a phenomenon that occurs 30 times in the “ethical righteousness” category and 19 times in the “legal righteousness” category (see Table 6 for a list of these words). Table 7 confirms Anneli Aejmelaeus’s and J. Ross Wagner’s claim that the religious and theological content of the LXX is for the most part identical with the theology of the Hebrew Old Testament.

C. Analysis of Arguments for the Relational Interpretation Now that we have surveyed the semantic range of ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ ָ   ָ  ְ and δικαιοσύνη in the Hebrew Bible and in the Septuagint, respectively, we turn to the heart of this chapter, that is, weighing the arguments for the relational interpretation. There are seven primary arguments. Although Cremer himself did not enumerate them, these are the seven arguments that I discerned by a careful analysis of the opening chapter of his book Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre im Zusammenhange ihrer geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen.58 I will focus primarily on Cremer’s arguments, but along the way I will also take note of various restatements and refinements by later scholars. 58 Hermann Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre im Zusammenhange ihrer geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen (2nd ed.; Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1900).

132

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

1. Righteousness as “Thoroughly Positive” Cremer quotes dozens of passages from Deutero-Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, Hosea, Malachi, and the Psalms that use “righteousness” positively, that is, in a way that at first seems incompatible with the notion of distributive or retributive justice. On the basis of these passages, Cremer argues that the fundamental concept (Grundbegriff) of “righteousness,”59 as expressed through the words derived from the Hebrew root ‫צדק‬, is never negative (i.e., it never denotes punishment) but always positive60 (i.e., it always denotes saving righteousness, or what he calls iustitia salutifera), and that the only explanation for this is that “righteousness” in Hebrew is, at its base, a relational concept (Verhältnisbegriff). Cremer writes that this positive, beneficent, salvific use of “righteousness” is “highly surprising,” even “impossible,” to us.61 Yet, Cremer goes on to say, it is understandable that “recent” (late 19th-century) scholars – and here he cites Ludwig Diestel, Albrecht Ritschl, and Hermann Schulz62 – have attempted to understand the OT concept of the righteousness of God in a totally positive sense as equivalent to God’s unerring determination to fulfill the aim of his love toward his creatures.63 But Cremer criticizes this interpretation because it does away with any judicial or forensic aspect. He argues that, rather than totally eliminating the judicial aspect of ‫צדק‬, there is a better solution to the problem, namely, his relational theory: ‫ צדק‬and its derivates always stand in a social and forensic sense and everywhere refer to a relationship (Verhältnis) in which one has to become “righteous” to the other. So we can see that there is no conflict between God’s righteousness and God’s grace, that the exercise of 59 See Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre, 33-39, where he repeatedly speaks of der Grundgedanke/Grundbegriff der ‫צדק‬. He thinks that the relational understanding of this word-concept is “perfectly adequate for the understanding of the whole linguistic usage” (des gesamten Sprachgebrauchs) of all Hebrew derivatives of the ‫ צדק‬stem (p. 39). Relevant in this connection are the strictures of James Barr against (1) the Cremer/Kittel habit of confusing words and concepts, and (2) the notion that each Hebrew stem has a “root meaning” that underlies all of its various forms. The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), 100-6, 209-11. 60 Cremer claims that righteousness in the OT is “not a negative, but thoroughly positive” concept (nicht ein negativer, sondern ein durchaus positiver), that it “turns itself only to one side” (wendet sich nur nach einer Seite), namely, to help those who are oppressed and need justice, and that it “always comes to the good” of those with whom one stands in relationship (kommt … immer denen zu gute, zu denen er in Verhältnis steht). Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre, 23, 29, 37. 61 Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre, 17. 62 See Chapter 1 for discussion. Ludwig Diestel, “Die Idee der Gerechtigkeit, vorzüglich im Alten Testament, biblisch-theologisch dargestellt,” Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie 5 (1860): 173-253; Albrecht Ritschl, Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung, Zweiter Band: Der biblische Stoff der Lehre (3rd ed.; Bonn: A. Marcus, 1889), 102-13; Hermann Schultz, Alttestamentliche Theologie: Die Offenbarungsreligion auf ihrer vorchristlichen Entwickelungsstufe (5th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896), 424-5. 63 Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre, 17-18.

C. Analysis of Arguments for the Relational Interpretation

133

righteousness on God’s part is grace, that his judicial righteousness is salvific and stands in the closest connection with his goodness and faithfulness, so that righteousness and faithfulness are synonymous, and that righteousness and grace can stand in parallel. One must only observe that the proper purpose of God’s righteousness-activity or judging is not negative, but thoroughly positive, not punishment, but … the defense of right, the defense of those who are in the right and who desire to come to their right over against a world that treats them as having no right.64

The key here is the phrase, “the defense of right.” Cremer is trying to explain how righteousness can be a totally positive thing, equivalent to salvation. His explanation is that righteousness has to do with the establishment or defense of justice/right in cases where it has been taken away. When God comes to restore a person to his rights, he is acting as a righteous judge, the person involved is now in the right, and the result is an act of judgment which brings salvation. This is actually correct and cannot be denied, but Cremer has not yet shown how righteousness is to be conceived of as a relational concept distinct from iustitia distributiva. God’s acting as a righteous judge by vindicating the oppressed is in fact within the orbit of iustitia distributiva, since the vindication of the oppressed typically occurs precisely by means of a divine verdict in favor of the oppressed and against the oppressor and sometimes even a punitive judgment upon the oppressor. How does Cremer see this vindication motif as connected to his thesis that righteousness is a relational concept? It is here that Cremer’s logic goes awry. He begins with the Diestel/Ritschl presupposition that God’s righteousness is a thoroughly positive or salvific concept in the OT; yet, having rejected the Diestel/Ritschl explanation, viz., that God’s righteousness is his acting in his government of the world (Weltregierung) consistently with his aim of unerring love toward his creatures, Cremer puts forward a different explanation, viz., the relational theory of righteousness. Cremer’s theory goes like this: since righteousness in general (whether divine or human) is constituted only in the context of a relationship, righteousness is not conformity to an abstract ideal or norm outside or above the relationship, but rather is the fulfillment of the demands that the relationship carries with itself. The concept of righteousness is in fact a relational concept, which derives not from a relationship to an ideal norm, but from a relationship between two related parties, which relationship brings claims/demands with itself, the fulfillment of which constitutes righteousness. 65

As applied to God’s righteousness, Cremer argues that the relationship in view is the covenant between God and his people, a covenant in which he has promised to come to the defense of his people’s rights. Therefore, when he acts to punish their oppressors, thereby vindicating them, he is doing so in fulfillment of

64



65

Ibid., 23. Ibid., 53.

134

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

his covenant promises. “The righteousness of God” is God’s delivering, saving activity, helping his people to their rights against those who have trampled on their rights, in accordance with his covenant faithfulness. “The proper purpose of God’s righteousness-activity or judging is not negative, but thoroughly positive.”66 In the passages Cremer cites, especially those in the Psalms and Deutero-Isaiah, it is evident that there is a measure of truth to Cremer’s interpretation. God’s “righteousness,” in many passages, consists in his activity of delivering his people by means of judgment upon their enemies. In these contexts, “righteousness” has a salvific meaning without losing its judicial connotations. So far Cremer is correct and indeed quite helpful when he analyzes these passages in terms of the image of God as the divine king who helps the oppressed to their Recht (right/justice) by vindicating them in the face of their oppressors who trample on their rights. He speaks of this as “the defense of right, the defense of those who are in the right and who desire to come to their right over against a world that treats them as having no right.”67 In this context, the righteousness of God is the righteousness of the judge issuing a verdict between the two opponents at law, the oppressor and the oppressed; and the righteousness or vindication of the oppressed by the divine judge corresponds to the righteousness of the judge, so that God’s righteousness is a delivering righteousness, a verdict of righteousness from the righteous divine judge to the righteous or vindicated plaintiff. All of this is helpful and in fact correct. But Cremer goes beyond the evidence when he assumes that “righteousness” is never negative but “thoroughly positive,” and then from this he makes the logical leap that righteousness is fundamentally relational and that “righteousness and faithfulness are synonymous.” Cremer has not fundamentally distanced himself from the Ritchlian assault on the notion of God’s distributive justice. It is not merely that Cremer is arguing that the root ‫ צדק‬is used in an exclusively positive sense while presumably allowing other words to fulfill the function of distributive justice. Rather, Cremer is arguing that the “righteousness” word-concept (Begriff) in the Hebrew Bible is exclusively and thoroughly positive. At its base, this is much more than a lexical claim; it is a theological claim about the very concept of “righteousness” in biblical theology. In essence, Cremer rejects the notion of God’s distributive justice. Cremer’s rejection of this concept of God’s righteousness – i.e., as a distributive righteousness deliberating between reward and punishment – comes to the fore in this statement: Not a single passage reads as if it merely presented the thought of righteousness deliberating between reward and punishment, or as if the aim of righteousness were a judicial balancing exercise … I do not have in mind a forced reduction of this concept to that of iustitia distributiva.



66



67

Ibid., 23. Ibid., 23.

C. Analysis of Arguments for the Relational Interpretation

135

In the entire Old Testament, the righteousness of God is and remains iustitia salutifera, because its essence accords with iustitia justificatoria, that is, because its essence is to create right forthose who need it, or to exercise justice on behalf of God’s people and thereby to help them.68

Note Cremer’s sweeping language that “not a single passage” (keine einzige Stelle) supports the notion of the divine distributive justice. In addition, he says that the very “essence” (Wesen) of the righteousness of God in the Old Testament is that it is a saving righteousness (iustitia salutifera) that creates right and salvation for those who need it. To interpret the concept of “righteousness” in its most basic terms as distributive righteousness (iustitia distributiva) is a “forced reduction” (Herabdrückung) to a foreign conceptual mold. “The shrunken view of righteousness as essentially distributiva without regard to the outcome is connected with the powerful influence of Roman law.”69 By contrast, righteousness in the biblical religion is “connected with the existing relationship between [God] and Israel” and is “based on the essence of the Old Testament covenant concept (Bundesbegriff).”70 The claim that “righteousness” is positive in every case is simply contrary to the evidence. Whether Cremer means (a) in every instance of divine “righteousness” or (b) in every case of “righteousness” whether divine or human is unclear, but it does not matter, for counter-examples in both categories are readily available. That is, there are a number of cases where divine “righteousness” is not salvific but simply denotes judgment. First, there are seven passages where someone recognizes that “God is righteous or just” (six using the adjective ‫)צדּיק‬ ִ ַ for bringing judgment upon them for their rebellion or sin: Exodus 9:27 Then Pharaoh sent and called Moses and Aaron and said to them, “This time I have sinned; the Lord is in the right (‫הצדּיק‬ ‫יהוה‬ ִ ַ  ַ     ָ    ְ / ὁ κύριος δίκαιος), and I and my people are in the wrong” (ESV). 2 Chronicles 12:1-6 When the rule of Rehoboam was established and he was strong, he abandoned the law of the Lord, and all Israel with him. 2 In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, because they had been unfaithful to the Lord, Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem 3 with 1,200 chariots and 60,000 horsemen. ... 4 And he took the fortified cities of Judah and came as far as Jerusalem. 5 Then Shemaiah the prophet came to Rehoboam and to the princes of Judah, who had gathered at Jerusalem because of Shishak, and said to them, “Thus says the Lord, ‘You abandoned me, so I have abandoned you to the hand of Shishak.’” 6 Then the princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves and said, “The Lord is righteous” (‫יהוה‬ ‫צדּיק‬/ ָ ְ       ִ ַ Δίκαιος ὁ κύριος) (ESV).

Ibid., 31-2, 33. Ibid., 38. 70 Ibid., 38.



68



69



136

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

Ezra 9:15 “O Lord the God of Israel, you are just (‫אתּה‬ ִ ַ / δίκαιος σύ), for we are left a remnant that ָ  ַ ‫צדּיק‬ has escaped, as it is today. Behold, we are before you in our guilt, for none can stand before you because of this” (ESV). Nehemiah 9:32-33 “Now, therefore, our God, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who keeps covenant and steadfast love, let not all the hardship seem little to you that has come upon us, upon our kings, our princes, our priests, our prophets, our fathers, and all your people, since the time of the kings of Assyria until this day. 33 Yet you have been righteous (‫צדּיק‬ ִ ַ ‫ואתּה‬ ָ   ַ / καὶ σὺ δίκαιος) in all that has come upon us, for you have dealt faithfully and we have acted wickedly” (ESV).71 32

Lamentations 1:18 ָ     ְ ‫צדּיק הוּא‬ “The Lord is in the right (‫יהוה‬ ִ ַ / Δίκαιός ἐστι κύριος), for I have rebelled against his word; but hear, all you peoples, and see my suffering; my young women and my young men have gone into captivity” (ESV). Daniel 9:7 “To you, O Lord, belongs righteousness (‫הצּדקה‬ ‫ ְל‬/ σοί, κύριε, ἡ δικαιοσύνη – LXX ָ ָ  ְ  ַ     ‫אדני‬ ָ  ׂ     ֲ      & Th), but to us open shame, as at this day, to the men of Judah, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to all Israel, those who are near and those who are far away, in all the lands to which you have driven them, because of the treachery that they have committed against you” (ESV). Daniel 9:14 “Therefore the Lord has kept ready the calamity and has brought it upon us, for the Lord our God is righteous (‫אהינוּ‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫כּי־צדּיק‬ ֵ    ֱ    ָ   ְ       ִ ַ      ִ / ὅτι δίκαιος κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν – LXX & Th) in all the works that he has done, and we have not obeyed his voice” (ESV).

The above seven passages belong to the same genre, that is, a Gerichtsdoxologie or confession of divine righteousness in the face of God’s just judgment against human sin.72 Second, there are four passages in the Psalms that are general affirmations of the theological truth that God is a righteous judge who punishes the wicked:

71 Compare the earlier statement: “You found his [Abraham’s] heart faithful before you, and made a covenant to give to his offspring the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Perizzite, the Jebusite, and the Girgashite. And you have kept your promise, for you are ִַ righteous (‫”)צדּיק‬ (Neh 9:8 ESV). To keep one’s promises is “righteous,” but not all “righteousness” is the keeping of one’s promises. Mark A. Seifrid, “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid; WUNT II/140; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 424. 72 F. Horst, “Die Doxologien im Amosbuch,” ZAW 47 (1929): 45-54; von Rad, Old Testament Theology (trans. D. M. G. Stalker; Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1962), 1.356-59.

C. Analysis of Arguments for the Relational Interpretation

137

Psalm 7:11-12 [7:12-13MT/LXX] 11 “God is a righteous judge ( ‫צדּיק‬ ‫שׁוֹפט‬ ‫אהים‬ ִ ַ      ֵ       ִ        ֱ / ὁ θεὸς κριτὴς δίκαιος), and a God who feels indignation every day. 12 If a man does not repent, God will whet his sword; he has bent and readied his bow” (ESV). Psalm 11:4-7 [10:4-7LXX] 4 “The Lord is in his holy temple; the Lord’s throne is in heaven; his eyes see, his eyelids test, the children of man. 5 The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence. 6 Let him rain coals on the wicked; fire and sulfur and a scorching wind shall be the portion of their cup. 7 ָ   ְ    ִ ַ      ִ / ὅτι δίκαιος κύριος); For the Lord is righteous (‫יהוה‬ ‫כּי־צדּיק‬ ֵ              ָ  ְ / δικαιοσύνας ἠγάπησεν); he loves righteous deeds (‫אָהב‬ ‫צדקת‬ ָ   ָ / εὐθύτητα) shall behold his face” (ESV). the upright (‫ישׁר‬ Psalm 50:3-7 [49:3-7LXX] “Our God comes; he does not keep silence; before him is a devouring fire, around him a mighty tempest. 4 He calls to the heavens above and to the earth, that he may judge (‫לדין‬ ִ ַָ / διακρῖναι) his people: 5 ‘Gather to me my faithful ones, who made a covenant with me by sacrifice!’ 6 The heavens declare his righteousness (‫ויּנּידוּ‬ ‫שׁמים‬ ‫צדק‬ ִ  ַ ַ      ִ   ַ    ָ       ְ  ִ / καὶ ἀναγγελοῦσιν οἱ οὐρανοὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ), ִ        ֱ    ִ  ‫שׁפט‬     ֵ ׂ ‫ הוּא‬/ ὅτι ὁ θεὸς κριτής ἐστιν) for God himself is judge! (‫כּי־אהים‬ Selah. 7 ‘Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, I will testify against you. I am God, your God’” (ESV). 3

Psalm 129:1-4 [128:1-4LXX] 1 “Greatly have they afflicted me from my youth”— let Israel now say— 2 “Greatly have they afflicted me from my youth, yet they have not prevailed against me. 3 The plowers plowed upon my back; they made long their furrows.” 4 The Lord is righteous (‫צדּיק‬ ‫יהוה‬ ִ ַ   ָ    ְ / κύριος δίκαιος); he has cut the cords of the wicked” (ESV).

Finally, there are four passages in Isaiah in which the noun “righteousness” (whether masculine or feminine) is used in reference to God’s justice in punishing the wicked. These passages are significant for being in Isaiah, because they prove that Isaiah does not use “righteousness” in an exclusively saving sense.

138

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

Isaiah 5:15-16 15 “Man is humbled, and each one is brought low, and the eyes of the haughty are brought low. 16 But the Lord of hosts is exalted in justice (‫בּמּשׁפּט‬ ָ   ָ   ְ   ִ / ἐν κρίματι), and the Holy God shows himself holy in righteousness (‫בּצדקה‬ ָ    ְ   ִ    ַ / ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ)” (ESV).73 Isaiah 10:22-23 22 “For though your people Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will return. Destruction is decreed, overflowing with righteousness (‫צדקה‬ ָ   ָ    ְ / ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ). 23 For the Lord God of hosts will make a full end, as decreed, in the midst of all the earth” (ESV). Isaiah 28:17 “And I will make justice the line, and righteousness (‫צדקה‬ ָ    ָ  ְ / ἡ ἐλεημοσύνη μου) the plumb line; and hail will sweep away the refuge of lies, and waters will overwhelm the shelter” (ESV). Isaiah 42:21-25 The Lord was pleased, for his righteousness’ sake (‫צדק‬ ‫למען‬ ְ  ִ     ַ   ַ   ְ / ἵνα δικαιωθῇ), to magnify his law and make it glorious. 22 But this is a people plundered and looted; they are all of them trapped in holes and hidden in prisons; they have become plunder with none to rescue, spoil with none to say, “Restore!” 23 Who among you will give ear to this, will attend and listen for the time to come? 24 Who gave up Jacob to the looter, and Israel to the plunderers? Was it not the Lord, against whom we have sinned, in whose ways they would not walk, and whose law they would not obey? 25 So he poured on him the heat of his anger and the might of battle; it set him on fire all around, but he did not understand; it burned him up, but he did not take it to heart (ESV). 21

73 “In light of this very passage, [Isa] 5:16, one cannot agree with the generalizing conclusion of K. Koch … that ‫ צדק‬and ‫ צדקה‬are never used to refer to a punishing action, but only to actions which bring benefit … The punishment of the wicked person would also be part of Yahweh’s acting in a righteous way.” Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary (trans. Thomas H. Trapp; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 206. Wildberger is challenging Klaus Koch’s confident but clearly erroneous claim that ‫צדק‬ ָ     ָ  ְ “are never used to describe inflictֶ  ֶ       and ‫צדקה‬ ing punishment.” Koch, “Is There a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old Testament?” in Theodicy in the Old Testament (ed. James L. Crenshaw; IRT 4; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 77. Wildberger notes similar generalizations by Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1.377, and F. Horst, RGG3 2.1404.

C. Analysis of Arguments for the Relational Interpretation

139

In addition to the above 15 texts which use “righteousness” in a punitive or retributive sense, there are many more cases were human “righteousness” does not denote “salvation” but simply denotes either “upright behavior,” or “the right decision of a judge,” or something similar, as I have demonstrated in the overall analysis above. So Cremer’s claim that “righteousness” is always positive is simply false. Having made the (incorrect) assumption that “righteousness” is always positive, beneficent, or salvific, Cremer then tries to explain this (alleged but factually untrue) phenomenon (that “righteousness” is always positive) by arguing that it is understandable, since “righteousness” is a Verhältnisbegriff or a relational concept, which, as he defines it, means that “righteousness” is the fulfillment of the obligations arising from a specific relationship or covenant. On this view, God’s saving acts of delivering his people in the Psalms and Deutero-Isaiah are termed “righteousness” because he is acting to fulfill his covenant obligations to his people. But since the assumption that “righteousness” is always positive is incorrect to begin with, there is no need to explain the salvific/beneficent usage of “righteousness” in the OT, much less to resort to the Verhältnisbegriff hypothesis. A better explanation is that God’s saving activity is, in these passages, described in judicial terms, since God is righteously executing justice against Israel’s enemies and righteously vindicating Israel against her oppressors. On this alternate view, “righteousness” retains its normative meaning as a Normbegriff, without the need to resort to the Verhältnisbegriff hypothesis. In addition, the Cremer relational theory is seriously called into question by an analysis of the analogous lexical behavior of ‫משׁפּט‬ ָ    ְ    ִ (“judgment, justice”) in the Old Testament. The Hebrew word ‫משׁפּט‬ ָ    ְ    ִ belongs to the same semantic domain ֶ  ֶ        ָ     ָ  ְ and is in fact the closest word to being its synonym.74 Although as ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ the terms are not interchangeable in every context, they are used interchangeably ֶ  ֶ        ֵ    ְ     ׂ in some contexts, e.g., in the phrase “just balances” in Lev 19:36 (‫צדק‬ ‫)מאזני‬ and Prov 16:11 (‫משׁפּט‬ Or, again, in one verse both terms are used: “The ָ    ְ    ִ ‫)מאזני‬. ֵ  ְ  ׂ Lord works righteousness and justice for all who are oppressed” (‫לכל־עשׁוּקים‬  ִ        ֲ           ָ    ְ         ‫וּמשׁפּטים‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫צדקת‬ ‫)עשׂה‬ ִ     ָ    ְ ִ           ָ     ְ          ָ  ְ       ֵ ֹ (Ps 103:6 ESV); but in another only one is used: “The Lord executes justice for the oppressed” (‫ׁוּקים‬ ‫לעשׁ‬ ‫)עשׂה‬ ִ      ֲ    ָ   ‫משׁפּט‬       ָ    ְ    ִ           ֶ ֹ (Ps 146:7 ESV). Clearly the two terms are very close synonyms. By my count, the two terms occur in parallel 69 times in the Hebrew Bible.75 Now the critical observation about ‫משׁפּט‬ ָ    ְ    ִ is that, like ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬, ֶ  ֶ        ָ     ָ  ְ it can be used in parallel with both the verb and the noun for salvation (verb: ‫ישׁע‬ ַ   ָ       – Pss 74 Bo Johnson says that, while the two terms seem synonymous on account of the frequency with which they are used in parallelism, they nevertheless have distinct nuances. “The semantic field of ‘decision, judgment, law’ attaches to mišpāṭ, while ṣdq focuses on the principle of ‘what is right, correct.’” TDOT 12.247-8. 75 Bo Johnson says the two terms occur in parallel 80 times. TDOT 12.247.

140

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

ָ           ְ – Isa 59:11),76 the verb redeem/ransom (‫פּדה‬ 72:1-4; 76:9) (noun: ‫ישׁוּעה‬ ָ  ָ – Isa 1:27), lovingkindness (‫חסד‬ ֶ   ֶ       – Ps 101:1; Hos 2:19; 12:6; Mic 6:8; Zech 7:9), ֶ   ֱ – Ps 111:7; Isa 42:3; Zech 7:9), mercy/compassion (‫רחמים‬ faithfulness (‫אמת‬ ִ  ֲ   ַ – Isa 30:18; Hos 2:19; Zech 7:9), and wisdom (‫חכמה‬ ָ   ְ   ָ – Ps 37:30). Like ‫צדק‬/ ֶ  ֶ        ‫צדקה‬, ָ     ָ  ְ it can be translated vindicate (Ps 7:8 – verb) or vindication (Ps 17:2), can signify one’s defense (Ps 35:23), one’s right (Ps 9:4; Mic 7:9) or one’s cause (Lam 3:59), and can have a beneficent meaning (bonam partem) of “judgments for all who are oppressed” (Ps 103:6; cp. 72:1-4; 140:12; 146:7; Jer 21:12). Also, like ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ        ָ     ָ   ְ it is used six times with possessive pronouns referring to God’s ‫משׁפּט‬: ָ    ְ    ִ “my justice/judgment” (Isa 51:4; Jer 1:16; Ezek 39:21; Zeph 3:8) and “his justice/judgment” (Zeph 2:3; 3:5). In five of these six cases, God’s ‫משׁפּט‬ ָ    ְ    ִ is negative and refers to his punishment, wrath, or judgment on the wicked. Only ָ    ְ    ִ used in once (“I will set my justice for a light to the peoples,” Isa 51:4) is ‫משׁפּט‬ a positive sense; this is the classic Isaianic passage that we will examine below where God’s salvation and God’s ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ        ָ     ָ  ְ occur in parallel (“my righteousness draws near, my salvation has gone out,” etc. – Isa 51:5, 6, 8). So there is a functional similarity and overlap between ‫משׁפּט‬ ָ    ְ    ִ and ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ        ָ     ָ  ְ in terms of how the words are used, which is not surprising given that they belong to the same semantic domain. And yet for all that, Cremer admits that ‫משׁפּט‬ ָ    ְ    ִ is not a thoroughly positive term.77 No doubt he recognizes this because it is frequently used in a strictly negative, punitive sense as well (e.g., Ps 149:9; Isa 3:14; 5:16; 26:9; 34:5; Jer 1:16; 4:12; 48:21, 47; Ezek 5:8; 16:38; 23:24, 45; 39:21; Hos 6:5; Hab 1:12; Zeph 3:8, ֶ  ֶ        ָ    ְ    ִ sheds light on the ways in which ‫צדק‬/ 15). The analogous behavior of ‫משׁפּט‬ ָ     ָ  ְ can be used. Both terms or sets of terms can be used in positive contexts, ‫צדקה‬ without thereby being positive words, because they provide a further specification of the nature of the concept with which they are in parallel. For example, in parallel with oppression it specifies the nature of the oppression as one that ocֶ  ׁ curred via a miscarriage of justice in a legal context: “by oppression (‫)עצר‬ and judgment (‫)משׁפּט‬ ָ    ְ    ִ he was taken away” (Isa 53:8 NIV). In parallel with peace it specifies the moral basis of such well-being: “If only you had paid attention to

76 Indeed, the verb ‫שׁפט‬ ַ   ָ   from which the noun ‫משׁפּט‬ ָ ְ ִ is formed occasionally has the connotation of salvation or deliverance. E.g., “May the Lord therefore be judge and give sentence between me and you, and see to it and plead my cause and deliver me (‫)וישׁפּטני‬ ִ  ֵ ְ    ְ   ִ ְ from your hand” (1 Sam 24:15 ESV). The verb ‫שׁפט‬ ַ   ָ   is normally translated “judge,” but here it is translated “deliver” (cp. RSV, NIV, and NASB). Cp. “Vindicate me (‫)שׁפטני‬, ִ  ֵ ְ     ָ defend my cause against an ungodly people, from the deceitful and unjust man deliver me (‫”)תפלּטני‬ ִ  ֵ ְ      ַ ְ (Ps 43:1 ESV). 77 “Here lies the point where the concepts of righteousness (Gerechtigkeit) and judgment (Gericht) differ from one another: one can pray to be spared from God’s judgment but not from God’s righteousness.” Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre, 29. In Cremer’s usage, following the German Bible, Gerechtigkeit = ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬, ֶ   ֶ        ָ     ָ   ְ while Gericht = ‫משׁפּט‬. ָ ְ ִ

C. Analysis of Arguments for the Relational Interpretation

141

my commands, your peace (‫)שׁלם‬ ָ would have been like a river, your righteousness (‫)צדקה‬ ָ     ָ  ְ like the waves of the sea” (Isa 48:18 NIV; cp. 60:17 for another parallel between peace and righteousness).78 ָ ְ ִ is the phenomenon of Another analogy to ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬, ֶ  ֶ ָ     ָ  ְ in addition to ‫משׁפט‬, the ‫ ִריב‬terminology in the Hebrew Bible. The verb means “to bring a lawsuit,” “to argue or plead a case.” The noun is “a case,” “a cause.” These are neutral definitions. However, both negative and positive usages abound in addition to the neutral. When used negatively, the verb is often translated “to quarrel,” “to contend,” “to dispute,” “to accuse,” “to bring charges.” When used positively, ‫ ִריב‬terminology is salvific and vindicatory: Deuteronomy 33:7 “With your hands contend for him (‫ ָרב ל‬/ διακρινοῦσιν αὐτῷ), and be a help against his adversaries” (ESV). 1 Samuel 24:15 “May the Lord therefore be judge and give sentence between me and you, and see to it and plead my cause (‫את־ריבי‬ ‫ירב‬ / κρίναι τὴν κρίσιν μου) and deliver me from your hand ִ     ִ      ֶ          ֵ   ָ (‫מיּדךּ‬ ‫וישׁפּטני‬ ֶ  ָ    ִ      ִ  ֵ ְ    ְ     ִ ְ / καὶ δικάσαι μοι ἐκ χειρός σου)” (ESV).79 Psalm 35:23 “Awake and rouse yourself for my vindication (‫למשׁפּטי‬ ִ   ָ    ְ ִ ְ / τῇ κρίσει μου), for my cause (‫לריבי‬ ִ    ִ   ְ / εἰς τὴν δίκην μου), my God and my Lord!” (ESV). Psalm 43:1 “Vindicate me (‫שׁפטני‬ ‫וריבה‬ ִ        ִ           ָ   ִ  ְ / καὶ δίκασον τὴν δίκην ִ  ֵ   ְ   ָ / κρῖνόν με), defend my cause (‫ריבי‬ μου) against an ungodly people, from the deceitful and unjust man deliver me (‫תפלּטני‬ ִ   ֵ      ְ     ַ  ְ / ῥῦσαί με)” (ESV). Psalm 119:154 “Plead my cause (‫ריבי‬ ‫ריבה‬ ִ  ֵ ָ  ְ   / καὶ λύτρωσαί ִ        ִ              ָ      ִ  / κρῖνον τὴν κρίσιν μου) and redeem me (‫וּגאלני‬ με); give me life according to your promise!” (ESV). Isaiah 19:20 “He will send them a savior and defender, and deliver them (‫וּהצּילם‬ ‫ורב‬ ָ ִ ִ   ְ    ָ ָ ‫מוֹשׁיע‬ ַ ִ / ἄνθρωπον, ὃς σώσει αὐτούς, κρίνων σώσει αὐτούς)” (ESV). Jeremiah 50:34 “Their Redeemer (‫גּאלם‬ ָ   ֲ ֹ / ὁ λυτρούμενος αὐτούς) is strong; the Lord of hosts is his name. He will surely plead their cause (‫את־ריבם‬ ‫יריב‬ ‫ ִריב‬/ κρίσιν κρινεῖ πρὸς τοὺς ἀντιδίκους αὐτοῦ)” ָ     ִ      ֶ     ִ ָ (ESV).

“General well-being is the result when all persons in a community are concerned to do what is truly right in the sight of God.” John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 2.282. Note the parallel, “the fruit of righteousness will be peace” (Isa 32:17 NIV), and the converse, stated twice, “There is no peace … for the wicked” (Isa 48:22; 57:21 NIV). 79 ָ   ְ      ִ above, the RSV, In keeping with the discussion of the positive/salvific usage of ‫משׁפּט‬ NASB, and NIV also translate ‫שׁפט‬ ַ ָ   as “deliver” here.

78

142

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

Jeremiah 51:36-37 “Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will plead your cause (‫את־ריב‬ ‫הנני־רב‬ ֵ   ִ    ֶ ָ ִ   ְ  ִ / Ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ κρινῶ τὴν ἀντίδικόν σου) and take vengeance for you … and Babylon shall become a heap of ruins, the haunt of jackals’” (ESV). Lamentations 3:58-59 “You have taken up my cause, O Lord (‫נפשׁי‬ ‫ריבי‬ ֵ  ִ   ‫אדני‬ ָ   ֲ   ‫רבתּ‬ ָ     ְ    ַ / Ἐδίκασας, κύριε, τὰς δίκας ִ   ְ  ַ               τῆς ψυχῆς μου); you have redeemed my life (‫חיּי‬ ָ ַ ‫גּאלתּ‬ ָ ְ ַ ָ / ἐλυτρώσω τὴν ζωήν μου). You have   seen the wrong done to me, O Lord; judge my cause (‫משׁפּטי‬ ִ   ָ      ְ ִ ‫שׁפטה‬ ָ ְ   ָ / ἔκρινας τὴν κρίσιν μου)” (ESV). Micah 7:9 “… until he pleads my cause (‫ריבי‬ ‫יריב‬ ‫אשׁר‬ ‫ ַעד‬/ ἕως τοῦ δικαιῶσαι αὐτὸν τὴν δίκην μου) ִ ִ    ִ ָ   ֶ ֲ    and executes judgment for me (‫משׁפּטי‬ ָ      ְ    ִ ‫ועשׂה‬ ָ ָ  ְ / καὶ ποιήσει τὸ κρίμα μου). He will bring me out ִ           to the light; I shall look upon his vindication (‫בּצדקתוֹ‬ ָ ְ ִ ְ / τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ)” (ESV).

As the above passages demonstrate, the ‫ ִריב‬terminology behaves very much like   ‫ש‬ ‫ ׁפּט‬ ָ ‫    ש‬ ְ ‫מ‬/‫ׁפט‬ ִ ַ ָ , which can be used neutrally, negatively, and positively. All three possibilities exist. Neither ‫  ׁפּט‬ ָ ‫      ש‬ ְ ‫מ‬, ִ nor ‫ריב‬,ִ nor ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ ָ     ָ  ְ are, in Cremer’s words, durchaus positiver. 2. The Appeal to Hebrew Parallelism Perhaps the most well known argument utilized by Cremer in support of his ֶ  ֶ ָ     ָ  ְ in the Old Testament is the frequent ocrelational interpretation of ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ currence of these terms in Hebrew parallelism with other positive terms, such as  ָ    ְ “lovingkindess” (‫)חסד‬,  ָ   ְ or ‫)תּשׁוּעה‬, ַ   ֵ or ‫ישׁוּעה‬ ַ   ֶ or ‫ישׁע‬ “salvation” (‫ישׁע‬ ֶ   ֶ “faithfulֶ   ֲ or ‫)אמוּנה‬, ness” (‫אמת‬ ָ     ֲ and so on. I will examine these passages in more detail below, but for now it is useful to cite three examples, one for each of the above three Hebrew words with which “righteousness” is used in parallelism: Isaiah 56:1  ָ   ְ is about to come; “My salvation (‫)ישׁוּעה‬ ָ     ָ  ְ is about to be revealed” (NASB). and my righteousness (‫)צדקה‬ Psalm 36:10 [36:11MT] “O continue your lovingkindness (‫)חסד‬ ֶ   ֶ to those who know you; ָ     ָ  ְ to the upright in heart” (NASB). and your righteousness (‫)צדקה‬ Psalm 143:1 “Hear my prayer, O Lord; give ear to my pleas for mercy! In your faithfulness (‫)אמוּנה‬ ָ       ֲ answer me, ָ     ָ  ְ (ESV) in your righteousness (‫”!)צדקה‬

a. Theoretical Observations on Hebrew Parallelism Before we look at the passages in detail, we must first make some theoretical observations concerning Cremer’s attempt to use parallelism to make “righteousness” equal to God’s saving activity as an expression of his covenant faithfulness.

C. Analysis of Arguments for the Relational Interpretation

143

The broader problem is that Cremer’s wooden approach fails to take account of the variety of ways in which Hebrew parallelism can set up semantic relationships between the key words that are in parallel. One semantic relationship that Cremer apparently did not consider is that of the hyponym variety of synonymity. A hyponym is a word whose semantic meaning is a specific subset of another word that has a more comprehensive or generic meaning. For example, “rose” is a hyponym of “flower.” In the present case, “faithfulness” can be viewed as a specific category within the more generic category of “righteousness.” As Mark Seifrid argues: All “covenant-keeping” is righteous behavior, but not all righteous behavior is “covenant-keeping.” It is misleading, therefore, to speak of “God’s righteousness” as his “covenant-faithfulness.” It would be closer to the biblical language to speak of “faithfulness” as “covenant-righteousness.”80

God’s “righteousness” includes his being faithful to keep his promises and deliver his people. But this does not mean that the word “righteousness” means faithfulness to a promissory covenant. All instances of faithfulness to a promissory covenant may be termed “righteousness,” but not all “righteousness” is faithfulness to a promissory covenant. Other semantic relationships can also be set up by means of Hebrew parallelismus membrorum. As James Kugel, Robert Alter, and J. P. Fokkelman have pointed out (as we saw in Chapter 2 on Methodological Considerations), parallelism is almost never purely synonymous; rather, each line brings its own semantic contribution so that the sum is greater than the parts. Parallelism enables us to see in stereo. This is particularly relevant to the passages where “righteousness” and “salvation” are used in parallelism: by putting these two concepts together, the writer is helping us to view God’s saving activity as at the same time judicial activity. Given the variety of conceptual, semantic, and even syntactical relationships that can be utilized in Hebrew parallelism, it is methodologically unsound to attempt to determine the semantic content of Hebrew words on this basis alone. Cremer’s relational theory of “righteousness,” which is the basis of the New Perspective claim that “the righteousness of God” is a cipher denoting “God’s saving faithfulness to his covenant,” rests on Robert Lowth’s outdated theory of Hebrew synonymous parallelism. Rather than equating “righteousness” with “faithfulness” (or “salvation”), it is better to see the instances in the Psalms and Isaiah where these terms are used in parallelism as “binoculars” in which these different concepts mutually interpret one another and lead to a picture that is larger than the sum of its parts.



80

Seifrid, “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism,” 424.

144

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

b. “Righteousness” and “Salvation” in Parallel I am going to examine a representative sample of the texts cited by Cremer in which “righteousness” is parallel with “salvation.” By doing some exegesis of these texts, I hope to show that Cremer’s attempt to negate the judicial dimension of “righteousness” in these passages is invalid and that, in fact, the juxtaposition of the two concepts suggests that the judicial element is still very much alive. Isaiah 45:8 “Drip down, O heavens, from above, and let the clouds pour down righteousness (‫;)צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ let the earth open up and salvation (‫)ישׁע‬ ַ   ֶ bear fruit, ָ     ָ  ְ spring up with it. and righteousness (‫)צדקה‬ I, the Lord, have created it” (NASB).

In this verse, the divine blessings of “righteousness” and “salvation” are bestowed on God’s people by divine grace and power. Just as rain comes down from heaven and the earth sprouts vegetation not of its own accord but by a supernatural power from above, so the righteousness and salvation given to God’s people are from God. “I, the Lord, have created it.” The parallelism of “righteousness” and “salvation” does not mean that “righteousness” should be translated as “salvation” or “deliverance,” for then the passage would be redundant. There is undoubtedly a discourse concept of “saving righteousness” arising from the parallelism of “righteousness” and “salvation,” but that discourse concept must be distinguished from the lexical concept of ‫צדקה‬, ָ     ָ  ְ which must still retain the meaning of “righteousness” in order to contribute to the discourse concept that arises from the parallelism as a whole. What, then, is the meaning of “righteousness” here? Oswalt says, “The saving of his people is the clearest expression of God’s essential character, to do right.”81 The same point is made by Seitz, who comments, “Whether experienced as šalôm or as violence, God’s activity with Israel, with Cyrus, and with the nations is consistent with and a manifestation of divine righteousness.”82 This is certainly true as far as it goes, but more needs to be said. The righteousness of God here is iustitia salutifera, that is, his justice expressed in the form of the divine activity of coming in power to judge, overthrow, and condemn the oppressors of God’s people, thereby vindicating God’s people over against their enemies and causing them to triumph in God’s deliverance as a particular form of distributive justice. This explains the first occurrence of “righteousness” (masculine), but what about the second (feminine)? The masculine is probably a reference to God’s own righteousness, that is, his judicial action resulting in deliverance and salvation; the feminine probably has to do with the result among humans, namely, ethical righteousness. The second “righteousness” (“and righteousness spring up

81



82

Oswalt, 2.206. Christopher R. Seitz, “The Book of Isaiah 40–66,” NIB 6.395.

C. Analysis of Arguments for the Relational Interpretation

145

with it”) is thus “earth’s responsive commitment … accepting the Lord’s salvation, living his righteousness.”83 Isaiah 45:21 “And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior (‫וּמוֹשׁיע‬ ‫;)אל־צדּיק‬ ַ     ִ   ִ ַ     ֵ there is none besides me” (ESV).

Here we have a slightly different case, since it is not one of the nouns for righteousness but the adjective ‫צדּיק‬ ִ ַ that is employed in connection with salvation. Nevertheless, it is clear that this word belongs to the same general category and must be interpreted along with the others. The context veritably cries out with one of Deutero-Isaiah’s main themes, the polemic against idolatry and the doctrine of the Creator God’s uniqueness over against all the false claimants to deity. As for the collocation of the words “righteous” and “Savior” to describe God, there is clearly an interpenetration of the two ideas; perhaps it is even a case of hendiadys. Sawyer says that the two terms overlap and mutually interpret one another: “The Saviour is just and righteous, and the righteous God is triumphant and saving.”84 It would not make sense to say that “righteous” here is synonymous with “saving,” for that would make the statement redundant, “A saving God and a Savior.” Note a parallel passage a few chapters earlier, Isaiah 43:3: “I am the Lord your God, the Holy One of Israel (‫ׁישׂראל‬ ֵ   ָ     ְ   ִ ‫)קדוֹשׁ‬, ְ your Savior   (‫”)מוֹשׁיע‬ (ESV). We would not infer from this verse that “holiness” is a thorֶ ִ oughly positive term that means “salvation,” or suppose that the Hebraic concept of holiness was beneficent as opposed to the Western or Greek notion of some “abstract conception of holiness” that involves making a distinction between the holy and unholy (a distinction made by the Old Testament itself). So here in Isa 45:21. The two epithets, “a righteous God” (‫)אל־צדּיק‬ ַ     ִ ִ  ַ       ֵ  and “Savior” (‫)מוֹשׁיע‬, should not be equated with one another, thereby swallowing up their distinctiveness; rather, each word must be allowed to make its unique semantic contribution to the total idea. The total idea or discourse concept is that the only true God, the only true Savior, accomplishes salvation by means of executing justice upon the enemies of God’s people, resulting in their deliverance and vindication, and in such a way that the demands of his justice are satisfied.85 This interpretation is borne out a few verses later, when the noun and the verb for righteousness are used to describe the nature of this salvation: “Only in the

83



84

2.99.

J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah (Downers Grove, InterVarsity, 1993), 360. John F. A. Sawyer, Isaiah (The Daily Study Bible; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986),

E. J. Young rightly says that Yahweh “has shown Himself to be just in that He has acted both in judgment and salvation in accordance with the strictest demands of His holiness. He is also a Savior, whose salvation is not proferred at the expense of his justice, but is accomplished to its satisfaction.” The Book of Isaiah, Vol. III: Chapters 40-66 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 215.

85

146

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

Lord, it shall be said of me, are righteousness (‫)צדקוֹת‬ ָ ְ and strength; to him shall come and be ashamed all who were incensed against him. In the Lord all the offspring of Israel shall be justified (or will be found righteous – NIV) (‫)יצדּקוּ‬ ְ  ְ   ִ and shall glory” (vv 24-25) (ESV). It can be debated whether this means that those who turn to the Lord will be made inherently righteous or be legally pronounced righteous; nevertheless, the use of the verb (the Qal imperfect of ‫)צדק‬ ַ  ָ expounds the meaning of the noun (‫צדקוֹת‬, ִ ַ  v 21) and sugָ ְ v 24) and the adjective (‫צדּיק‬, gests that God’s identity as “a righteous God and a Savior” is to be understood in terms of his bringing about a salvation that involves his making righteous or declaring righteous those who turn to him. And since this righteousness is found only “in the Lord,” it is not inappropriate to speak of “the righteousness of/from God” in this context, a righteousness that those who turn to God receive from him. It is even possible that Paul himself intertextually alludes to Isaiah 45:21-25 in several of the key passages that we will discuss later, especially 1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 2:17; Phil 3:9, which use the “in Christ” formula (or some equivalent) in connection with righteousness or justification.86 Nor is there any thought in this verse, or anywhere in the near context, that God’s saving activity is “righteous” in the sense that his salvation is the expression of his covenant faithfulness, or that he saves his covenant people in accordance with his faithfulness to his election of them. Although such statements would no doubt be perfectly good theology, the focus of the immediate context is not on God’s faithfulness to his people, but on the polemic against those – whether the rebellious covenant people or the idolatrous nations – who turn to their false gods for deliverance. The verses that immediately follow make this clear: “Turn to me and be saved,87 all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance’” (Isa 45:22-23) (ESV). The fact that God is “a righteous God and a Savior” is thus an argument against idolatry, whether that of the nations or that of the covenant people. All humans must turn to the one true Creator God as their source of salvation and deliverance, since he alone provides true, righteous deliverance. Nothing in the context suggests that “a righteous God” is code for God’s covenant faithfulness to Israel, a thought that would be out of place in the immediate context, which is a polemic against Gentile idolatry and a universal call to all the nations to acknowledge the one true God. Thus, Isaiah 45:21 does not show that “righteousness” in Hebrew means “salvation” or “covenant faithfulness.” This verse is perfectly consistent with the tra-

The LXX (as it has come down to us) does not employ the preposition ἐν directly in connection with the verb δικαιόω. However, it does use it in the near context: ἀπὸ κυρίου δικαιωθήσονται καὶ ἐν τῷ θεῷ ἐνδοξασθήσονται πᾶν τὸ σπέρμα τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραηλ (Isa 45:25). 87 ַ ָ – the same root as ‫מוֹשׁיע‬ ַ ִ “Be saved” is the Niphal imperative of ‫ישׁע‬ (Savior).

86

C. Analysis of Arguments for the Relational Interpretation

147

ditional understanding of righteousness as having to do with judicial correctness and/or activity.88 Isaiah 46:12-13 “Listen to me, you stubborn-hearted, ָ     ָ  ְ you who are far from righteousness (‫)צדקה‬. ָ     ָ  ְ near, I am bringing my righteousness (‫)צדקה‬ it is not far away;  ָ    ְ will not be delayed. and my salvation (‫)תּשׁוּעה‬  ָ    ְ to Zion, I will grant salvation (‫)תּשׁוּעה‬  ָ   ָ     ְ ִ to Israel” (NIV). my splendor (‫)תּפארה‬

Unless we are going to argue that “splendor” is another synonym for salvation, there is no need to take “righteousness” here as equivalent to salvation. The words “righteousness” and “splendor” help to flesh out what is involved when God brings about salvation: it is a salvation that (a) comes by means of his righteous judicial activity and (b) results in splendor or glory. But the terms are not equivalent. Of even greater importance is the fact that the word “righteousness” occurs in v 12 in a clearly moral or ethical sense: “Listen to me … you who are far from righteousness.” Israel’s glaring lack of righteousness is something that Isaiah has been at pains to highlight from the very first chapter. “See how the faithful city        ֶ  ֶ has become a harlot! She once was full of justice (‫;)משׁפּט‬ ָ ְ ִ righteousness (‫)צדק‬ used to dwell in her – but now murderers!” (Isa 1:21) (NIV) (cp. 5:7, 23; 26:10; 57:12; 58:2; 59:1-15; 64:6). Against the dark backdrop of Israel’s desperate lack of moral righteousness comes the promise of God’s righteousness. In God’s sovereign grace, and in spite of Israel’s hardness of heart, God is going to do something unexpected – he will bring his righteousness near, and so the unrighteous will be made/declared righteous and those falling short of God’s glory will be ָ     ָ  ְ has a moral meaning (“you who are far granted God’s splendor. If in v 12 ‫צדקה‬ from righteousness”), then in v 13 it must as well (“I am bringing my righteousness near”), although the way in which the divine righteousness is bestowed on Israel is not developed, i.e., it could be either by making Israel inherently righteous, or by declaring Israel forgiven, justified, and reckoned as righteous. I lean toward the latter in view of passages like Isa 45:25 (quoted above) and 53:11 (“by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to   be accounted as righteous [‫]יצדּיק‬, ִ ְ  ַ and he shall bear their iniquities” [ESV]), along with the consistency of this interpretation with Paul’s handling of the same theme. 88 Zech 9:9 is a parallel passage to Isa 45:21 in that it contains the same juxtaposition of the ִ ַ and a form of “to save” (in this case, the Niphal participle of ‫)ישׁע‬: adjective ‫צדּיק‬ “Rejoice ַ  ָ greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is com  ing to you; righteous and having salvation is he (‫ונשׁע הוּא‬ ‫צדּיק‬ ָ ְ        ִ  ַ / δίκαιος καὶ σῴζων αὐτός)” (ESV). The coming messianic king is characterized as “righteous” and “having salvation,” with the implication that he will bring salvation to the people by means of royal-judicial activity.

148

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

But the narrow lexical point does not rest on these larger biblical-theological decisions. Isaiah 46:12-13 makes a simple point: Israel’s lack of righteousness will be supplied by God himself. The act of doing so is an act of salvation, but this does not mean that righteousness is salvation. Rather, righteousness is the means of salvation (cp. Rom 1:16-18; see discussion in Chapter 6). God sovereignly brings his righteousness to bear on the situation of Israel’s sinful condition and alienation from righteousness. It is a judicial act that has a salvific result. And righteousness here is certainly not God’s covenant faithfulness, a thought that is totally foreign to the context. Isaiah 51:5, 6, 8 Verse 5: “My righteousness is near, My salvation has gone forth” (NASB). Verse 6: “My salvation will be forever, and My righteousness will not wane” (NASB). Verse 8: “My righteousness will be forever, and My salvation to all generations” (NASB).

Oswalt agrees with Cremer and interprets God’s righteousness here as “his faithfulness to the ancient promises,” “his faithfulness to his own nature and promises that culminate in human salvation.”89 These ideas may be present in the broader context as discourse concepts, but they should not be read into the lexical concept of the word “righteousness” per se. In fact, the opening line, “Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness (masc.), you who seek the Lord” (ESV),90 suggests that “my righteousness” (3x in vv 5, 6, and 8) also has an ethical meaning or at least an ethical context, but with a slight shift to the notion that the pursuit of righteousness in itself is nothing unless acknowledged by God. Thus “my righteousness” would mean “righteousness before God.” Although Oswalt himself adheres to the Cremer view, he also recognizes the ethical dimension of righteousness in v 1 and says, “Such persons will eventually come to know that the only righteousness they can ever produce is that which is given to them as a gift by the God they seek.”91 This is particularly clear when one recognizes

Oswalt, 2.334, 337. Some translate it, “you who pursue deliverance.” John L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah (AB 20; Garden City: Doubleday, 1968), 118; Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary (trans. by D. M. G. Stalker; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), 232. But clearly “righteousness” is the correct translation here, as is demonstrated by the use of the verb “pursue” and the parallel phrase, “you who seek the Lord.” R. N. Whybray, Isaiah 40–66 (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1975), 154-5. 91 Oswalt, 2.334.

89



90

C. Analysis of Arguments for the Relational Interpretation

149

Isaiah’s indictment of Israel up to this point, that they are a people who lack righteousness and who are in fact characterized by profound wickedness. Seitz makes the helpful connection with the Servant Song to follow in chapter 53: “In the suffering servant poem to follow, the servants will reach the conclusion that ‘the righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous’ (53:11). Without his yet knowing it, it will be through the servant that God’s righteousness is manifested and shared.”92 The ethical starting point of “righteousness” (righteousness sought, righteousness lacking, and righteousness provided by God) is reinforced by verse 7: “Listen to me, you who know righteousness (masc.), the people in whose heart is my law” (ESV). Motyer protests against the tendency of many commentators to translate “my righteousness” as “my deliverance”: Here, righteousness and salvation are parallel; the latter being what the Lord does; the former, the quality of that which infills it. The saving work satisfies every standard of the Lord’s righteous nature, meets every legal claim and discharges every debt before the eternal law. The tendency to offer translations like “deliverance” (RSV) must be resisted. There is no instance that actually demands such a translation, but the real problem is that what is essentially a description of the character of God is turned into a description of his acts. Righteousness infills all that he does because that is what he is.93

Motyer is correct that the translation of “my righteousness” as “my deliverance” is too one-sided, in that it eliminates the component of meaning that God’s saving activity is at the same time judicial activity in keeping with his “righteous nature.” Nevertheless, Motyer himself has too one-sided a conception, in that his emphasis on God’s righteousness as a divine “quality,” “nature,” or “character” misses the dynamic aspect of “righteousness” as a divine action (especially when ָ     ָ  ְ is used). If God’s “righteousness” is merely a static quality, the feminine ‫צדקה‬ how are we to make sense of the dynamic language of motion in Isa 51:5 (“My righteousness is near, My salvation has gone forth”)? There is an “event” quality to the divine righteousness in this text that is not sufficiently captured by reductively asserting that righteousness is a quality of God’s nature that “infills all that he does.” There are other passages that could be examined, but the above are sufficient to demonstrate that Cremer’s iustitia salutifera theory, while on the right track in recognizing the deliverance aspect of God’s righteousness, requires substantial modification with regard to the relational aspect. Cremer and his followers appeal to these instances of Hebrew parallelism, and others not examined here, to argue that “God’s righteousness” always denotes God’s saving activity as an expression of God’s covenant faithfulness. First, “God’s righteousness” in the OT is not “always” used in reference to God’s saving activity; sometimes, as we



92



93

Seitz, 448. Motyer, 405.

150

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

have seen, it is used negatively to refer to his justice in punishing the wicked. Second, the positive iustitia salutifera usage can be explained without recourse to the relational theory that righteousness is merely the fulfillment of the demands of the relationship. This particular usage is more legitimately explained as a particular subset of the distributive justice of God, since “my, his, your righteousness” (when predicated of God and used in the iustitia salutifera sense) is a saving, delivering, and vindicating righteousness, precisely because it is divine judicial activity, namely, the activity of vindicating his people by judging, condemning, and punishing their enemies, in particular the Babylonians who conquered and oppressed them. The appeal to Hebrew parallelism does not support Cremer’s desired conclusion, since it either presupposes Robert Lowth’s outdated theory of synonymous parallelism or involves what James Barr calls “totality transfer” in which discourse concepts are illegitimately transferred into lexical concepts. Hebrew parallelism does not always mean that the two members of the parallelism are synonymous. The relationship can be more nuanced. God is righteous when he judges the wicked, thereby delivering his people. In his article on the root for “salvation” words based on the ‫ ישע‬root in TDOT, John F. A. Sawyer acknowledges that in Deutero-Isaiah “salvation” and “righteousness” are closely related, even “virtually synonymous.” However, he does acknowledge the distinction between them. The distinction between these two closely related words can probably best be expressed in terms of the common secular usage of sedeq, saddiq, etc. with a human subject, in contrast to the almost exclusively theological application of yeshua, which has less explicitly forensic overtones.94

The words ‫צדק‬ ֶ  ֶ and ‫צדקה‬ ָ     ָ  ְ are commonly used in the secular sense with a human subject, e.g., a king or a judge (see analysis in section A above), whereas “salvation” is almost exclusively attributed to God. God alone saves, but when he does so, he saves in a manner that has analogies with human judicial activity. To simplistically translate ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ ָ     ָ  ְ as “salvation” is to leave out the forensic overtones uniquely contributed by ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ ָ     ָ  ְ when used in parallel with “salvation.” The discourse concepts in the surrounding context should not be allowed to overpower the lexical concepts of the words themselves. The manner in which God effects salvation is by a judicial act of defeating (and thus condemning) Israel’s foes and saving (and thus vindicating) formerly exiled Israel. Something more is at work than merely the idea that “the underlying principle of ‘salvation’ is God’s justice.”95 God’s righteousness in Deutero-Isaiah is not only a divine attribute (“a righteous God,” Isa 45:21), but also

John F. A. Sawyer, “‫ישע‬,” TDOT 6.459 (= ThWAT 3.1054). Jan L. Koole, Isaiah III, Vol. 2: Isaiah 49-55 (trans. Anthony P. Runia; Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 157; cp. 151.

94



95

C. Analysis of Arguments for the Relational Interpretation

151

his activity of executing judgments in history (“I am bringing my righteousness near,” Isa 46:13). The judicial and the salvific are intertwined and mutually illuminating aspects of the same event. God’s salvific activity is more precisely judicial activity. When God saves, his “righteousness” is manifested, not merely as a timeless attribute or quality, but as the divine action of issuing judgments in particular situations, judgments that are experienced by Israel’s enemies as punishment and by Israel herself as deliverance and salvation. Thus, while iustitia salutifera does occur in a number of passages in Deutero-Isaiah, we cannot reֶ  ֶ ָ     ָ  ְ to salvation. To do so would be to confuse discourse concepts duce ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ with lexical concepts and to reduce all Hebrew parallelism to synonymous parallelism. c. “Righteousness” and “Faithfulness” in Parallel Now I would like to examine the cases where the Hebrew words for “righteousness” occur in parallelism with the two Hebrew words commonly translated ָ       ֱ and ‫)אמת‬. “faithfulness” (‫אמוּנה‬ ֶ   ֱ These words, in and of themselves, do not denote “covenant” faithfulness per se, much less “faithfulness to the Abrahamic or Davidic covenant.” Such ideas would have to be supplied by the context. For example, “Lord, where is your steadfast love (‫)חסד‬ ֶ    ֶ of old, which by your faithָ       ֱ you swore to David?” (Ps 89:49 ESV). Or, “He has remembered fulness (‫)אמוּנה‬ ָ        ֱ to the house of Israel” (Ps 98:3 his steadfast love (‫)חסד‬ ֶ    ֶ and faithfulness (‫)אמוּנה‬ ESV). The use of covenantal verbs such as “swore” and “remembered” and the references to “David” and “the house of Israel” provide semantic clues as to the covenantal character of God’s faithfulness in these cases. Covenantal discourse concepts are clearly present in the context of these particular passages, but that does not mean that covenantal overtones are inherent in the lexical content of the ֶ   ֱ every time they are used. ָ        ֱ and ‫אמת‬ words ‫אמוּנה‬ The terms are commonly used in non-covenantal contexts. When David and Abishai stole into Saul’s camp while he and his men were asleep, and David decided not to take Saul’s life even when he could have, David said, “The Lord ָ        ֱ rewards every man for his righteousness (‫)צדקה‬ ָ     ָ  ְ and his faithfulness (‫)אמוּנה‬, for the Lord gave you into my hand today, and I would not put out my hand against the Lord’s anointed” (1 Sam 26:23 ESV). The meaning here seems to be something akin to “moral integrity, uprightness.” During the reign of Jehoash, when repairs were being made to the temple, the king’s secretary and the high priest “did not ask an accounting from the men into whose hands they delivered the money to pay out to the workmen, for they dealt honestly (‫”)באמנה‬ ָ   ֻ  ֱ ֶ (2 Kings 12:16 ESV; cp. 2 Kings 22:7; 2 Chron 31:12, 15; 34:12). There are even cases where “faithfulness” would seem to be closer semantically to “justice” and “righteousness.” Consider, for example, Deut 32:4: “The Rock, his work is perfect,  ָ     ְ      ִ / κρίσεις). for all his ways are justice (‫משׁפּט‬

152

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

A God of faithfulness (‫אמוּנה‬ ‫אל‬ ָ       ֱ      ֵ / θεὸς πιστός) and without iniquity (‫עול‬ ‫אין‬ ֶ  ָ    ֵ / οὐκ ἔστιν ἀδικία), just (‫צדּיק‬ ִ    ַ / δίκαιος) and upright (‫ישׁר‬ ָ   ָ / ὅσιος) is he” (ESV).

God’s faithfulness, righteousness, and uprightness are then contrasted with Israel’s sinfulness, verse 5: “They have dealt corruptly with him; they are no longer his children because they are blemished; they are a crooked and twisted generation” (ESV).

God’s faithfulness, then, in this context is not his faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant in spite of Israel’s failure,96 but his justice and moral perfection in contrast with Israel’s sinfulness. Consider also Psalm 96:13: “Then shall all the trees of the forest sing for joy before the Lord, for he comes, for he comes to judge the earth. He will judge the world in righteousness (‫)בּצדק‬, ֶ   ֶ ְ and the peoples in his faithfulness (‫ֹבּאמוּנתוֹ‬ ָ        ֱ ֶ )” (ESV).

What does it mean for God to “judge the world … in faithfulness”? Here it likely means that he judges “with integrity and truth, with perfect fairness.” Note that the parallel passage, Ps 98:9 replaces ‫אמוּנה‬ ָ        ֱ with ‫מישׁרים‬ ִ  ָ      ֵ (“uprightness, equity”): “He will judge the world with righteousness, and the peoples with equity” (ESV; cp. Ps 9:7-8; 99:4). Clearly it does not mean that God judges the world by means of his faithfulness in keeping his covenant promises to his people, since God is here said to be judging the entire world “in his faithfulness.” ֶ  ֱ ֶ / δικαίοις) Another noteworthy case is the statement, “I will faithfully (‫בּאמת‬ give them their recompense” (Isa 61:8 ESV). Although “recompense” (‫ּעלּה‬ ‫) ְפּ‬ ָ   ֻ   has a positive connotation in this context, i.e., “reward, wages,” it is significant that the divine iustitia distributiva can be described using the term ‫אמת‬. ֶ    ֶ When God recompenses human behavior, blessing the righteous and meting out punishment on the wicked, he is a “faithful” judge. God as the divine judge executes justice, not like human judges, but with utter consistency, integrity, and fairness – in a word, “faithfully.” Compare the description of the Messiah in Isaiah 11, especially verse 5: 1

2

“There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit. And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord.

96 As James D. G. Dunn claims in The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 342.

C. Analysis of Arguments for the Relational Interpretation 3

4

5

153

And his delight shall be in the fear of the Lord. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide disputes by what his ears hear, but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked. ֶ    ֶ shall be the belt of his waist, Righteousness (‫)צדק‬ and faithfulness (‫)אמוּנה‬ ָ        ֱ the belt of his loins” (ESV).

Compare Isaiah 16:5: “… then a throne will be established in steadfast love (‫)חסד‬, ֶ    ֶ and on it will sit in faithfulness (‫)אמת‬ ֶ   ֱ in the tent of David  ָ   ְ   ִ one who judges and seeks justice (‫)משׁפּט‬ and is swift to do righteousness (‫”)צדק‬ ֶ    ֶ (ESV)

See also Isaiah 42:3: “A bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench; ֶ   ֱ ֶ bring forth justice (‫”)משׁפּט‬ he will faithfully (‫)לאמת‬  ָ    ְ ִ (ESV).

The meaning of “faithfully bring forth justice” is explicated in the subsequent verse: “He will not grow faint or be discouraged till he has established justice (‫)משׁפּט‬  ָ    ְ ִ in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his law” (ESV).

The Servant of the Lord will see to it that justice is established, in spite of all opposition. It has nothing to do with keeping one’s promises, i.e., covenant faithfulness. A parallel usage of ‫אמוּנה‬/‫אמת‬ ֶ   ֱ with reference to truth, justice, and integrity ָ        ֱ in ordinary human judicial contexts can also be found: Prov 12:17; 29:14; Isa 59:4; Jer 5:1. So what are we to make of the passages that speak of God’s “faithfulness” and “righteousness” in parallelism? Psalm 40:10 “I have not hidden Your righteousness (‫)צדקה‬ ָ     ָ  ְ within my heart; ָ        ֱ and Your salvation (‫;)תשׁוּעה‬  ָ    ְ I have spoken of Your faithfulness (‫)אמוּנה‬ I have not concealed Your lovingkindness (‫)חסד‬ ֶ    ֶ and Your truth (‫)אמת‬ ֶ   ֱ from the great congregation” (NASB). Psalm 143:1-2 “Hear my prayer, O Lord; give ear to my pleas for mercy! In your faithfulness (‫)אמוּנה‬ ָ        ֱ answer me, in your righteousness (‫!)צדקה‬ ָ     ָ  ְ

154

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

Enter not into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before you” (ESV).

It seems to me that in these cases, “faithfulness” has a connotation of “reliability, commitment, and loyalty.” God is loyal to his servants and so he can be relied on to deliver them from their enemies when they call to him in their time of need. It is a personal relationship between God and the psalmist. God will be faithful to deliver his servant who has been faithful to him. There is no need to bring in the notion of God’s fulfillment of his covenant obligations to Israel as a nation. But what about the following verses? Surely here, if anywhere, “faithfulness” would seem to mean “covenant faithfulness.” And since the terms for “faithfulness” are in parallel with “righteousness,” the terms for “righteousness” would also seem to carry the connotation of “covenant faithfulness.” Hosea 2:19-20 ֶ   ֶ and in “And I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me in righteousness (‫)צדק‬ ָ        ֱ And justice, in steadfast love and in mercy. I will betroth you to me in faithfulness (‫)אמוּנה‬. you shall know the Lord” (ESV). Zechariah 8:7-8 “Thus says the Lord of hosts: behold, I will save my people from the east country and from the west country, and I will bring them to dwell in the midst of Jerusalem. And they shall be my ָ     ָ  ְ (ESV).97 people, and I will be their God, in faithfulness (‫)אמת‬ ֶ   ֱ and in righteousness (‫”)צדקה‬

But note that in both verses the phrase is “in faithfulness.” In other words, when God makes the new covenant, he will establish it in such a thoroughgoing manner that he will betroth his people to himself “forever,” “in faithfulness.” They shall be his people and he will be their God “in faithfulness.” In other words, it will be an unbreakable covenant, an irrevocable bond. God will secure a covenant bond that is characterized on both the divine and the human side by utter fidelity, “and you shall know the Lord” (cp. Isa 54:13; Jer 31:33-34). The term “faithfulness” provides insight into the unique, unbreakable quality of the new covenant itself, a quality that arises particularly from the inner transformation of the human covenant partner, in contrast to the breakability of the old covenant due to Israel’s unfaithfulness. It does not denote God’s fulfillment of his covenant obligations to his people, but the people’s fulfillment of their obligations to ָ        ֱ is covenantal here, but the precise focus is different God. So, yes, the term ‫אמוּנה‬ from what Cremer claimed. 97 Compare also: “You found his [Abraham’s] heart faithful before you, and made a covenant to give to his offspring the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Perizzite, the Jebusite, and the Girgashite. And you have kept your promise, for (‫)כּי‬ ִ you are righteous ִַ (‫”)צדּיק‬ (Neh 9:8 ESV). This is a different construction using the adjective, but it shows that keeping one’s promises is a subset of righteousness. But it would be a mistake to argue from this verse that righteousness is keeping one’s promises. As Mark Seifrid has argued, “All ‘covenant-keeping’ is righteous behavior, but not all righteous behavior is ‘covenant-keeping.’” (“Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism,” 424.) This semantic hierarchy is demonstrated by the use of the word “for” (‫)כּי‬. ִ

C. Analysis of Arguments for the Relational Interpretation

155

What, then, is the significance of the parallelism between “faithfulness” and “righteousness” in Hosea 2:19 and Zech 8:8? In accordance with the Kugel-Alter theory of Hebrew parallelism, it would not be appropriate to interpret them as exact synonyms but rather as binoculars that provide depth-perception. In the new covenant, God will betroth his people to himself in faithfulness because his grace, love and mercy, on the one hand, and the demands of his justice, on the other, are both satisfied. This judicial dimension of the new covenant is ultimately fulfilled in the penal substitutionary death of Christ. So the uniqueness of the new covenant consists in not only the inner transformation of the human covenant partner but also its judicial aspect in which God’s righteousness comes to expression. d. “Righteousness” in Parallel with a Variety of Other Terms ֶ   ֶ Finally, it is telling that ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ָ     ָ  ְ occurs in Hebrew parallelism with a wide variety of terms, each having its own meaning quite distinct from “righteousness.” The Hebrew words for “righteousness” are used in parallel with ‫אמת‬ ֶ   ֱ  ָ ִ  ֲ   ַ (“mercy”), ‫שׁלוֹם‬ (“truth, faithfulness”), ‫חסד‬ ֶ     ֶ (“steadfast love, grace”), ‫רחמים‬  ָ (“glory”), etc.98 Here is the complete list ָ     ְ ִ (“judgment”), ‫כּבוֹד‬ (“peace”), ‫משׁפּט‬ ֶ   ֶ of words with which ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ָ     ָ  ְ is found in parallel: Righteousness parallel with judgment words (72x): ‫משׁפּט‬  ָ    ְ  ִ (69x) ‫שׁפט‬ ֵ ֹ (“judge,” Ps 50:6) ‫נקם‬/‫נקמה‬ ָ    ָ ָ    ָ  ְ (“vengeance,” Isa 59:17; Jer 11:20) Righteousness parallel with straightness words (13x): ‫מישׁרים‬ ִ  ָ       ֵ (“equity,” 7x; e.g., Ps 9:8) ‫“( ִמישׁוֹר‬uprightness,” Isa 11:4) ‫ישׁר‬ ָ    ָ (“straight, upright,” Ps 11:7; Prov 16:13; Isa 45:13) ‫ישׁרה‬ ָ   ָ   ְ (“uprightness,” 1 Kings 3:6) ֹ ָ (“straightness, uprightness” Isa 59:14) ַ         ‫נכח‬ Righteousness parallel with grace words (11x): ‫חסד‬ ֶ     ֶ (“steadfast love,” 10x; e.g., Ps 36:10) ִ   ֲ  ַ (“compassion,” Hos 2:19) ‫רחמים‬ Righteousness parallel with salvation words (16x): ‫ישׁוּעה‬ ָ          ְ (“salvation,” 7x; e.g., Ps 98:2) ‫תּשׁוֹעה‬ ָ            ְ (“salvation,” 4x; e.g., Ps 71:15) ‫ישׁע‬ ַ  ֵ (“salvation,” 5x; e.g., Isa 61:10) Righteousness parallel with faithfulness words (22x): ‫אמת‬ ֶ   ֱ (“faithfulness, truth,” 12x; e.g., 1 Kings 3:6)

98

See TDOT 12.246-49 for survey of related terms.

156

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

‫אמוּנה‬ ָ        ֱ (“faithfulness, fidelity” 9x; e.g., Ps 143:1) ‫אמנים‬ ִ  ֻ  ֱ (“faithfulness,” Isa 26:2) Righteousness parallel with miscellaneous positive terms: ‫“( אוֹר‬light,” Isa 58:8) ‫ארוּכה‬ ָ        ֲ (“healing,” Isa 58:8) ‫בּרכה‬ ָ     ָ  ְ (“blessing,” Ps 24:5) ‫גּבוּרה‬ ָ        ְ (“might,” Ps 71:18-19) ‫כּבוֹד‬ ָ   (“glory,” Isa 62:2) ‫“( ֹעז‬strength,” Isa 45:24) ‫ענוה‬ ָ     ָ  ֲ (“humility,” Ps 45:4) ‫פּלאים‬ ִ   ָ ְ (“wonders,” Ps 88:12) ‫שׁלם‬ (“complete,” Deut 25:15) ֵ    ָ ָ ‫שׁלם‬ (“peace,” Ps 72:3) ֵ   (“name,” Ps 89:16) ‫שׁם‬ ‫תּהלּה‬  ָ    ִ    ְ (“praise,” Isa 61:11) ‫תּוֹרה‬ ָ (“law,” Ps 119:142)

ָ     ָ  ְ as synonymous with each word with which it is used If we take ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ֶ   ֶ in parallel, then all of these words become synonyms of one another, which is ָ     ָ  ְ as contributing its own judicial nuance absurd. It is better to see ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ֶ   ֶ regardless of the term it is paired with. The terms with which it is paired also transfer their nuances to ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬, ָ     ָ  ְ resulting often in a hendiadys in which a ֶ   ֶ new meaning that is greater than the sum of its parts emerges from the dyad. God’s salvation is the result of his faithfulness to his covenant with Abraham. God’s salvation is also an expression of his righteousness, because he executes salvation in a manner that is consistent with his justice and holiness; indeed, salvation itself is an essentially judicial activity, for salvation comes through judgment. For example, at the exodus, God’s deliverance of his people was accomplished by judgment on the Egyptians. At the cross, salvation was accomplished because the judgment we deserved was borne by Jesus as our substitute. When “God’s salvation” or “God’s faithfulness” are found in parallel with “God’s righteousness,” the conclusion we are to draw is not that the word “righteousness” itself means “salvation” or “faithfulness,” but that God’s saving activity comes in fulfillment of his covenant promises and is an expression of his righteousness. Especially in those cases where “salvation” and “righteousness” are parallel (see, e.g., Psalm 98:2; Isaiah 51:5-8; 56:1), the point is that God’s salvation has a strongly judicial dimension. Robert Lowth’s static theory of synonymous parallelism has been superseded in the last 30 years by a more nuanced understanding, and this scholarly shift in the interpretation of Hebrew poetry undermines one of the pillars of both Cremer’s relational theory and the New Perspective interpretation of righteousness that is dependent on Cremer’s theory. When properly understood, Hebrew parallelism provides no support for the theory that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is a cipher for God’s faithfulness to his covenant.

C. Analysis of Arguments for the Relational Interpretation

157

3. The LXX’s use of δικαιοσύνη to render ‫חסד‬ ֶ    ֶ Cremer’s next argument rests on an appeal to the way in which the Septuagint translators understood the word δικαιοσύνη in reference to the underlying Hebrew. As I noted above (see Tables 4–6 and associated commentary), a surprising feature of the LXX as a translation is the use of ἐλεημοσύνη eight times99 and ἔλεος three times100 to translate the feminine ‫צדקה‬, ָ     ָ   ְ and, perhaps even more surprisingly, the use of δικαιοσύνη nine times to translate ‫חסד‬. ֶ    ֶ 101 These features were noted by Hermann Cremer as well; he argued that they supported his interpretation of “righteousness” in the Hebrew Bible as a fundamentally positive concept, practically equivalent to grace.102 Even before Cremer, Edwin Hatch had argued that this evidence shows that “the two words δικαιοσύνη and ἐλεημοσύνη had interpenetrated each other.”103 J. A. Ziesler picks up and expands on Hatch’s and Cremer’s proposals. Focusing particularly on the nine instances in the LXX where δικαιοσύνη is chosen to translate ‫חסד‬, ֶ    ֶ Ziesler argues that the Greek word δικαιοσύνη in Jewish Greek has taken on a gracious and covenantal meaning. Ziesler writes: The meaning of the Greek words seems to be dominated by the Hebrew words they render … The LXX translators seem to have perceived that ts-d-q was basically covenantal … We conclude … that the Greek noun has taken over the range of meanings of ‫צדקה‬, ָ     ָ  ְ and that this is shown by its use for chesed … What evidence we have suggests that the translators knew what they were doing and proceeded with sensitivity and intelligence. For them, δικαι- had acquired the gracious (because covenantal) associations of the Hebrew words.104

Before analyzing this argument, a brief word needs to be said about the use of ἐλεημοσύνη and ἔλεος as renderings of ‫צדקה‬. ָ     ָ  ְ The majority of these are examples of iustitia salutifera, and so it comes as no surprise that, aside from two instances in Deuteronomy,105 most of the verses are in the Psalms and Isaiah (Deut 6:25; 24:13; Ps 24:5 [23:5LXX]; 103:6 [102:6LXX]; Isa 1:27; 56:1; 59:16). For example, whereas the MT has “He will receive blessing from the Lord and righteousness from the God of his salvation” (Ps 24:5 ESV), the LXX has “… and mercy from his divine deliverer” (Ps 23:5 NETS). Most of the time, the LXX translators followed their stereotypical rendering and used δικαιοσύνη even when it was a case of God’s saving righteousness. But in these seven instances, 99 Deut 6:25; 24:13; Ps 24:5 [23:5LXX]; 33:5 [32:5LXX]; 103:6 [102:6LXX]; Isa 1:27; 28:17; 59:16. 100 Isa 56:1; Ezek 18:19, 21. 101 Gen 19:19; 20:13; 21:23; 24:27; 32:10 [32:11MT/LXX]; Exod 15:13; 34:7; Prov 20:28; Isa 63:7. 102 Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre, 16-17. 103 Edwin Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (Oxford: Clarendon, 1889), 50. 104 J. A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Enquiry (SNTSMS 20; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 67-68. 105 LXX Deut 6:25; 24:13. See note 22 above.

158

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

they felt the need to explain this peculiarly Hebraic usage of saving righteousness to a Greek-speaking readership by using a Greek word for “mercy” (whether ἐλεημοσύνη or ἔλεος). As I have argued, the saving righteousness of God usage does not support taking δικαιοσύνη to mean “God’s covenant faithfulness,” since the righteousness of God is active to deliver and vindicate his people precisely by means of judicial, punitive activity against their oppressors.106 That leaves us, then, with the nine LXX verses in which δικαιοσύνη is chosen ֶ    ֶ These verses are more relevant to the thesis that δικαιοσύνη has to render ‫חסד‬. acquired covenantal overtones. It is not necessary to examine all of them individually. Instead, I wish to make four arguments to counter the appeal of Cremer and Ziesler to these texts in support of the claim that δικαιοσύνη in Jewish Greek has been enlarged to incorporate the alleged covenantal overtones of ‫חסד‬. ֶ    ֶ First, it bears pointing out that the argument depends on the questionable ֶ    ֶ is an inherently covenantal word. It is more accurate to assumption that ‫חסד‬ ֶ    ֶ is kindness that can be exercised in both covenantal and non-covsay that ‫חסד‬ enantal relationships. “It is … unwise to regard hesed … as if it were an aspect or ingredient of covenant as such. Rather, the covenant comes in to reinforce the commitment to hesed in situations where its exercise is not naturally to be expected.”107 The fact that the LXX translators do not appear to have seen in ֶ    ֶ any connotation of covenant faithfulness is made clear in Gen the word ‫חסד‬ 19:19 where Lot was shown ‫חסד‬ ֶ    ֶ / δικαιοσύνη even though God made his covenant with Abraham and not with Lot.108 The concept of ‫חסד‬ ֶ    ֶ is distinct from the covenant per se. This is made even clearer in Genesis 21, where Abimelech and Abraham enter into a covenant109 on the basis of previous non-covenantal acts of kindness. In the course of making the covenant, Abimelech says: “Now therefore swear to me here by God that you will not deal falsely with me or with my offspring or with my posterity, but according to the kindness (‫)חסד‬ ֶ    ֶ that I have shown to you, you shall show to me and to the land in which you have sojourned” (Gen 21:23 NASB), or “swear to me by God that … according to the 106 In the remaining four instances it is more difficult to discern the translators’ rationale for ָ     ָ  ְ with “mercy” (Ps 33:5 [32:5LXX]; Isa 28:17; Ezek 18:19, 21), but these intrigurendering ‫צדקה‬ ing texts are unique, and in any case they do not support the notion that “righteousness” means “covenant faithfulness.” 107 D. A. Baer and R. P. Gordon, “‫חסד‬,” NIDOTTE 2.212; cp. Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry (HSM 17; Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1978). 108 John William Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (SBLSCS 35; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 277. 109 “When Abraham reproved Abimelech about a well of water that Abimelech’s servants had seized, 26 Abimelech said, ‘I do not know who has done this thing; you did not tell me, and I have not heard of it until today.’ 27 So Abraham took sheep and oxen and gave them to Abimelech, and the two men made a covenant… 31 Therefore that place was called Beersheba, because there both of them swore an oath. 32 So they made a covenant at Beersheba” (Gen 21:25-27, 31-32 ESV).

C. Analysis of Arguments for the Relational Interpretation

159

righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) with which I have dealt with you, you will deal with me” (NETS). Clearly, then, ‫חסד‬ ֶ    ֶ is not an inherently covenantal word, for the covenant was made on the basis of Abimelech’s past ‫חסד‬ ֶ    ֶ to Abraham. That the LXX translators did not interpret ‫חסד‬ ֶ    ֶ as “covenant faithfulness” is further corroborated by their choice of δικαιοσύνη to translate the word in this verse. Now it is true that the hendiadys “steadfast love and faithfulness” (‫ואמת‬ ֶ    ֶ ֶ   ֱ   ֶ  ‫)חסד‬ is a common phrase in the Hebrew Bible that functions as a single lexical item signifying a covenant relationship that is reliable and unwavering.110 But ordinarily ‫ואמת‬ ֶ   ֱ   ֶ  ‫חסד‬ ֶ    ֶ is rendered ἔλεος καὶ ἀλήθεια in the LXX.111 Here we have a very common biblical phrase that does signify God’s covenant faithfulness, and yet the LXX translators somehow failed to use the word δικαιοσύνη to render it. Second, Cremer’s argument depends on the assumption that ‫חסד‬ ֶ    ֶ always means an act of grace or mercy shown to the undeserving. It can mean this, but there are also cases where ‫חסד‬ ֶ    ֶ denotes an act of kindness or beneficence that is morally required on the part of the superior party and which the inferior party is in some sense worthy of receiving. Hesed is never performed randomly; a responsibility must always be implicit or explicit … While hesed is not exchanged quid pro quo, it is rooted in responsibility … Because of his powerful status, the superior party is always free not to perform the act of hesed … Nevertheless, the potential actor has a privately and even publicly recognized responsibility to do hesed because of the relationship in which he stands.112

For example, in Genesis 19:19, we read the words of Lot to one of the angels who had come to rouse him and his family so that they might escape from Sodom before the coming judgment. Whereas the MT reads: “Now behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have magnified your lovingkindness (‫)חסדּ‬, ְ ְ ַ which you have shown me by saving my life” (NASB), the LXX has: “… you have magnified your righteousness (τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου), with which you have dealt with me ….” (NETS modified). The LXX translators apparently had the sense that the Lord (through the agency of the angels) has acted righteously in providing deliverance for righteous Lot and his family. For as Abraham had argued in his intercession before the Lord in the preceding chapter, it would be unjust for God to sweep away the righteous along with the wicked in

110 Gordon R. Clark, The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup 157; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 254-55. 111 There is only one exception (proving the rule): in LXX Gen 24:26, the phrase is rendered δικαιοσύνη καὶ ἀλήθεια. In this case, the translation choice stands out, since elsewhere in the same chapter the stereotype ἔλεος is chosen to stand for ‫חסד‬ ֶ    ֶ (LXX Gen 24:12, 14, 49). It is difficult to discern the LXX translators’ motives for this atypical translation decision in this one verse. It may have to do with the translators’ desire to capture the notion that God’s covenant faithfulness is in fact an expression of his attribute of righteousness, since keeping one’s promises and commitments is a subset of righteousness. 112 Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed, 82, 91, 234.

160

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

the overthrow of Sodom, thus treating the righteous and the wicked the same (Gen 18:22-33).113 It was therefore righteous for God to warn Lot (identified in context as the one “righteous” in the city)114 and allow him to escape before the judgment fell. Similarly, in Genesis 20:13, where Abraham is explain why he misled Abimilech by calling Sarah his sister, Abraham speaks of her act of ‫חסד‬ ֶ    ֶ in going along with the ploy. The LXX, however, translates it as δικαιοσύνη. It is not so much an optional act of mercy or grace as an act that Sarah is in some sense duty-bound to fulfill (“this is the kindness which you shall do for me”).115 If this reading is plausible, then the LXX translators may have had some justification for their translation decision. “What he tells her to do is an act of rightness, a δικαιοσύνη.”116 Another verse illustrating the point that ‫חסד‬ ֶ    ֶ was not uniformly understood as meaning “grace” is Exod 34:7. Where the Hebrew has “keeping steadfast love (‫חסד‬ ‫)נצר‬ ֶ    ֶ          ֵ   ֹ for thousands,” the LXX has “preserving righteousness and doing mercy (δικαιοσύνην διατηρῶν καὶ ποιῶν ἔλεος) for thousands.” It would appear that the LXX translators took the divine attribute or activity of “keeping ‫”חסד‬ ֶ    ֶ and split it into two component parts: “maintaining δικαιοσύνη and doing ἔλεος.” It is also likely that this interpretation was not merely derived from a semantic analysis of the word ‫חסד‬ ֶ    ֶ alone, but was suggested by the immediately following lines: “forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty.” It is likely that the LXX translators even intended the following chiasm in the Greek text: α Maintaining δικαιοσύνη β Doing ἔλεος βʹ Taking away acts of lawlessness and of injustice and sins αʹ And he will not acquit the guilty person

God is gracious and merciful, as expressed in his freely forgiving iniquity, but he is also a righteous God who does not wink at sin or pass over it lightly. Rather than telling us something about the LXX translators’ understanding of δικαιοσύνη, this verse tells us much more about their understanding of ‫חסד‬. ֶ    ֶ For them, God’s ‫חסד‬ ֶ    ֶ is a richly textured concept not easily reducible to one single concept, such as ἔλεος (“mercy”), even though that is the most common render 113 Consider Abraham’s plea to God in Gen 18:25: “Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (ESV). 114 “Lot may also be understood as a ‘righteous man’ in the narrative: since there were not ten, the city was not saved, but the one, Lot, proved himself by protecting the messengers against the Sodomites.” Sakenfeld, 100. 115 Sakenfeld, quoting Glueck, speaks of the “requirement form” of the statement, “This is your hesed which you ‘must’ do.” Sakenfeld, 26. 116 Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis, 295.

C. Analysis of Arguments for the Relational Interpretation

161

ֶ    ֶ also contained an element of responsibility, ing. In their mind, the term ‫חסד‬ justice, and right. To capture this fullness of meaning, the translators felt that both δικαιοσύνη and ἔλεος were necessary to unpack the richness of meaning contained in ‫חסד‬. ֶ    ֶ Hence, the LXX translators’ decision to render ‫חסד‬ ֶ    ֶ as δικαιοσύνη (“an act of righteousness”) is quite logical. We modern interpreters may think the translators ֶ    ֶ in some of these overplayed the “responsibility, justice, right” dimension of ‫חסד‬ cases, but our modern exegetical sensibilities are irrelevant. The LXX translators seem to have thought that ‫חסד‬, ֶ    ֶ in at least these nine instances, meant “an act of righteousness.”117 David Hill is therefore correct when he observes: “Perhaps we ֶ    ֶ was not conceived of as entirely may find in this translation evidence that ‫חסד‬ a spontaneous feeling, but in terms of what could be expected within a relationship: if so, the idea would be more adequately conveyed by δικαιοσύνη than by the word ἔλεος.”118 Third, even if we cannot be totally confident that we are correctly discerning the LXX translators’ intent in all nine cases, there is little reason to think that a Greek-speaking reader of the LXX would have interpreted δικαιοσύνη in these verses as having a specialized Hebraic meaning, as if some covenantal or relational overtones were infused into the words by virtue of representing the Hebrew word ‫חסד‬, ֶ    ֶ since the ordinary meaning of δικαιοσύνη reasonably suits the context and does not demand a more arcane meaning. Whenever δικαιοσύνη is used in the Greek Bible to render the Hebrew word ‫חסד‬, ֶ    ֶ it makes sense as it stands without needing to resort to a Hebraic, relational meaning that would in any case be inaccessible to Greek-speaking readers of the LXX who would not know the underlying Hebrew. Greek-speaking readers of the LXX probably would have taken these nine occurrences of δικαιοσύνη at face value and would not have known that they represented the Hebrew word ‫חסד‬, ֶ    ֶ nor would they have had any contextual reasons to overhear specialized, Hebraic “covenantal” connotations. Fourth, there are too few instances in the Greek Bible where δικαιοσύνη stands for the Hebrew word ‫חסד‬ ֶ    ֶ for δικαιοσύνη to “acquire” the gracious and ֶ    ֶ 119 In comparison with the 82 instances where covenantal connotations of ‫חסד‬. δικαιοσύνη is used as the stereotyped equivalent for ‫צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ and the 133 instances where δικαιοσύνη is used as the stereotyped equivalent for ‫צדקה‬ ָ    ָ   ְ (for a total of 215) (see Tables 4–6), there are only nine instances where δικαιοσύνη renders ‫חסד‬. ֶ    ֶ This paltry handful of occurrences is surely too inconsequential (9/215 = 4%) to overcome the massive inertia of the stereotypical rendering, not to mention the ordinary meanings of δικαιοσύνη in the Greek language. Furthermore, as

Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis, 295, 311. David Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings, 106. 119 Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul, 61, 68.



117



118



162

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

I argued in Chapter 2 (“Methodological Considerations”), we cannot be certain that a Greek word has taken on a Hebrew meaning unless we have evidence of that usage in Jewish literature composed in Greek. But as we will see in Chapter 5 (“Righteousness in Jewish Literature”), the word δικαιοσύνη is never used to mean what scholars take ‫חסד‬ ֶ    ֶ to mean (“loyal love,” “covenant grace,” or something to that effect). In conclusion, scholars should not appeal to these nine verses as evidence that for the LXX translators δικαιοσύνη “had acquired the gracious (because covenantal) associations of the Hebrew words” (Ziesler). 4. Criticism of the Norm-Idea We continue now with a fourth argument employed on behalf of Cremer’s relational theory. The Hebrew scholar Emil Kautzsch (editor of the famous Hebrew grammar by Gesenius120) had argued that “righteousness” in Hebrew is to be understood under the fundamental concept of normativity. The norm is “partly an objective (physical) norm, partly a spiritual standard of judgment, as determined by the idea of God, as well as by the idea and determination of humans from themselves.”121 But the vagueness of this definition suggested to Cremer that the norm-idea itself was problematic: “The idea of a somehow-tobe-defined ideal normativity is much too abstract for it to be distinguished as a fundamental concept.”122 Similarly, von Rad asks: “What is the norm that the Old Testament presupposes? But, oddly enough, no matter how urgently it was sought, no satisfactory answer to this question of an absolute norm could be found [by Kautzsch].”123 And Klaus Koch says that the “nature of such a norm … [is] unclear.”124 It is true that the norm defining “righteousness” is never explicitly stated in the Old Testament. But, as we saw in Chapter 3, the norm is almost never explicitly defined in extra-biblical Greek literature either. And yet, in spite of this lack, proponents of the relational theory willingly grant that “righteousness” in Greek involves conformity to a norm, as evidenced by their claim that the Hebraic “relational” meaning allegedly stands in contrast to the Greek “abstract” meaning.125 A clear and precise definition of the norm is clearly not necessary; all that Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (edited and enlarged by E. Kautzsch; 2nd English edition by A. E. Cowley; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910). 121 Emil Kautzsch, Über die Derivate des Stammes ‫ צדק‬im alttestamentlichen Sprachgebrauch (Tübingen: Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, 1881), 39. 122 Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre, 34. 123 Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1.371. 124 K. Koch, TLOT 1051. 125 This comment by James D. G. Dunn is representative: “In the typical Greek worldview, ‘righteousness’ is an idea or ideal against which the individual and the individual action can be measured … In contrast, in Hebrew thought ‘righteousness’ is a more relational concept.” Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 341.

120

C. Analysis of Arguments for the Relational Interpretation

163

is needed is an implicit or intuitive norm defining what is right in any given context. The norm is “implicit” in Israelite situations governed by the Mosaic Law. The norm is “intuitive” in cases outside of the sphere of the Mosaic Law, where humans are governed by the moral will of God as revealed through the light of nature and imprinted on the conscience of all humans (i.e., natural law).126 David J. Reimer argues extensively for the concept of natural law as an implicit norm in his article on “‫ ”צדק‬in the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis.127 Examples from the Old Testament are easy to find. When Abraham pleaded with the Lord not to sweep away “the righteous” with “the wicked” in Sodom (Gen 18:22-33), there is no clear statement of the norm defining who “the righteous” are in clear distinction with “the wicked.” But the subsequent story describing the dishonorable treatment that the angelic visitors received at the hands of the citizens of Sodom provides a graphic illustration of what sort of people might be included under the label “the wicked” (Gen 19:4-11). When the Mosaic Law commands the use of “just” (or “honest”) weights and measures (Lev 19:36; Deut 25:15; Job 31:6; Ezek 45:10), some sort of norm is implied – e.g., the notion that weights and measures must be accurate and that buyers must not be cheated by unscrupulous sellers – even though this norm is assumed rather than explicitly spelled out. And when a human judge or king is exhorted to judge “righteously,” the thought is clearly that he must render verdicts that are fair, not distorted by bribes, and which conform to some legal standard (Deut 1:16; 16:18). Similar language is ascribed to God (Ps 98:9) and to the messianic king (Isa 11:4-5). Thus, the absence of an explicit definition of the norm does not prove that “righteousness” in the OT is not a Normbegriff. In fact, the implicit norm (the Mosaic Law) and the intuitive norm (natural law) presupposed throughout the biblical texts suggest just the opposite, that in fact “righteousness” does involve conformity to a norm. 5. Antithesis Between “the Righteous” and “the Wicked” Another argument for the relational theory is Cremer’s appeal to the frequent Old Testament antithesis between “the righteous” and “the wicked.” One famous text giving classic expression to this antithesis is Psalm 1, which concludes (vv 5-6): Cp. Romans 1:18-32; 2:12-15. For a robust biblical-theological defense of the concept of natural law, see David VanDrunen, Divine Covenants and Moral Order: A Biblical Theology of Natural Law (Emory University Studies in Law and Religion; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014). 127 David J. Reimer, “‫צדק‬,” NIDOTTE 3.744-69. “It will be seen that ṣdq terms regularly deal with behavior that, usually by implication, accords with some standard. The standard might be the law, but often this is not the case or, at least, revealed law is not to be understood but rather some natural law or assumed standard” (p. 746).

126

164

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

“Therefore the wicked (‫רשׁעים‬ ִ ָ    ְ / ἀσεβεῖς) will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous (‫צדּיקים‬ ִ   ִ ַ / δίκαιοι); for the Lord knows the way of the righteous (‫צדּיקים‬ ִ   ִ ַ / δίκαιοι),    but the way of the wicked (‫רשׁעים‬ ִ ָ ְ / ἀσεβεῖς) will perish” (ESV).

Clearly “the righteous” are not perfectly righteous; rather they are those who are faithful to God, who repent of their sin, and try to please him. Conversely, “the wicked” are those who have rejected God and his covenant. This seems to imply that the terms are “relational” rather than absolute. Absolute righteousness is not being ascribed to the righteous, merely relative righteousness, since they live in a right relationship with God, a relationship characterized not by perfection but by general faithfulness which includes repentance and a commitment to a godly life according to the terms of the covenant between YHWH and Israel. Cremer argues that a godly Israelite’s standing of being “righteous” before God was not a mechanical fulfillment of legal obligations but a relationship. “The right standing of the righteous includes his fear of God, the acknowledgment and confession of his sins, his trust and hope in God, and the fulfillment of the claims/demands which God and men make on him.”128 At this juncture, Cremer cites Psalm 103:17-18: “But the steadfast love of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him, / ἡ δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ) to children’s children, and his righteousness (‫צדקת‬ ָ ְ ִ to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments” (ESV).

Cremer also points to verse 10 a few verses earlier: “He does not deal with us according to our sins.” This suggests that God’s “righteousness” is given to those who fear him, even though they have committed sins. How can this be? Cremer appeals to the provision for atonement in the Old Covenant via confession of sin and the sacrificial system: Again, we must not forget that the acknowledgment and confession of sins obviously includes the self-subordination to the righteous ordinance of God, cp. Ps 25:10ff; 39:1, 8; so that Israel’s Law with regard to the sacrificial system offered, in order to offset transgressions, and that from here the NT statements like Luke 1:6; Phil 3:6, 9 are explained. Indeed, one must say: the more energetically the Law and the covenant relationship (Bundesverhältnis) determined the consciousness of Israel, the more the concept of righteousness stepped into the foreground. So, then, the right standing, for which God intervenes justly, is not an ideal ethical disposition and the righteousness of life that corresponds to it … The right standing of the sinful people is repentance and faith, or (to speak in OT idiom) the fear of God and trust in his promises, acknowledgment and confession of sins and the willing submission to God’s Law, the first act of which is submission to God’s judgment.129



128



129

Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre, 53. Ibid., 53-54.

C. Analysis of Arguments for the Relational Interpretation

165

So the fear of God, trust in his promises, acknowledgement and confession of sin, together with offering the appropriate sacrifices and submission to God’s Law, are the essence of the Old Covenant, and on that basis individual Israelites were regarded as “righteous.” They were therefore righteous in terms of the covenant relationship (Bundesverhältnis), not in terms of mechanical fulfillment of the moral requirements of an external norm. This is a good argument. How should we respond? I think we have to say that there is a difference between proving that “righteousness” can be relative and proving that “righteousness” is relational in the sense that Cremer claims, i.e., that the relationship itself is the norm. There is a norm here, and the norm is the covenant between YHWH and his people, a covenant that includes provisions for atonement in case of sin. Thus, an Israelite can be considered “righteous” when he is living in faithfulness to the covenant, which includes a commitment to a Law-abiding life, together with repentance and bringing of the appropriate sacrifices for failures. Although “righteousness” is defined covenantally, the covenant constitutes an external norm that defines the meaning of “righteousness.” The fact that sinful Israelites can be called “righteous” does not prove that “righteousness” is a relational concept. The righteous are designated as such, not strictly because of their ethical righteousness (which they have only inconsistently, imperfectly, and relatively), but because of their godly fear of the Lord. They are not like the wicked, who have no fear of God before their eyes (Ps 36:1; Rom 3:18), who arrogantly persist in their evil ways, and who oppress the righteous. The difference is most marked in the contrasting attitudes of their heart, their spiritual posture before God. The wicked “speak insolently against the righteous in pride and contempt” (Ps 31:18),    but the righteous are “the upright in heart” (‫ישׁרי־לב‬ ֵ ֵ ְ ִ / οἱ εὐθεῖς τῇ καρδίᾳ) (Pss 130 7:10; 11:2; 32:11; 64:10; 94:15; 97:11). Ultimately, the issue has to do with arrogance versus trust in God, just as Habakkuk put it so classically in his contrast between the Assyrian oppressor and the godly Israelite: “Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not upright within him, but the righteous shall live by his faith” (Hab 2:4 ESV). When these contrasting attitudes of the heart are brought before the scrutiny of the divine tribunal, one stands condemned as “wicked” while the other is pronounced “righteous” before God. The Old Testament teaches that there is a God in heaven who, as the righteous Judge of all the earth, weighs the hearts of all men and determines who is “wicked” and who is “righteous.” This judicial

130 Note that in three of these verses (Pss 32:11; 64:10; and 97:11), “the upright in heart” stands in parallelism with “the righteous” (‫צדיקים‬ ִ   ִ  ַ / δίκαιοι). Referentially they are synonymous, but semantically they are looking at the concept from different points of view – the subjective point of view of the inner heart attitude (“upright in heart”), and the objective point of view of the divine Judge who has recognized their faith and judicially declared that they are accepted before God (“the righteous”).

166

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

correlation between the “wicked/righteous” distinction and the court-room scene of “the Judge of all the earth” is first made clear in Genesis 18, the famous story of Sodom and Gomorrah, specifically Abraham’s repeated intercession on behalf of the righteous in the city: “Then Abraham drew near and said, ‘Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city. Will you then sweep away the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from                  ֹ      ֹ ֲ  you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just? (‫משׁפּט‬ ‫כּל־הארץ‬ ‫השׁפט‬ / ָ ְ ִ ‫יעשׂה‬     ֶ ֲ ַ ‫לא‬ ֶ ָ ָ ָ    ֵ          ὁ κρίνων πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν οὐ ποιήσεις κρίσιν;)’” (Gen 18:23-25 ESV).

The Judge of all the earth is the one who alone can weigh a man’s heart and assign him to a lot with the wicked who will be condemned or with the righteous who will be spared in the judgment. Again, in Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple, he prayed: “If a man sins against his neighbor and is made to take an oath and comes and swears his oath before your altar in this house, then hear from heaven and act and judge your servants, repaying the guilty (‫)רשׁע‬ ָ    ָ by bringing his conduct on his own head, and vindicating the righteous (‫)צדּיק‬ ִ  ַ by rewarding him according to his righteousness” (2 Chron 6:22-23 ESV).

God is the one who “judges his servants,” indentifying the righteous man who swears an oath in truth and providing him with vindication, while setting apart the wicked man who swears an oath in deceit and marking him out for judgment. The same point is made in the Psalms: “Oh, let the evil of the wicked come to an end, and may you establish the righteous – you who test the minds and hearts, O righteous God!” (Ps 7:9 ESV). “Surely there is a reward for the righteous; surely there is a God who judges on earth” (Ps 58:11 ESV). Since fear of God and faith are the determinants of right standing before God (Hab 2:4), it is only those who have faith in God who are “enrolled among the righteous” (Ps 69:28 ESV). The epithet “the righteous” is best understood not in terms of the Verhältnisbegriff theory of “righteousness” – i.e., that they are righteous because they are conforming to the norms of the covenant relationship (though the thought is certainly implicit in the background) – but in terms of the divine surveillance and judicial recognition of those who are in a right covenant relationship with God. They have been pronounced by the divine Judge to be “righteous” because they have the requisite fear of God, uprightness of heart, and faith/trust in the Lord. They are therefore “righteous” before God. There is a clear connection between the righteousness of the Judge and the righteous status of those whom he approves: “For the Lord is righteous (‫;)צדּיק‬ ִ ַ he loves righteous deeds (‫;)צדקת‬ ָ   ְ the upright shall behold his face” (Ps 11:7 ESV). “As for me, I shall behold your face in righteousness (‫בּצדק‬ ֶ   ֶ ְ / ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ); when I awake, I shall be satisfied with your likeness” (Ps 17:15 ESV). Then

C. Analysis of Arguments for the Relational Interpretation

167

there is the interesting statement in Proverbs: “Whoever pursues righteousness (‫)צדקה‬ ָ     ָ  ְ and kindness will find life, righteousness (‫)צדקה‬, ָ     ָ  ְ and honor” (Prov 21:21 ESV). “Whoever pursues righteousness … will find righteousness” seems ָ     ָ  ְ is ethical righteousness redundant to our ears, but if the first occurrence of ‫צדקה‬ and the second occurrence of ‫צדקה‬ ָ     ָ  ְ is understood as righteousness before God – i.e., righteousness as approved, a status of righteousness before God – then the statement as a whole makes much more sense. In conclusion, those who in biblical revelation are termed “the righteous” in contrast to “the wicked” are described as such for four interlocking reasons: (1) their own inconsistent, imperfect, and relative ethical righteousness; (2) their ethical righteousness as a manifestation of their heart attitude of fear of the Lord, uprightness of heart, and faith; (3) the righteousness of the divine Judge of all the earth who sees this heart attitude and thus (4) graciously grants them a status of “righteous” in God’s sight by faith (Gen 15:6; Hab 2:4). The righteousness of God “the righteous Judge” is therefore correlative with the righteous status of those humans qualified by the epithet “the righteous.” To bring in the relational theory as the explanation for this epithet is neither apropos nor necessary. The Normbegriff understanding of “righteousness” – both in terms of ethical righteousness, and in terms of the status of righteousness before the righteous divine Judge – suffices to provide a reasonable explanation for the biblical habit of referring to the godly as “the righteous.” Cremer’s fifth argument is thus found to be lacking. 6. “May They Not Come Into Your Righteousness” (Psalm 69:27) We come now to the sixth argument in favor of the Diestel/Ritschl/Cremer claim that righteousness is a fundamentally positive concept involving salvation, deliverance, and help for the needy. In Psalm 69:27 [69:28MT/68:28LXX], the Psalmist prays against his oppressors: “Add iniquity to their iniquity; and may they not   ֹ    come into your righteousness” (NASB) (‫בּצדקת‬ ‫תּנה־ען‬ ָ ַ ְ ‫על־עוֹנם‬ ָ ֲ ַ    ָ   ָ    ְ ֶ ָ  ְ  ִ    ְ ‫ואל־יבאוּ‬ / πρόσθες ἀνομίαν ἐπὶ τὴν ἀνομίαν αὐτῶν, καὶ μὴ εἰσελθέτωσαν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ σου). Admittedly, the English word “righteousness” makes little sense in this locution, “to come into God’s righteousness,” as if that were a good thing that one would not want to miss out on. In English, we would want to avoid coming into God’s “righteousness,” for that would seem to imply coming into his judgment. Perhaps this is why the NIV does not translate literally but boldly translates, “Do not let them share in your salvation.”131 Cremer quoted this verse six times as evidence that “the righteousness of God” in the OT is thoroughly positive, tantamount to salvation and grace.132 Klaus Koch, following Cremer, argued that the 131 “Salvation” is also the translation choice of Artur Weiser. The Psalms: A Commentary (trans. Herbert Hartwell; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), 492. 132 Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre, 14-15, 29, 44, 49, 57, 70. Cremer seems to place special reliance on Ps 69:27 as a “silver bullet” argument that righteousness is a thoroughly positive concept. Ludwig Diestel and Albrecht Ritschl, though they do not make as

168

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

use of ‫צדקה‬ ָ     ָ  ְ here “excludes the possibility of a distributive justice,” since God’s righteousness is clearly a positive blessing that only the righteous may enjoy and from which the wicked are excluded.133 This argument may seem plausible at first. But upon closer examination it proves to be misleading. The first thing we have to examine is the meaning of ‫   ָעוֹן‬used twice in the first line of the verse. The Hebrew lexica (Gesenius, BDB, Koehler-Baumgartner, Holladay, HALOT) all agree that the word can have three meanings: (1) iniquity; (2) guilt; and (3) punishment. It is hard to distinguish these three meanings, of course, since iniquity (sinful action) leads to guilt, and guilt ordinarily brings punishment. Still, it is useful to ask which of the three meanings fits best here, in the sense of being the focus of meaning, without denying that shades of the other two meanings are unavoidably present by implication. All three options are found in the major English versions. The NASB translates: “Add iniquity to their iniquity.” The NRSV has: “Add guilt to their guilt.” The RSV and ESV have: “Add to them punishment upon punishment.” However, it is possible to narrow down the options to the last two, since it does not make sense for God to add sin or iniquity to someone’s existing sins. The second two meanings are more within the realm of probability. God can increase someone’s guilt or someone’s punishment. The two are very close in meaning, since increased guilt normally leads to increased punishment. Increased “guilt” makes the most sense, since it implies that the request of the psalmist is that God would not forgive them, while also wishing that they would then receive greater punishment in proportion to the increased guilt.134 This interpretation fits with several cross-references. In response to the jeers of Sanballat and Tobiah the Ammonite, who were trying to stop the work of rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem, Nehemiah prayed: “Hear, O our God, for we are despised. Turn back their taunt on their own heads and give them up to be plundered in a land where they are captives. 5 Do not cover their guilt, and let not their sin be blotted out from your sight, for they have provoked you to anger in the presence of the builders” (Neh 4:4-5 ESV). 4

Jeremiah prayed a similar prayer against his persecutors: “Yet you, O Lord, know all their plotting to kill me. much of it as Cremer does, paved the way by making use of the verse to support the same revisionist claim. Diestel, “Die Idee der Gerechtigkeit,” 186; and Ritschl, Die christliche Lehre, 2.109. 133 K. Koch, TLOT 1056. 134 “Increase this guilt, make them more and more guilty.” Charles Augustus Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1907), 2.120. Mitchell Dahood translates, “Charge them with crime upon crime,” and comments: “Put down on the debit side of the ledger; the metaphor is that of the divine bookkeeper.” Dahood, Psalms II: 51-100 (AB 17; Garden City: Doubleday, 1968), 155, 163.

C. Analysis of Arguments for the Relational Interpretation

169

Forgive not their iniquity, nor blot out their sin from your sight. Let them be overthrown before you; deal with them in the time of your anger” (Jer 18:23 ESV).

These parallel texts lead me to suggest, then, that the prayer of Ps 69:27 is that God would “add guilt to their guilt” in the sense of not forgiving their sins but taking them into account and punishing them. One commentator paraphrases: “Instead of taking away their iniquities by forgiveness, let one iniquity accumulate upon another.”135 If this is correct, then we have a clue to the proper interpretation of the clause in question: “And may they not come into your righteousness” (NASB). Rather than taking away their guilt by forgiveness, may they not come into God’s ָ     ָ  ְ In other words, may they not experience God’s judicial act of acquitting ‫צדקה‬. them of their sins and vindicating them. This interpretation is the one chosen by the RSV/NRSV/ESV: “May they have no acquittal from thee/you.” This translation aptly conveys the positive sense required by the context while maintaining ָ     ָ  ְ This interpretation is further supported by the the forensic overtones of ‫צדקה‬. next verse (v 28): “Let them be blotted out of the book of the living; let them not be enrolled among the righteous” (ESV). In other words, not entering into God’s righteousness/acquittal is tantamount to not being enrolled “among the righteous,” that is, those who have been granted the status of “righteous” before God on the basis of his forgiving grace.136 Reasonable sense can be made of this verse on the assumption that ‫צדקה‬ ָ    ָ   ְ retains a forensic and judicial meaning here. The entire statement, “May they not come into your righteousness” (NASB), clearly means, at least by implication, “May they not enjoy salvation.” But that broader meaning arises from the statement as a whole, including the verb “to come” plus the preposition “into” (‫בּ‬  ְ + ‫)בּוֹא‬, and draws upon the discourse concepts associated with the immediate context, such as the reference to one’s name being written in the book of life (vv 27-28). It is to commit the fallacy of “illegitimate totality transfer” to claim that the lexical concept of ‫צדקה‬ ָ     ָ  ְ itself is “salvation” or a totally positive concept. 7. Judah and Tamar: “She is More Righteous than I” (Genesis 38:26) The final argument for a relational interpretation of righteousness in the OT is the appeal to the incident involving Tamar and Judah narrated in Gen 38 and cliָ     ְ  ָ (Gen ִ  ֶ    ִ ‫)צדקה‬ maxing in Judah’s admission, “She is more righteous than I” (‫ממּנּי‬ 38:26). This argument has been enormously influential in the century since CreA. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902), as quoted by Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51-100 (WBC 20; Dallas: Word Books, 1990), 191. 136 For the tradition of having one’s name written in or blotted out of “the book of the living,” see Exod 32:32-33; Ps 109:13-14; Isa 4:3; Dan 12:1; Mal 3:16; Jubilees 30:22; 1 Enoch 47:3; 108:3; Joseph and Aseneth 15:4; 1QM XII, 2-5; Luke 10:20; Rev 3:5; 13:8; 20:12, 15.

135

170

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

mer, as evidenced by the fact that Gen 38:26 is frequently cited in the literature as a compelling proof for the Hebraic/relational interpretation of righteousness. My impression is that this argument, after the appeal to Hebrew parallelism, is the one cited next most frequently by scholars who are convinced of the truth of Cremer’s theory.137 How, exactly, does Gen 38:26 allegedly prove that righteousness is a relational concept (Verhältnisbegriff) rather than a norm concept (Normbegriff)? James D. G. Dunn asserts that righteousness here has to do with conformity to a norm – not, however, conformity to a norm as “some abstract ideal,” but to “a norm concretized in a relation.” He bases this on Gen 38:24, 26: “The peculiarities of the relationship may result in an action being judged ‘righteous’, even when it appears to break a norm governing society (the case in point being Judah and Tamar in Gen. 38.24, 26).”138 The reference to v 24 is relevant to his argument (“About three months later Judah was told, ‘Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant’” [NIV]), for it explains what Dunn means by “even when it appears to break a norm governing society.” I take Dunn to be arguing that although Tamar formally violated the moral norms governing sexuality, i.e., by engaging in (apparent) prostitution, she is nevertheless deemed righteous because her conduct was in accord with the mutual obligations arising from the relationship between Judah and Tamar. Before critically engaging this argument, it will be helpful to review the story of Judah and Tamar as narrated in Genesis 38 in order to set the context. The story runs as follows. In blatant disregard for the concern of his patriarchal forebears to avoid intermarriage with the Canaanites, Judah as a young man departed from the covenant family to live among the Canaanites (v 1).139 There, he saw and took a Canaanite woman as his wife, and she bore him three sons, Er, Onan, and Shelah (vv 2-5). The narrator skips ahead to when his firstborn son is a The original scholar who raised this argument is Cremer, Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre, 54-55. After Cremer, Gen 38:26 is quoted by the following scholars: Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1.374; K. Koch, TLOT 1050-51; E. R. Achtemeier, “Righteousness in the OT,” IDB 80-81; J. A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul, 43; Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 342 n28; Richard B. Hays, “Justification,” ABD 3.1129; Michael F. Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God, 11; N. T. Wright, “The Letter to the Romans,” NIB 10.399 n5; idem, Paul in Fresh Perspective, 159. 138 Dunn, “The New Perspective: whence, what and whither?” in idem, The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays (WUNT II/185; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 59. Emphasis mine. 139 Abraham made his servant swear that he would not take a wife for Isaac from the daughters of the Canaanites (Gen 24:3). Rebekah said that her life would not be worth living if her son Jacob married a Canaanite (Hittite) girl (Gen 27:46), prompting Isaac to direct Jacob, “You must not take a wife from the Canaanite women” (Gen 28:1). With this context in view, it is reasonable to assume that the narrator wants us to infer that Jacob would have adopted his parents’ and grandparents’ feelings and would have objected to Judah’s marriage to a Canaanite girl. Gordon Wenham, Genesis 16-50 (WBC 2; Dallas: Word Books, 1994), 365. Cp. Bruce K. Waltke with Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 506-10.

137

C. Analysis of Arguments for the Relational Interpretation

171

young man and informs us that Judah took a wife, named Tamar, for his firstborn son (v 6).140 Next we learn that the Lord put Er to death for some unspecified wickedness (v 7); then, in keeping with the custom of levirate marriage, Judah told his second son, Onan, to perform the duty of brother-in-law and raise up offspring for his dead older brother (v 8). However, knowing “that the offspring would not be his” (v 9) and not wishing to have his share of the inheritance reduced,141 Onan practiced coitus interruptus, and so he too was put to death by the Lord (vv 9-10). At this point, Judah should have given Tamar to his third son, Shelah; however, suspecting Tamar of being the cause of the first two sons’ deaths and fearing that he might run out of male heirs, Judah sent Tamar back to her father’s house, promising to give her to Shelah when he grew up (v 11).142 As time passed, Shelah grew up and Tamar realized that Judah had no intention of keeping his word. So Tamar dressed herself up like a prostitute, concealing her identity with a veil, and tricked Judah into sleeping with her, but not before receiving some tokens of his identity (his signet, cord, and staff) as a pledge for his promised payment of a young goat from the flock (vv 12-19). Later, Judah tried to send the goat to pay the unknown prostitute, but no prostitute was found (vv 20-23). Three months later, Judah was informed that his daughter-in-law had become pregnant as a result of prostitution. Judah called for her to be brought out and burned (v 24). But Tamar revealed the identity of the baby’s father by sending the tokens Judah had left with her and elicited these words from Judah: “She is more righteous than I, since I did not give her to my son Shelah” (v 26 ESV). It is perhaps useful to provide some background on the levirate institution.143 The levirate institution was not unique to Israelite society; similar practices can Most commentators, ancient and modern, think Tamar was probably a Canaanite girl herself. E.g., Philo, Virt. 220-22; Waltke, 506-16; Wenham, 366; E. A. Speiser, Genesis (3rd ed.; AB 1; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1986), 300; Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 434; Gary H. Oller, “Tamar (person),” ABD 6.315. 141 “The death of a childless man would result in larger portions of the paternal estate going to the surviving brothers. Levirate marriage, if ‘successful’, results in the original distribution of property being maintained.” Dvora E. Weisberg, “The Widow of Our Discontent: Levirate Marriage in the Bible and Ancient Israel,” JSOT 28 (2004): 410-11. Cp. Eryl W. Davies, “Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage,” VT 31 (1981): 257-8. 142 “Women who seemed prone to become widows were in danger of being suspected of witchcraft … [Judah] considered it possible that the death of his first two sons was the result of some sort of hex put on them by Tamar.” John H. Walton, Genesis (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 668-9. 143 Millar Burrows, “Levirate Marriage in Israel,” JBL 59 (1940): 23-33; Donald A. Leggett, The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament: With Special Attention to the Book of Ruth (Cherry Hill, N.J.: Mack, 1974); Eryl W. Davies, “Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage,” Parts 1-2, VT 31 (1981): 138-44, 257-68; Richard Kalmin, “Levirate Law,” ABD 4.296-7; Dvora E. Weisberg, “The Widow of Our Discontent: Levirate Marriage in the Bible and Ancient Israel,” JSOT 28 (2004): 403-29.

140

172

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

be documented in other Ancient Near Eastern cultures around Israel, e.g., the Hittites and the Assyrians.144 Scholars lack agreement on the purpose of the levirate institution. Some suggest that the purpose was to resolve the anomaly of the young childless widow, thereby “reaffirm[ing] the young widow’s place in the home of her husband’s people.”145 Others focus on the economic advantages that accrue to the widow, who would otherwise not be entitled to receive any portion of her deceased husband’s estate.146 Others think that, while the widow obviously benefited economically and socially, the real objective was to preserve the deceased brother’s name and continue his line “in a society that set great store by blood ties.”147 This interpretation is supported by the explicit statements in Genesis 38, where Judah enjoins Onan to “raise up offspring for [his] brother” (v 8) but he does not want “to give offspring to his brother” (v 9 ESV). Note as well the emphasis on preserving the deceased brother’s “name” in Deut 25:6-7: “The ֵ ַ   ָ of his dead first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name (‫על־שׁם‬ ‫)יקוּם‬ ֹ ְ in Israel … to ְ      ֶ    ָ     ִ brother, that his name may not be blotted out (‫שׁמוֹ‬ ‫)ולא־ימּחה‬ perpetuate his brother’s name (‫שׁם‬ … ‫)להקים‬ ֵ   ִ   ָ ְ in Israel” (ESV). Further confirming that the primary purpose of the levirate institution was the raising up of an heir to continue the dead man’s name is the fact that the story of Judah and Tamar does not end with Tamar married to anyone, whether Shelah or Judah. Noticing this seemingly unresolved conclusion, George W. Coats argues that the story makes most sense if we assume “that the levirate custom, at least at this stage in history, concerns only the widow’s right to conceive a child.”148 Although Josephus recognizes that a secondary purpose of the custom was to alleviate the misfortune of childless widows, he makes clear that its primary purpose was to raise up an heir; in fact, Josephus interpreted Deut 25:6 as literally requiring that the child be called by the name of the deceased.149 144 “The Middle Assyrian Laws,” Tablet A §33 in ANET 182; and “The Hittite Laws,” §193 in ANET 196. ANET = James B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (3rd ed.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969). Although there are parallels between the biblical institution and the ANE customs, there are also important differences. Millar Burrows claims that “nothing corresponding exactly to the Israelite form of levirate marriage has been found” in the ANE (“Levirate Marriage in Israel,” 27). Cp. Burrows, “The Ancient Oriental Background of Hebrew Levirate Marriage,” BASOR 77 (1940): 2-15; Timothy Willis, The Elders of the City (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 243-50. 145 Susan Niditch, “The Wronged Woman Righted: An Analysis of Genesis 38,” HTR 72 (1979): 146. 146 “If a man died childless, his estate reverted to his brothers or other male kin; in these circumstances a widow would be left with no source of support … Levirate marriage would ensure a childless widow a home and the possibility of children.” Weisberg, 410. 147 Speiser, 300; idem, “‘People’ and ‘Nation’ of Israel,” JBL 79 (1960): 161-2. 148 George W. Coats, “Widow’s Rights: A Crux in the Structure of Genesis 38,” CBQ 34 (1972): 466. 149 “When a woman is left childless on her husband’s death, the husband’s brother shall marry her, and shall call the child that shall be born by the name of the deceased (τὸν παῖδα τὸν γενησόμενον τῷ τοῦ τεθνεῶτος καλέσας ὀνόματι) and rear him as the heir of the estate” (Ant.

C. Analysis of Arguments for the Relational Interpretation

173

Why was God angry enough to kill Onan for failure to raise up seed for his deceased brother, Er? It would appear that Onan’s failure was more than mere neglect of a cultural practice. This seems evident from the fact that the text explicitly states that “what [Onan] did was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also” (v 10). This is the second case of death at God’s hand reported in the Old Testament, with the first being Er’s death for unspecified wickedness (v 7).150 The context makes it clear that the Lord’s anger was directed not at Onan’s act of coitus interruptus per se, but at Onan’s refusal to raise up seed for his brother, more specifically, his attempt to appear as if he were fulfilling the levirate institution while at the same time deliberately frustrating it so that it would not produce an heir.151 One might surmise, furthermore, that in so doing he was also guilty of incest.152 And we may go still further in our attempt to understand why Onan’s act was worthy of death in God’s eyes. The Lord had made solemn promises to Abraham, sealed with a self-maledictory oath153 (Gen 15:7-20), that Abraham would have innumerable descendants who would inherit the land of promise and that, through Abraham’s seed, the Lord would cause all the nations of the earth to be blessed (Gen 12:1-3; 13:14-17; 15:5; 17:4-8; 22:16-18). These promises concerning the seed and the land were reaffirmed to Isaac (Gen 26:1-5) and to Jacob (28:3, 13-15). Onan’s actions were therefore particularly reprehensible to God and far more than a departure from Ancient Near Eastern social customs. His actions constituted a willful disregard for the promises of God and demonstrated an irreligious spirit, a lack of faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.154 With this context in view, we must now examine Dunn’s argument that although Tamar formally violated the moral law, she is nevertheless deemed righteous because her conduct was in accord with the mutual obligations arising from the relationship between Judah and Tamar. But is it true that Tamar formally violated the moral law? What action of hers could be construed as such? Perhaps it might be thought that she engaged in prostitution. But her “prostitution” was a one-time act for the purpose of getting pregnant in order to raise up seed in the name of Judah’s firstborn, Er, in fulfillment of the levirate obligation and, even more importantly, in keeping with God’s promises to Abraham that he would have an innumerable seed who would inherit the land God had sworn to give to 4.254). Josephus VI: Jewish Antiquities: Books IV–VI (LCL; trans. H. St. J. Thackeray and Ralph Marcus; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998), 123-5. 150 Waltke, 510; Hamilton, 434. 151 “What makes Onan’s sin so offensive is that he appears to undertake his responsibility, but he fakes it … Such subterfuge does not escape Yahweh’s notice.” Hamilton, 436. 152 “By frustrating the purpose of the levirate institution, Onan has placed his sexual relationship with his sister-in-law in the category of incest – a capital offense.” Sarna, 267. 153 Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock, 2006), 295-7. 154 Wenham, 365, 367, 369.

174

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

Abraham. Perhaps it might be argued that she committed sexual immorality by sleeping with her father-in-law, Judah. That is not quite accurate either, since she slept with Judah as a surrogate for Shelah. Obviously, it would not have been an act of sexual immorality to sleep with Shelah, since she was in fact legally betrothed to him the moment her second husband died.155 Since Judah was the one who obstinately refused to fulfill his duty and give Tamar to Shelah as his wife, Tamar took matters into her own hands and got herself pregnant by Judah as a surrogate for Shelah. This was not sexual immorality; it was the fulfillment of the aim of the levirate institution, namely, the production of an heir. As Dvora Weisberg states, “There is no indication that the union between Tamar and Judah is not a levirate union.”156 The only act, so far as I can see, that could in any way be construed as a violation of the moral law was Tamar’s act of procuring Judah’s seed by means of deception. Tamar deceived Judah into thinking that she was an ordinary prostitute rather than his daughter-in-law, and such deception is technically a sin. But deception is not what Tamar was accused of. Judah wanted to have her burned on the ground that she had committed prostitution or some form of adultery in violation of her betrothal to Shelah (v 24). But when she produced the evidence that Judah was in fact the father of the baby and the one who had committed the greater sin of withholding Shelah from marrying Tamar, in sinful violation of the levirate institution, it became immediately obvious that Tamar was innocent of the charges Judah brought against her and that Judah was in fact the guilty party. And to the degree that Tamar “sinned” by tricking Judah, it was in fact Judah’s sin of violating the levirate institution by withholding his third son from Tamar that forced her to do what she did in the first place.157 Tamar, then, is totally vindicated.

“The tie between the childless widow and the levir exists automatically from the moment of widowhood. Tamar’s status was thus what is termed shomeret yavam (‘awaiting the levir’) in rabbinic parlance, and any extralevirate sexual relationship would have been adulterous.” Sarna, 269. For more on rabbinic interpretations and modifications of the levirate institution, see Richard Kalmin, “Levirate Law,” ABD 4.296-7. 156 Weisberg, “Widow of Our Discontent,” 415. She adds that the text’s approval of Tamar’s bold action may suggest that “a levirate union with a kinsman other than a brother is preferable to no levirate union.” Both Hittite and Middle Assyrian law included provisions for the father-in-law to serve as a surrogate in case the brother-in-law (the levir) also died. Cf. “The Middle Assyrian Laws,” Tablet A §33 in ANET 182; and “The Hittite Laws,” §193 in ANET 196. Waltke points out that “the Mosaic law did not go this far, but [Tamar’s] actions are not inconsistent with the principle: ‘[the deceased brother’s] widow must not marry outside the family’ (Deut. 5:5).” Waltke, 512; cp. Walton, 668. 157 “She is innocent, he admits, because I forced her to take this action by refusing to give my son Shelah to her in marriage. She, unlike me, was concerned to perpetuate the family line, to produce descendants for Abraham.” Wenham, 370.

155

C. Analysis of Arguments for the Relational Interpretation

175

This brings us, then, to the question of how to translate Judah’s declaration in v 26: ‫ממני‬ ָ     ְ  ָ   There are two interlocking exegetical issues that need to be ִ   ֶ ִ ‫צדקה‬. addressed. First, is the verb ‫צדק‬ (here in the Qal) being used in a declarative, ַ  ָ   judicial sense (“she is proved innocent”) or in a stative, virtue sense (“she is righִ   ֶ ִ a positive comparison (“than me”) or a teous”)? Second, is the comparative ‫ממני‬ comparison of exclusion158 (“and not me”)? The two questions are connected, for if one takes the verb in a judicial sense, one will be more likely to take the comparative exclusively: “She is innocent (or in the right); I am not” (option one).159 On the other hand, if one takes the verb in a virtue sense, one will be more likely to take the comparative as a positive comparison: “She is more righteous than I” (option two).160 David J. Reimer argues for the comparison interpretation: “Judah is not admitting his guilt and Tamar’s innocence; rather, he recognizes that her behavior in this affair was more virtuous than his. This does not turn on legal questions, but moral.”161 To determine which interpretation is more likely here, we must examine the same construction as it is used elsewhere. There are six additional passages besides Gen 38:26 in the Hebrew Bible where the preposition ‫  ִמן‬is used with the ‫ צדק‬root (three with the verb; three with the adjective): ַ  ָ   With the verb (‫)צדק  ִמן‬ Forensic-exclusive: Job 4:17: “Can mortal man be in the right before God?” (ESV; cp. “just  ָ   ְ  ִ   ‫מאלוֹה‬ ַ      ֱ    ֵ   ֱ  ַ (Qal). before God,” NASB)162 (‫יצדּק‬ ‫)האנוֹשׁ‬ Forensic-exclusive: Jer 3:11: “Faithless Israel has proved herself more righteous than treacherָ     ְ   ָ   ֵ   ֹ      ִ   ֵ     ָ    ְ   ִ ָ ֻ  ְ   ָ  ְ   ַ   ָ     ְ  ִ (Piel); note context ous Judah” (NASB) (‫יהוֹדה‬ ‫מבּגדה‬ ‫ישׂראל‬ ‫משׁבה‬ ‫נפשׁה‬ ‫)צדּקה‬ of preceding chapter: The Lord says, “How can you say, ‘I am not unclean’?” (Jer 2:23); “Why do you contend with me?” (v 29), “You say, ‘I am innocent’” (v 35). Forensic-exclusive: Ezek 16:52: “Bear your disgrace, you also, for you have intervened on behalf of your sisters. Because of your sins in which you acted more abominably than they, they are more in the right than you” (ESV) (‫תּצדּקנה‬ ‫)ממּ‬ ָ   ְ ַ   ְ    ִ    ֵ ִ (Qal); note context: the use of the Piel of ‫צדק‬ twice   (vv 51-52) to mean, “to make to appear righteous,” ַ  ָ along with the judicial language of “intervening, interceding” (‫)פּלל‬ ַ   ָ to   make judgment favorable for another (NASB).

The comparison of exclusion is when “the subject alone possesses the quality connoted by the adjective or stative verb, to the exclusion of the thing compared.” IBHS §14.4e; cp. GKC §133b note 2. 159 K. Koch, TLOT 1050; Waltke, Genesis, 513; Wenham, 362. 160 NASB, ESV, NIV. 161 David J. Reimer, “‫צדק‬,” NIDOTTE 3.747-48. 162 But it is also possible to translate, “Can a mortal be more righteous than God?” (NIV), which would support the comparative over the judicial interpretation. However, the context of Job’s controversy with God would suggest that the ESV/NASB forensic reading is more appropriate here. The question is not, “Who is more righteous?” but “In this controversy, who is in the right?”

158

176

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

With the adjective (‫)צדּיק  ִמן‬  ִ ַ   ִ  ֶ ִ Forensic-exclusive: 1 Sam 24:17: Saul to David, “You are more righteous than I” (ESV) (‫ממּנּי‬ ‫אתּה‬ ‫;)צדּיק‬ ָ   ַ   ִ ַ note context of the controversy between David and Saul: “May the Lord therefore be judge and give sentence between me and you” (v 15 ESV). Ethical-comparative: 1 Kings 2:32: Joab “attacked and killed with the sword two men more ֶ ִ righteous and better than himself” (ESV) (‫ממּנּוּ‬ ‫וטבים‬ ‫צדּקים‬ ‫)בּשׁני־אנשׁים‬. ִ  ֹ      ְ        ִ    ִ   ַ     ִ  ָ    ֲ    ֵ   ְ      ִ Ethical-comparative: Hab 1:13: “You who are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong, why do you idly look at traitors and are silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he?” (ESV) (‫ממּנּוּ‬ ‫)צדּיק‬. ֶ ִ      ִ  ַ

In four of these cases, the context indicates that there is some kind of controversy that either is explicitly judicial or has implicit judicial overtones. In these cases, because of the ‫ ִריב‬context, a forensic usage with a comparison of exclusion is more likely: “This party is in the right and innocent of the charges, not that party.” In the remaining two cases (1 Kings 2:32; Hab 1:13), there is no controversy explicitly stated in the context and so an ordinary comparative meaning seems more likely – although a forensic interpretation cannot be totally ruled out. In any case, the construction itself does not determine the question of exclusion versus comparison. Context is determinative. Applying this finding to Gen 38:26, we see that the judicial context of Judah’s declaration is so strong that a forensic-exclusive interpretation seems required. Judah has received a report that Tamar is pregnant by means of prostitution, and as a one-man “judge, jury, and executioner,” he has summarily commanded that she be burned to death. Thus, when Tamar produces the tokens identifying Judah as the father of the baby, he immediately reverses his verdict and declares that she is innocent or in the right, and that he is in the wrong.163 Since it would not make sense to say that Tamar is “more innocent than” Judah, and since the context is the rendering of a verdict between parties disputing over who is “in the right,” the comparative should be taken as a comparison of exclusion: “She is in the right and I am in the wrong.”164 In addition, the LXX seems to interpret N. T. Wright rightly takes this approach to Gen 38:26. “There is an implicit court case going on.” Wright, Paul in Fresh Perspective, 159. “This states a legal position; only secondarily, and by implication, does it comment on the morality of their respective behavior.” Idem, NIB 10.399 n5; idem, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 798. The “trial of Tamar” is rooted in the judicial authority of the ancient Hebrew paterfamilias over internal family affairs, the earliest precursor of later monarchical judicial authority. Keith W. Whitelam, The Just King: Monarchical Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel (JSOTSup 12; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979), 40. I am indebted to Mark A. Seifrid for pointing me to this reference. 164 “One must regard the rendering, ‘She is more righteous than I’ (NIV), as misleading. The narrative depicts justice in a concrete form, as a matter of competing claims between two parties.” Mark A. Seifrid, “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism,” 420.

163

C. Analysis of Arguments for the Relational Interpretation

177

Gen 38:26 judicially, using the perfect of δικαιόω: δεδικαίωται θαμαρ ἢ ἐγώ (“Thamar has been justified rather than I”) (NETS).165 Therefore, since the verse is best interpreted in a forensic-exclusive sense, there is no basis for a relational interpretation of the verb. More importantly, neither reading requires or even suggests a relational interpretation of “righteousness.” A reasonable explanation of Judah’s declaration can be found, with due attention to the historical and social context, and with due attention to the exegetical possibilities, without resorting to Cremer’s Verhältnisbegriff theory. In fact, I would go further and suggest that Gen 38:26 reinforces the traditional notion that “righteousness” in the Hebrew Bible involves the notion of “conformity to a norm” (Kautzsch). Whether the passage is interpreted forensically (“She is innocent; not I”) or relatively (“She is more righteous than I”), the norm idea is unmistakable. If we interpret the verse as saying that Tamar is declared innocent of the charges and is totally vindicated, then it is because she did not actually commit prostitution or adultery (the norm being the moral prohibition against prostitution/adultery). Alternatively, if we think the verse says that Tamar is more righteous than Judah, then even though she did engage in trickery and apparent prostitution, she is comparatively more righteous because her motives were right and she was actually forced into it by Judah’s greater sin of withholding his third son from her (the norm in this case being the levirate institution, which places a premium on raising up seed in line with God’s purposes as covenanted to Abraham). Whichever direction we go, it would be completely misleading to say that Tamar was merely acting faithfully within the context of her relationship with Judah, for her trickery and apparent prostitution were, to some degree, a violation of that relationship and trust, but they were justified – even praiseworthy – in view of the greater good, as Judah himself acknowledged in the end. We have examined seven arguments raised by Cremer and his followers in support of the theory that “righteousness” is a relational concept in the Old Testament. I believe I have shown that the seven arguments are not persuasive and that reasonable alternative explanations of the data can be provided.

165 The word ἤ, like its Hebrew equivalent ‫מן‬, ִ can be used with the idea of exclusion, “rather than” (BDAG ἤ 2bγ; BDF §245a). BDAG cites: μέμφεσθε τὸν ἑαυτῶν βασιλέα ἢ ἐμέ = “blame your own king, not me” (Ps.-Callisth. 1,37,4); πρωτότοκος ἐγὼ ἢ σύ = “I am first-born rather than you” (LXX 2 Kgdms 19:44). The best parallel to LXX Gen 38:26 is Luke 18:14 since it uses the construction with a form of the verb δικαιόω: κατέβη οὗτος δεδικαιωμένος εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ ἢ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος = “this man went home to his house justified rather than that man” (Lk 18:14 in A W Θ Ψ f 13 Majority Text syh – but W Θ lack γάρ). Here, the UBS/NA committee opts for the reading παρ’ ἐκεῖνον on the basis of better external evidence, but whether it is ἤ or ִ used in an exclusive sense, παρά, the Greek probably translates the same Aramaic word (‫)מן‬ just as in Hebrew. I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 680.

178

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

D. The Righteousness of God in the Old Testament Having subjected Cremer’s arguments for his relational theory to a critical analysis, we must now focus specifically on some of the OT passages that refer to God’s righteousness (“my, his, your righteousness”). We cannot deal with every single text as there are too many (41 by my count), but this is not necessary since they are all fundamentally capable of being interpreted along the same or similar lines. Fundamentally, “the righteousness of God” in the Old Testament refers to God’s justice in executing judgment on the enemies of his people and thereby vindicating his people in the face of their oppressors. Thus, it can refer to either side of the equation: (a) the act of punishing Israel’s enemies; or (b) the deliverance that results when Israel’s enemies are thus extinguished and Israel is vindicated. This may apply to Israel as a nation or to the individual godly Israelite who is suffering unjustly at the hands of his oppressors. The law court imagery is present in the following forms: I. Legal conflict absent or not explicit A. God’s justice as king B. God’s justice as lawgiver II. Legal conflict (‫)ריב‬ ִ present in context A. Individual: God’s righteousness = deliverance from one’s adversaries B. Corporate: 1. God’s righteous triumphs in holy war 2. Salvation for Israel = vengeance on Israel’s oppressors 3. Judgment on Israel Table 8. “Righteousness of God” in Hebrew Bible (“My, His, Your”) Ref

Lemma Sub-cat Context

Ps 72:1 tsedaqah I.A Ps 89:17 tsedaqah I.A Ps 97:6 tsedeq I.A Ps 98:2 tsedaqah I.A Ps 111:3 tsedaqah I.A Ps 145:7 tsedaqah I.A

“Of Solomon. Give the king your justice [NASB: judgments], O God, and your righteousness to the royal son!” (ESV). “Blessed are the people … who exult in your name all the day and in your righ- teousness are exalted” (ESV). “The heavens proclaim his righteousness, and all the peoples see his glory” (ESV). “The Lord has made known his salvation; he has revealed his righteousness in the sight of the nations” (ESV). “Full of splendor and majesty is his work, and his righteousness endures forever” (ESV). “They shall pour forth the fame of your abundant goodness and shall sing aloud of your righteousness” (ESV).

Enemies v4 vv 9-10, 22-23, 42, 50-51 vv 3, 7, 10 vv 1-3 vv 6, 9 vv 19-20

179

D. The Righteousness of God in the Old Testament Continuation: Table 8. “Righteousness of God” in Hebrew Bible (“My, His, Your”) Ref

Lemma Sub-cat Context

Ps 119:142 tsedaqah I.B Ps 5:8 tsedaqah II.A Ps 7:17 tsedeq II.A Ps 22:31 tsedaqah II.A Ps 31:1 tsedaqah II.A Ps 35:24 tsedeq II.A Ps 35:28 tsedeq II.A Ps 36:6 tsedaqah II.A Ps 36:10 tsedaqah II.A Ps 40:10 tsedaqah II.A Ps 51:14 tsedaqah II.A Ps 69:27 tsedaqah II.A Ps 71:2 tsedaqah II.A Ps 71:15 tsedaqah II.A Ps 71:16 tsedaqah II.A Ps 71:19 tsedaqah II.A

“Your righteousness is righteous forever, and your law is true” (ESV). “Lead me, O Lord, in your righteousness because of my enemies; make your way straight before me” (ESV). “I will give to the Lord the thanks due to his righteousness, and I will sing praise to the name of the Lord, the Most High” (ESV). “they shall come and proclaim his righteous- ness to a people yet unborn, that he has done it” (ESV). “In you, O Lord, do I take refuge; let me never be put to shame; in your righteousness deliver me!” (ESV). “Vindicate [lit. judge] me, O Lord, my God, according to your righteousness” (ESV). “Then my tongue shall tell of your righ- teousness and of your praise all the day long” (ESV). “Your righteousness is like the mountains of God; your judgments are like the great deep; man and beast you save, O Lord” (ESV). “Oh, continue your steadfast love to those who know you, and your righteousness to the upright of heart!” (ESV). “I have not hidden Your righteousness within my heart; I have spoken of Your faithfulness and Your salvation” (NASB). “Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, O God of my salvation, and my tongue will sing aloud of your righteousness” (ESV). “Add to them punishment upon punishment; may they have no acquittal from you” (ESV), or “may they not come into your righteousness” (NASB). “In your righteousness deliver me and rescue me; incline your ear to me, and save me!” (ESV). “My mouth shall tell of Your righteousness and of Your salvation all day long” (NASB). “I will remind them of your righteousness, yours alone” (ESV). “Your righteousness, O God, reaches the high heavens. You who have done great things, O God, who is like you?” (ESV).

Enemies vv 136, 139, 150 v9 v6 vv 16-21 vv 4, 8, 11, 13, 15 vv 1, 4, 11, 16, 19 v 26 vv 1-4 vv 11-12 vv 14-15 vv 1-5 (spiritualized) vv 4, 14, 18, 26

vv 10, 13, 24 vv 10, 13, 24 vv 10, 13, 24 vv 10, 13, 24

180

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

Continuation: Table 8. “Righteousness of God” in Hebrew Bible (“My, His, Your”) Ref

Lemma Sub-cat Context

Enemies

Ps 71:24 tsedaqah II.A “My tongue also will utter Your righteous- vv 10, 13, 24 ness all day long; for they are ashamed, for they are humiliated who seek my hurt” (NASB). Ps 88:12 tsedaqah II.A “Are your wonders known in the darkness, God himself? or your righteousness in the land of forget- fulness?” (ESV). Ps 103:17 tsedaqah II.A “But the steadfast love of the Lord is from v6 everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him, and his righteousness to children’s chil dren” (ESV). Ps 119:40 tsedaqah II.A “Behold, I long for your precepts; in your vv 21, 23, 39, righteousness give me life!” (ESV). 42, 51, 53 v3 Ps 143:1 tsedaqah II.A “Hear my prayer, O Lord; give ear to my pleas for mercy! In your faithfulness answer me, in your righteousness!” (ESV). vv 9, 12 Ps 143:11 tsedaqah II.A “For your name’s sake, O Lord, preserve my life! In your righteousness bring my soul out of trouble!” (ESV). Deut 33:21 tsedaqah II.B.1 “And [Gad] came with the heads of the people, vv 20-21 with Israel he executed the justice of the Lord, and his judgments for Israel” (ESV). Judg 5:11 tsedaqah II.B.1 “there they repeat the righteous triumphs of vv 19, 31 the Lord” (ESV). 1 Sam 12:7 tsedaqah II.B.1 “Now therefore stand still that I may plead vv 8-9, 12 with you before the Lord concerning all the righteous deeds of the Lord that he performed for you and for your fathers” (ESV). Isa 46:13 tsedaqah II.B.2 “I bring near my righteousness; it is not far 47:1-15 off, and my salvation will not delay; I will put salvation in Zion, for Israel my glory” (ESV). Isa 51:5 tsedeq II.B.2 “My righteousness draws near, my salvation vv 7, 9, 13 has gone out, and my arms will judge the peoples” (ESV). Isa 51:6 tsedaqah II.B.2 “but my salvation will be forever, and my righ- vv 7, 9, 13 teousness will never be dismayed” (ESV). Isa 51:8 tsedaqah II.B.2 “but my righteousness will be forever, vv 13, 23 and my salvation to all generations” (ESV). Isa 56:1 tsedaqah II.B.2 “Thus says the Lord, ‘Preserve justice and 46:13; 51:5-8 do righteousness, for My salvation is about to come, and My righteousness to be revealed’” (NASB). Isa 59:16 tsedaqah II.B.2 “He saw that there was no man, and wondered vv 16-20 that there was no one to intercede; then his own arm brought him salvation, and his righteousness upheld him” (ESV).

181

D. The Righteousness of God in the Old Testament Continuation: Table 8. “Righteousness of God” in Hebrew Bible (“My, His, Your”) Ref

Lemma Sub-cat Context

Micah 6:5 tsedaqah II.B.2 Ps 50:6 tsedeq II.B.3 Isa 42:21 tsedeq II.B.3 Dan 9:16 tsedaqah II.B.3

“My people, remember now what Balak king of Moab counseled and what Balaam son of Beor answered him ... so that you might know the righteous acts of the Lord” (NASB). “The heavens declare his righteousness, for God himself is judge!” (ESV). “The Lord was pleased, for his righteousness’ sake, to magnify his law and make it glorious” (ESV). “O Lord, according to all your righteous acts, let your anger and your wrath turn away from your city Jerusalem, your holy hill” (ESV).166

Enemies 5:15; 6:2,4

vv 16-22 vv 24-25 v 16 (spiritualized)

With the above overview of the data and the fundamental ‫ ִריב‬context in mind, let us now briefly examine a representative sample of the passages that speak of God’s righteousness. 1. Psalm 7:17 “I will give to the Lord the thanks due to his righteousness (‫כּצדק‬   ְ  ִ   ְ / κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ), and I will sing praise to the name of the Lord, the Most High” (ESV).

Psalm 7 is a lament attributed to David in which he calls upon God, asking him to deliver him from his enemies. Because of this reference to the righteousness of God in the final verse, the whole psalm attracts our attention to see what the context might suggest is the content of this divine righteousness. The opening verse is a call for God to “save me from all my pursuers and deliver me” (v 1 ESV). The way this will take place is clear from the rest of the psalm: the psalmist hopes that God will deliver him from his enemies by judging them. “Arise, O Lord, in your anger; lift yourself up against the fury of my enemies” (v 6 ESV). Then we read this stanza: 8

The Lord judges the peoples; judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness167 and according to the integrity that is in me.

“According to all your righteous acts” probably means “give us now as much mercy as you have given us righteous punishment up to this point.” 167 How can the psalmist appeal to his own righteousness and integrity as the basis for God to vindicate him? “Such prayers were composed for a person who was in the right in comparison with the antagonist. They are the expressions of a good conscience before hostility and opposition … The innocence claimed by the petitioner was not an absolute righteousness but a rightness with respect to the charges.” James Luther Mays, Psalms (Louisville: John Knox, 1994), 64, 433.

166

182

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

Oh, let the evil of the wicked come to an end, and may you establish the righteous– you who test the minds and hearts, O righteous God! 10 My shield is with God, who saves the upright in heart. 11 God is a righteous judge, and a God who feels indignation every day (ESV). 9

Notice the high concentration of judgment and righteousness terms here. “O righteous God! … God is a righteous judge.” There can be no doubt from the above that God’s righteousness is his perfect justice in judgment, expressed on the one hand in his vindication of the righteous or innocent and on the other hand in his judgment against the wicked. Peter Craigie comments: The terminology as a whole conjures the image of a court of law; peoples gather around and God takes his lofty seat of judgment (v 8). In this context, in the presence of the one who “adjudicates the nations” (v 9a), the psalmist asks to be judged according to his “righteousness” and “integrity”; he does not for one moment claim absolute righteousness or sinlessness, but only complete innocence with respect to the false charges which have been laid against him. Only in this divine court will the wicked “come to an end” (v 10) and the righteous be established; God, the Judge, is righteous, and by virtue of his divine ability to scrutinize the innermost thoughts and emotions of the persons standing in court – figuratively, the psalmist and his accusers – he will establish the righteous and terminate the wicked.168

According to Psalm 7, then, “the righteousness of God” is not a thoroughly positive or relational concept. The heavenly courtroom is the metaphorical context for understanding God’s righteousness, which is expressed in his judicial verdict in favor of the innocent sufferer who calls upon him for deliverance, a verdict rendered by means of his judgment upon the wicked oppressors of his servants. This is close to Cremer’s thought insofar as he focused on God’s activity of restoring the rights of the defenseless. But Cremer’s analysis failed to take account of the bi-directional flow of God’s righteousness, that is, the fact that God is described as “a righteous judge” because he righteously defends the innocent and punishes their oppressors. The second element, the punishment on the wicked oppressor of the innocent,169 is the focus of attention in Psalm 7 and is what elicits the psalmist’s declaration that “God is a righteous judge” and his concluding note of praise, “I will give to the Lord the thanks due to his righteousness.” Clearly, God’s righteousness is not a thoroughly positive concept that entails

Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1–50 (WBC 19; Waco: Word Books, 1983), 102. The psalmist protests his innocence in vv 3-5: “O Lord my God, if I have done this, if there is wrong in my hands, if I have repaid my friend with evil or plundered my enemy without cause, let the enemy pursue my soul and overtake it, and let him trample my life to the ground and lay my glory in the dust” (ESV).

168



169

D. The Righteousness of God in the Old Testament

183

only salvation. It does entail salvation or vindication for the innocent sufferer; but for the wicked it entails God’s just punishment. Both sides of the coin are involved in “the righteousness of God,” but in Psalm 7, the punitive side receives the emphasis. 2. Psalm 35:23-28 23 “Awake and rouse yourself for my vindication ִ   ָ    ְ    ִ   ְ / τῇ κρίσει μου), (‫למשׁפּטי‬ for my cause (‫לריבי‬ ִ     ִ  ְ / εἰς τὴν δίκην μου), my God and my Lord! 24 Vindicate me, O Lord, my God, according to your righteousness (‫כצדק‬  ְ     ְ    ִ   ְ   ‫שׁפטני‬ ִ   ֵ ְ ָ / κρῖνόν με κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου), and let them not rejoice over me! 25 Let them not say in their hearts, “Aha, our heart’s desire!” Let them not say, ‘We have swallowed him up.’ 26 Let them be put to shame and disappointed altogether who rejoice at my calamity! Let them be clothed with shame and dishonor who magnify themselves against me! 27 Let those who delight in my righteousness (or my vindication, NASB) (‫צדקי‬ ִ     ְ  ִ / τὴν δικαιοσύνην μου) shout for joy and be glad and say evermore, ‘Great is the Lord, who delights in the welfare of his servant!’ 28 Then my tongue shall tell of your righteousness (‫צדק‬ ֶ     ְ  ִ / τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου) and of your praise all the day long.” (ESV)

Although Goldingay translates the two references to God’s righteousness as “your faithfulness” (vv 24, 28), he provides no rationale for this misleading translation and simply repeats the common view since Cremer that righteousness equals faithfulness.170 But repeated usage of judicial language – “my vindication” ִ        ִ in v 23), and the verb “to (‫משׁפּטי‬ ִ     ָ    ְ    ִ in v 23 and ‫צדקי‬ ִ     ְ  ִ in v 27), “my cause” (‫ריבי‬ vindicate” (‫שׁפט‬ ַ   ָ    in v 24) – in the immediate context makes clear that the setting is a judicial one: “Awake and rouse yourself for my vindication, for my cause, my God and my Lord! Vindicate me, O Lord, my God, according to your righteousness, and let them not rejoice over me!” There is a controversy here between the psalmist and his adversary. The psalmist is crying out to God to judge between him and his adversary, to decide in his favor and vindicate him by giving him 170 John Goldingay, Psalms, Vol. 1: Psalms 1–41 (BCOT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 500-2. In his glossary he has an entry for “Faithful, faithfulness,” which are his translations for ‫צדּיק‬ ָ     ָ  ְ , respectively. He defines the terms as “acting in the right way in ִ ַ and ‫צדקה‬ relation to people with whom one is in a relationship” (p. 593). Clearly, Goldingay has been strongly influenced by Cremer’s relational interpretation of righteousness.

184

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

justice against his enemies. It is thus more in keeping with the context to render all three occurrences of ‫צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ in this Psalm with the English word “justice.”171 1 Samuel 24 provides a real-life, historical situation in which just this sort of plea for divine vindication and justice might have been uttered. After passing up an opportunity to kill him, David says to King Saul: “See, my father, see the corner of your robe in my hand. For by the fact that I cut off the corner of your robe and did not kill you, you may know and see that there is no wrong or treason in my hands. I have not sinned against you, though you hunt my life to take it. 12 May the Lord ֹ  ְ   ִ / δικάσαι) between me and you, may the Lord avenge me against you, but my judge (‫ישׁפּט‬ hand shall not be against you. 13 As the proverb of the ancients says, ‘Out of the wicked comes wickedness.’ But my hand shall not be against you. 14 After whom has the king of Israel come out? After whom do you pursue? After a dead dog! After a flea! 15 May the Lord therefore be judge (‫לדיּן‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫והיה‬  ָ   ַ   ְ     ָ       ְ   ָ     ָ   ְ / γένοιτο κύριος εἰς κριτήν) and give sentence (‫ושׁפט‬ ַ   ָ    ְ  / καὶ δικαστήν) between me and you, and see to it and plead my cause (‫את־ריבי‬ ‫ירב‬ ִ   ִ  ֶ   ֵ  ְ / κρίναι τὴν κρίσιν μου) and deliver me from your hand (‫מיּד‬ ‫וישׁפּטני‬ ֶ   ָ   ִ   ִ  ֵ ְ ְ   ִ ְ / καὶ δικάσαι μοι ἐκ χειρός σου)” (1 Sam 24:11-15 ESV).172 11

Thus the judicial component of the divine ‫צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ in Ps 35:24, 28 is not to be overlooked, nor can it rightly be reduced to God’s faithfulness. Though the idea may be theologically legitimate, the psalmist is not asking God to judge/vindicate him according to his faithfulness as the divine promise-maker and promise-keeper, but according to his righteousness or justice as the divine Judge: “Judge-andvindicate me according to your justice (‫כצדק‬ ‫שׁפטני‬ ְ     ְ  ִ ְ    ִ  ֵ ְ   ָ / κρῖνόν με κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου), O Lord my God.” 3. Psalm 51:14 “Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, the God of my salvation; then my tongue will joyfully sing of your righteousness” (ESV).

Clearly, God’s righteousness here is salvific, and the oppressor from which the psalmist seeks deliverance is not an external foe such as the persecutor of Ps 35 but his own sins.173 But this does not mean that there is no judicial aspect here. As 171 As Robert Alter does: “Judge me by Your justice, Lord my God … May they sing glad and rejoice, who desire justice for me … and my tongue will murmur Your justice” (vv. 24, 27, 28). Alter, The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary (New York: W. W. Norton, 2007), 124-5. So also J. P. Fokkelman, Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible, 2.137. 172 “The narrative setting [of 1 Sam 24] is a clue to the kind of situation for which [Ps 35] is composed,” noting the verbal parallels between 1 Sam 24:14-15 and Ps 35:1, 3, 23-24. Mays, Psalms, 154. 173 This interpretation of sin as an enemy is supported by another passage in the Psalms where the suppliant depicts his iniquities in military terms as a hostile force threatening to overpower him: “When iniquities prevail against me, you atone for our transgressions” (Psalm 65:3 ESV). The same verb rendered “prevail” is used in Lam 1:16 (“the enemy has prevailed”) and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible in reference to literal or metaphorical military force (Exod 17:11; 1 Sam 2:9; 2 Sam 11:23; Isa 42:13). Psalm 65:3 therefore justifies taking the sins of Psalm 51 as the enemy from which David seeks to be delivered by God’s atoning and justifying activity.

D. The Righteousness of God in the Old Testament

185

Erich Zenger says, this righteousness is a “judging-saving” righteousness.174 The judicial context is clear from the context mentioned in v 4 (v 6 in Hebrew): “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified (‫תּצדּק‬  ַ     ְ ִ / δικαιωθῇς) in your words ֶ ְ   ָ       ְ ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί σε)” (ESV).175 and blameless in your judgment (‫בשׁפט‬/

In other words, the psalmist is in an implied controversy (‫)ריב‬ ִ with God. In other psalms (e.g., Ps 35), the controversy is between the psalmist and his enemies, with God as the impartial judge who renders a decision between them. Here, the psalmist is in a controversy with God; presumably before he came to recognize his guilt, he had accused God of unjustly causing him to suffer.176 But now he has come to realize that he is the one who is in the wrong and that God is in the right. God is now “justified” in this judicial controversy. By the same token, as the reverse-side of this justification of God, the psalmist is judged and pronounced guilty; it is not, however, a purely negative judicial condemnation but a positive pronouncement that, through acknowledging his guilt, casting himself on the mercy of God and receiving inner cleansing and restoration, he himself is now restored to a forgiven and righteous status as well.177 God’s saving righteousness thus involves judicial activity – for salvation comes through a judicial act in which God declares the sinner to be guilty before him and then, by his grace providing atonement for sin that “blots out iniquities” (v 9), declares him to be no longer one who is reckoned among “transgressors” and “sinners” (v 13) but one who has been delivered from blood-guiltiness (v 14) and therefore by implication one of the righteous who enjoy God’s favor. “The beginning of salvation from sin is God’s judgment upon the sinner.”178

174 Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, A Commentary on Psalms 51–100 (ed. Klaus Baltzer; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 22, 24. 175 In all likelihood, ‫בשׁפט‬ ֶ ְ   ָ    ְ is to be taken in the active sense, “when you judge” (NIV, NASB), but the LXX (cp. Paul’s quotation in Rom 3:4) interprets it as a judicial proceeding in which God is the one being judged (ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί σε). Hossfeld and Zenger, 24. Either way, a judicial controversy between God and the sinner is in view. 176 The psalmist’s sickness (as punishment for his sin) is implied in these words: “Let the bones that you have broken rejoice” (v 8). Some even call Ps 51 a “sick person’s psalm.” Ernst Würthwein, “Bemerkungen zu Psalm 51,” in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung: FS W. Beyerlin (ed. Klaus Seybold and Erich Zenger; 2nd ed.; HBS 1; Freiburg: Herder, 1995), 381-88. 177 “The confession of sin seeks renewal as well as forgiveness. The psalm leads the penitent to seek both justification and sanctification.” Mays, Psalms, 202. The plea for justification is stated in vv 7-9 (“purge me with hyssop … blot out my iniquities”), while the plea for sanctification is stated in v 10 (“create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me”). 178 Mays, Psalms, 200.

186

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

4. Psalm 98:1-3 1 “Oh sing to the Lord a new song, for he has done marvelous things! His right hand and his holy arm ָ ִ ָ ָ / ἔσωσεν αὐτῷ). have worked salvation for him (‫הוֹשׁיעה־לוֹ‬ ‫עשׂה‬ 2 The Lord has made known his salvation (‫ ישׁוּעתוֹ‬/ τὸ σωτήριον αὐτοῦ); he has revealed his righteousness ָ   ְ ִ ‫גּלּה‬ ָ ִ / ἀπεκάλυψεν τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ) (‫צדקתוֹ‬ in the sight of the nations. 3 He has remembered his steadfast love and faithfulness ָ ֱ   ֶ   ְ   ַ / τοῦ ἐλέους αὐτοῦ … καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας αὐτοῦ) (‫ואמוּנתוֹ‬ ‫חסדּוֹ‬ to the house of Israel. All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God (‫אהינוּ‬ ‫ישׁוּעת‬ ‫ ֵאת‬/ τὸ σωτήριον τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν)” (ESV). ֵ   ֱ      ַ  ְ  

Sigmund Mowinckel categorized Psalm 98, along with Psalms 47, 93, 95–97, as enthronement psalms, that is, psalms with the cultic Sitz im Leben of an enthronement festival in ancient Israel, an annual celebration of YHWH’s kingship.179 This view has been quite influential among OT scholars. However, Tremper Longman takes issue with this view, especially the speculative nature of the thesis concerning an annual festival, and argues rather that Psalm 98 is a song celebrating the victory of the Divine Warrior as the commander of the heavenly armies.180 The idea is that upon a successful campaign in Israel’s holy war, the people would use this psalm and others like it to reaffirm God’s kingship (cp. the victory songs in Exod 15:20-21; Judges 5:1-31; 11:34; 1 Sam 18:6-7; Ps 68:24-27; usually in reference to the women singing with timbrels and dancing). If Longman is correct, then it sheds light on the correlation between “salvation” and “righteousness” in Ps 98:2, for the divine Warrior is seen as accomplishing Israel’s victory and deliverance by means of a royal-judicial judgment upon Israel’s enemies, and so in this way God reveals his righteousness. The kingly office of ancient Israel involved two primary activities: the military aspect (to provide victory and security for the people against the surrounding nations) and the judicial aspect (to provide judicial rulings of defense on behalf of the poor, the orphan, and the widow against their oppressors). So it is not surprising that the two ideas would be welded into a single image when referring to the divine King: as the divine Warrior he comes to the aid of his oppressed people by granting them victory over their foes; God reveals his righteousness/justice by judicially deciding in favor of his people through a military victory that is at once the punishing/defeating of their oppressors and their vindication in the sight of the nations. 179 Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 1.107ff. 180 Tremper Longman III, “Psalm 98: A Divine Warrior Victory Song,” JETS 27/3 (1984): 267-74.

D. The Righteousness of God in the Old Testament

187

This argument is reinforced by the observation that the language of Ps 98:2 is highly reminiscent of the passages in Deutero-Isaiah that we looked at earlier in the section on passages where “salvation” and “righteousness” are used in parallelism. No doubt there is some degree of inner-biblical exegesis or intertextuality at work here, though whether it is Psalm 98 reflecting on Deutero-Isaiah or vice versa is impossible to determine.181 Whichever direction the influence flows, the intertextual linkage supports my thesis because we see the same dynamic at work in Deutero-Isaiah: God will reveal his righteousness and his salvation by judging the Babylonians who took his people into exile, then redeeming and restoring them to the land. “The Divine Warrior both saves his people and judges his enemies in the same act. In addition, Yahweh establishes his kingship through his military victories. This last point recognizes the Near Eastern background to the Divine Warrior motif in the OT and further the strong association between Yahweh’s warfare and his role as king.”182 In addition to YHWH’s “salvation” and “righteousness,” we also have his “lovingkindness” and “faithfulness,” so that all four terms are in parallelism with one another. Yet it is important to note that the verbs with which they are conַ   ִ nected differ. YHWH has “made known” (‫הוֹדיע‬ [Hiphil of ‫]ידע‬ ַ  ָ / ἐγνώρισεν) his salvation and “revealed” (‫גּלּה‬ ָ    ָ / ἀπεκάλυψεν) his righteous ָ   ִ [Piel of ‫]גּלה‬ ness, but he has “remembered” (‫זכר‬ ַ  ָ [Qal] / ἐμνήσθη) his lovingkindness and his faithfulness to the house of Israel. The Lord is the King of the cosmos (v 6) who will judge the earth in righteousness (v 9), and through that judgment he will bring salvation to his people.183 The remembering verb has strongly covenantal overtones in Scripture,184 and so we may deduce that the Lord’s saving activity not only is accomplished through his righteousness in royal-judicial action, but also is an expression of his covenant faithfulness in keeping his promises to the house of Israel. But, as we have seen, the nuanced nature of Hebrew parallelism suggests that we have here a complex of theological ideas in which each word or concept complements but does not coincide with the others, producing a three-dimensional theological affirmation larger than the sum of its parts.185 That broader theological affirmation is part of the discourse concept that resides in the 181 Hossfeld and Zenger, A Commentary on Psalms 51–100, 480-1. Delitzsch thinks the language is taken from Deutero-Isaiah. Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, vols. 1-3 (trans. David Eaton; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1889), 3.62. Craig C. Broyles argues that the dependence is the other way around, since he regards Psalm 98 as pre-exilic and Deutero-Isaiah as exilic. Broyles, Psalms (NIBC; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 381. 182 Longman, “Psalm 98: A Divine Warrior Victory Song,” 272. 183 Mays, Psalms, 312. 184 The construction “to remember one’s covenant” (with God as the subject) is used around a dozen times in the OT (Gen 9:15, 16; Exod 2:24; 6:5; Lev 26:42, 45; 1 Chron 16:15; Pss 105:8; 106:45; 111:5; Jer 14:21; Ezek 16:60) and once in the NT (Luke 1:72). 185 Robert Lowth’s old paradigm of Hebrew parallelism leads one commentator to make the astonishing claim that “Psalm 98 forms the synonymous parallelism ‫צדקה – ישועה‬, through

188

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

statement, “he has revealed his righteousness (‫צדקתוֹ‬ ‫גּלּה‬  ָ    ְ  ִ ָ  ִ / ἀπεκάλυψεν τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ) in the sight of the nations,” a statement that must be read in the context of God’s cosmic kingship affirmed in the Psalm as a whole. But that theological affirmation is made by the clauses, strophes, and verses of the Psalm as a whole and does not reside in the lexical concept of the word ‫צדקה‬ ָ     ָ  ְ in and of ָ     ָ  ְ makes its own contribution to the itself. The lexical concept of the word ‫צדקה‬ broader discourse concept of Psalm 98, but that broader discourse concept must not be transferred back into the lexical concept. 5. Psalm 143:1-2, 11-12 1 “Hear my prayer, O Lord; give ear to my pleas for mercy! In your faithfulness answer me, in your righteousness! (‫בּצדקת‬ ‫בּאמנת‬ ֶ  ָ  ְ  ִ   ְ    ‫ענני‬ ִ  ֵ  ֲ ְ  ָ  ֻ   ֱ ֶ / ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ σου, ἐπάκουσόν μου ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου) 2 Enter not into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before you. … 11 For your name’s sake, O Lord, preserve my life! In your righteousness (‫בּצדקת‬ ְ   ָ    ְ   ִ   ְ / ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου) bring my soul out of trouble! 12 And in your steadfast love you will cut off my enemies, and you will destroy all the adversaries of my soul, for I am your servant” (ESV).

While it may be tempting to interpret “righteousness” as equivalent to “faithfulness,” such an identification is not in keeping with what we now know of Hebrew parallelism.186 It is more likely that the “righteousness” of God in v 1 is related to the “righteousness” that the psalmist lacks but desires in his relationship to God in v 2: “Enter not into judgment (‫)משׁפּט‬  ָ    ְ ִ with your servant, for no one living is righteous (Qal of ‫)צדק‬ before you.” In other words, the psalmist is ַ  ָ   asking God to deliver him from his foes by a judicial act of righteousness, that is, by vindicating him against his enemies. The psalmist “pleads for divine interposition in righteousness and a righteous judgment on enemies.”187 which ‫ צדקה‬moves completely into the meaning ‘salvation.’” Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 60–150: A Commentary (trans. Hilton C. Oswald; ET of Biblisher Kommentar; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 264 (emphasis mine). 186 Kraus again falls prey to this error when he says, “Alongside ‫‘( אמונה‬faithfulness,’ ‘constancy’), ‫ צדקה‬has the meaning: ‘covenant faithfulness,’ ‘salvation faithfulness.’” Hansֶ  ָ  ְ  ִ   ְ in Ps 143:1, Joachim Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 536. Another commentator translates ‫בּצדקת‬ 11 as “in your consistency” and says “it refers to Yahweh’s doing what is right in the light of his covenantal commitments.” Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101–150 (WBC 21; Waco: Word Books, 1983), 280. 187 Charles Augustus Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1907), 2.515. “The divine attributes are the sanctions of the pleading: faithfulness], to His covenant and people; righteousness], in their vindication against their enemies.”

D. The Righteousness of God in the Old Testament

189

The forensic significance of God’s righteousness in vv 1 and 11 is evident from several considerations. First, the context has to do with the psalmist’s cry for deliverance from his enemies, which are mentioned three times: “For the enemy has pursued my soul; he has crushed my life to the ground … Deliver me from my188 enemies, O Lord! I have fled to you for refuge … And in your steadfast love you will cut off my enemies, and you will destroy all the adversaries of my soul, for I am your servant” (vv 3, 9, 12 ESV). The adversarial context of the psalm therefore points us in the direction of a controversy (‫)ריב‬ ִ that is to be decided as both parties stand before the heavenly Judge and await his verdict  ָ    ְ ִ 189 This is the precise significance of the imperative, “Hear my prayer, O (‫)משׁפּט‬. Lord; give ear to my pleas for mercy! … Answer me quickly, O Lord! … In your righteousness bring my soul out of trouble!” (vv 1, 7, 11 ESV). The psalmist is crying out to God for a judicial verdict of vindication for him and condemnation against his foes. Second, the statement “for to you I lift up my soul” (‫נפשׁי‬ ‫נשׂאתי‬ ‫כּי־אלי‬ ִ ְ  ַ    ִ   ָ   ָ   ֶ   ֵ   ִ / ὅτι πρὸς σὲ ἦρα τὴν ψυχήν μου) in verse 8 implies that the psalmist has placed the outcome of the controversy in God’s hands. The construction “to lift” (‫)נשׂא‬ ָ     ָ ִ    ְ  ַ + “to you [God]” (‫)אלי‬ ֶ   ֵ occurs also in Psalm 25 (cp. Ps + “my soul” (‫)נפשׁי‬ 86:4), where it is clearly in a legal controversy context, with the hoped-for outcome of shame upon the enemies and vindication for the godly suppliant: “To you, O Lord, I lift up my soul. (‫אשּׂא‬ ‫נפשׁי‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫אלי‬ ָ    ֶ     ִ    ְ ַ     ָ ְ ֶ ֵ / Πρὸς σέ, κύριε, ἦρα τὴν ψυχήν μου) 2 O my God, in you I trust; let me not be put to shame; let not my enemies exult over me. 3 Indeed, none who wait for you shall be put to shame; they shall be ashamed who are wantonly treacherous” (Psalm 25:1-3 ESV). 1

Who will be put to shame? The righteous who are being oppressed by the enemy, or the enemy who is gloating over the suffering of the righteous? The suppliant lifts up his soul to the Lord in confidence that “none who wait for [him] shall be put to shame.” As in Psalm 143, the psalmist of Psalm 25 does not appeal to his own righteousness as the basis for God’s vindication; in fact, he pleads for God’s forgiving grace: “Remember not the sins of my youth or my transgressions … For your name’s sake, O Lord, pardon my guilt, for it is great

ֶ ְ ֹ (“your enemies”) and that a later scribe changed 188 Briggs thinks assonance requires ‫איבי‬ the suffix to “my enemies” (‫)איבי‬. ַ   ְ ֹ Briggs, The Book of Psalms, 2.517, 519. This makes good sense theologically (Briggs: “The enemies of the people of Yahweh are the enemies of Yahweh Himself”), but there is no manuscript or version that supports this reading (the LXX has ἐκ τῶν ἐχθρῶν μου). 189 Derek Kidner interprets the appeal to God’s righteousness as “the integrity of a judge” which is “welcomed by those who brought a case to court.” Psalms 73–150 (London: InterVarsity, 1975), 475.

190

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

… Consider my affliction and my trouble, and forgive all my sins” (Ps 25:7, 11, 18 ESV). The psalmist therefore lifts up his soul to God for a vindication that is ultimately grounded in God’s grace. Third, the second verse of Psalm 143 must be brought into play here: “Enter not into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before you” ָ ְ ִ ְ ‫ בוֹא‬/ εἰσέρχομαι (ESV). The construction “to enter into judgment with” (‫במשׁפּט‬ εἰς κρίσιν) is used also in Job 22:4190 and demonstrates the forensic context of the whole Psalm.191 The psalmist has just pleaded with God to hear him in the judicial sense of coming to vindicate him against his foes (v 1). Having just appealed to the heavenly court, he is immediately conscious of his sinfulness. “Israel as the servant of Yahweh is here conscious of sin and guilt, that makes him dread the divine judgment, which the previous context has implored.”192 The following statement, “for no one living is righteous before you” (v 2b), indicates further that what is expected is a vindication, a judicial pronouncement of the status “righteous before God.” This statement in the LXX (οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐνώπιόν σου πᾶς ζῶν) (Ps 143:2 [142:2LXX]) provided the apostle Paul with the language for his teaching concerning the righteousness that sinners can have before God by faith in Christ (Rom 3:20; cp. Gal 2:16). I will deal with the argument that in Rom 3:20-21 Paul makes an intertextual allusion to “God’s righteousness” in Psalm 143MT/142LXX in Chapter Six. 6. Micah 7:7-9 7 “But as for me, I will watch expectantly for the Lord; I will wait for the God of my salvation; My God will hear me. 8 Do not rejoice over me, O my enemy; Though I fall I will rise; Though I dwell in darkness, the Lord is a light for me. 9 I will bear the indignation of the Lord Because I have sinned against Him, Until He pleads my case (‫ריבי‬ ‫יריב‬ ‫אשׁר‬ ‫ ַעד‬/ ִ  ִ ִ ָ ֶ ֲ ἕως τοῦ δικαιῶσαι αὐτὸν τὴν δίκην μου) and executes justice for me (‫משׁפּטי‬ ‫ועשׂה‬ ִ     ָ ְ ִ   ָ    ָ   ְ / καὶ ποιήσει τὸ κρίμα μου). 190 “Is it for your fear of him that he reproves you and enters into judgment with you? (‫בּמּשׁפּט‬ ‫עמּ‬ ‫ ָיבוֹא‬/ συνεισελεύσεταί σοι εἰς κρίσιν)” (Job 22:4 ESV). ָ ְ ִ   ַ ְ   ִ 191 Although he incorrectly (in my view) interprets God’s righteousness in Ps 143:1, 11 as God’s faithfulness, Goldingay rightly notes the forensic context based on the “enter into judgment” construction of v 2: “More literally ‘enter into a decision’ (bô’ bĕmišpāt; cf. Job 22:4). Similar phrases can refer to a more open, mutual process of decision making (e.g., Job 9:32, where the verb is plural), but this second-person expression takes the perspective of the person bringing the case, one who (the speaker also knows) can be confident of winning … It is Yhwh who makes the authoritative decisions about whether a person counts as faithful.” John Goldingay, Psalms, 3.673. 192 Briggs, The Book of Psalms, 2. 515.

D. The Righteousness of God in the Old Testament

191

He will bring me out to the light, And I will see His righteousness (‫בּצדקתוֹ‬ ‫אראה‬  ָ    ְ  ִ ְ      ֶ   ְ ֶ / ὄψομαι τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ)” (NASB).

It is important to recognize that the context of this passage extends back to chapter 6, which is the opening of YHWH’s covenant lawsuit against his covenantbreaking people: “Listen, you mountains, to the indictment (‫)ריב‬ ִ of the Lord, and you enduring foundations of the earth, because the Lord has a case (‫)ריב‬ ִ against His people; even with Israel He will dispute” (Micah 6:2 NASB).193 It is a cosmic lawsuit, for even the mountains and the foundations of the earth are called to serve as witnesses or judges against Israel, a common feature of Ancient Near Eastern suzerainty treaties.194 The covenant that Israel has broken is the Sinai Covenant, and thus the curses of that covenant are about to be invoked against her: “Therefore I strike you with a grievous blow, making you desolate because of your sins” (Micah 6:13 ESV). But all is not lost. God’s bringing the punitive curses of the covenant upon Israel is not an end in itself, nor is it the end of the story, for in accordance with God’s earlier promises to the fathers he will not let judgment be the last word. A remnant will pass through the judgment and come out on the other side forgiven, restored, and vindicated.195 Thus in Micah 7:7-9, the prophet looks ahead to that vindication. Although Israel is guilty and must suffer the punitive dimension of God’s righteousness, the prophet, speaking on behalf of the people, will wait until God “pleads my case and executes justice for me.” God’s role will change from the plaintiff bringing the charge against Israel to the judge who decides in favor of the oppressed against their enemies.196 “The expectation that Yah 193 YHWH is the plaintiff; Israel is the defendant; Micah is YHWH’s prosecuting attorney bringing the lawsuit on God’s behalf; and all creation serves as the witness. Bruce K. Waltke, A Commentary on Micah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 373-5; Delbert R. Hillers, Micah (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1984), 77. For an analysis of the rîb-pattern in the prophets, see H. B. Huffmon, “The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets,” JBL 78 (1959): 285-95 and Julien Harvey, “‘Le Rîb-Pattern,’ Réquisitoire prophétique sur la rupture de l’alliance,” Biblica 43 (1963): 172-96. 194 George E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh: Biblical Colloquium, 1955), 40; Delbert R. Hillers, Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969), 36-37. For more on the Ancient Near Eastern suzerainty treaty format as a literary-legal genre after which the Mosaic Covenant was modeled, see Meredith G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972). 195 “Those who live in violation of God’s laws are condemned and those who love Yahweh are vindicated. The whole nation will be judged, even Micah himself; however, the remnant which repents will be delivered and granted honor.” Ralph L. Smith, Micah-Malachi (WBC 32; Waco: Word Books, 1984), 60. 196 “To describe that transition [from judgment to salvation] they use language of a court of law to interpret the history of judgment as a process in which the judge marvelously becomes advocate and defender. He will plead their case … and defend their right (Pss. 17.2;

192

Chapter 4: Righteousness in the Old Testament

weh will ‘plead one’s cause’ and ‘accomplish justice’ for a person is metaphor derived from the judicial scene where the poor man needed a protector against a powerful enemy.”197 The context, of course, is that Israel feels she has been unjustly treated by the Babylonians, whom God sent in judgment on her for her covenant breaking. The enemy has gloated over Israel in her darkest hour, derisively calling out, “Where is the Lord your God?” (Micah 6:16; 7:10). Just as victims look to human judges for redress of the wrongs they have suffered at the hands of their enemies, so the divine Judge will now become Israel’s champion, deliverer, and vindicator.198 With this strongly judicial context in view, then, the rest of the verse makes sense: “He will bring me out to the light and I will see His righteousness.” The phrase “his righteousness” is not to be translated “his salvation”199 (even though God’s righteousness is certainly salvific in its effects), but “his righteousness” (NASB). What Micah beholds is not the salvific effects but the righteousness of God himself. Micah and the nation as a whole will experience God’s deliverance and vindication, in spite of their sins; and having experienced such grace, they will then look upon and marvel at the righteousness of God. This language has strong intertextual echoes with Deutero-Isaiah and Ps 98:2, which we analyzed in a similar manner above. God’s “righteousness” in Micah 7:9 is therefore a judicially-stamped Normbegriff focused here on the notion of God’s vindication and justification of his servants: “God’s righteousness is the action he takes to vindicate his election of his people.”200 Thus, this passage in Micah comes very close to the Pauline notion of “the righteousness of God” as a judicial vindication, an act of justification in which the sinner receives a gift of righteousness that does not arise from himself (who has no righteousness) but from God. Zion’s “confidence is not in herself – she has sinned and that characterization is total – but in the righteousness of God.”201

9.4; 140.12). This outcome of their trial before God will occur as an event of salvation.” James Luther Mays, Micah: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 159. 197 Hillers, Micah, 90. 198 Leslie C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 395. 199 E.g., Waltke, Micah, 435, quoting from Klaus Koch’s article on ‫ צדק‬in TLOT. 200 Mays, Micah, 160. 201 Ibid., 160.

E. Conclusion

193

E. Conclusion Cremer posited that the Hebrew usage of “my/his/your righteousness” in reference to God’s judicial activity of delivering those who are oppressed and who fly for redress to his court should be classified as iustitia salutifera in opposition to and in contrast to the Greek/Latin iustitia distributiva. But as I have shown, the “righteousness of God” terminology in both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Septuagint is actually best understood in light of the judicial context of legal conִ so that God’s righteousness is precisely iustitia distributiva. The troversy (‫)ריב‬, 41 (Hebrew MT) or 44 (LXX, not including Aprocrypha) occurrences of “my/ ִ   ָ ְ ִ your/his righteousness” are focused on God’s judicial activity of issuing ‫משׁפּטים‬ / κρίματα (judgments, verdicts, legal decisions) on behalf of the oppressed and against their adversaries. Cremer set up a false dichotomy between iustitia salutifera and iustitia distributiva that has haunted scholarship ever since.

Chapter 5

Righteousness in Jewish Literature The question we have been seeking to address is the meaning of the phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Paul’s epistles.1 This question involves both the meaning of δικαιοσύνη and the significance of the genitive θεοῦ. In Chapter 1, I argued that, aside from a number of minor interpretations and setting aside the distinction between infused and imputed righteousness, one may speak of a traditional view held by the church fathers up to and including the Protestant Reformation and its evangelical heirs. The traditional view takes the noun δικαιοσύνη as referring to “righteousness before God” in the soteriological sense and θεοῦ as a genetivus auctoris. That is, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Paul is not God’s own attribute of righteousness but the righteousness that he gives us by faith. In his anti-Pelagian treatise, “On the Spirit and the Letter,” Augustine made the following statement about Rom 3:21: He does not say, the righteousness of man, or the righteousness of his own will, but the “righteousness of God,” – not that whereby He is Himself righteous, but that with which He endows man when He justifies the ungodly.2

Augustine’s interpretation was hugely influential throughout the medieval period, and even Luther, Calvin and the Reformation tradition followed the same general path, although they emphasized that the righteousness was given to humans by a forensic declaration rather than by the transformation of the new life in Christ. In any case, the traditional view is united in holding that the righteousness of God is the righteousness of the justified person, the homo iustificatus. It is “of God” because God bestows it (whether by infusion or by imputation) on those who believe. It was not until 1860 that a new view began to be articulated by Diestel and Ritschl, in which the notion of God’s distributive justice was called into question and flatly rejected, while “righteousness” in OT language and thought was viewed as a thoroughly positive term equivalent to God’s grace and love. This was developed further by Cremer in his 1899 treatise on Paul’s Rechtfertigungslehre in the context of its historical presuppositions, in which he argued for the first time that the reason the OT concept of “righteousness” is positive is because it 1 Rom 1:17; 3:5, 21, 22; 10:3 [2x]; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9, with the précising preposition ἐκ. There are also two occurrences of “his righteousness” (ἡ δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ) in reference to God’s righteousness – Rom 3:25, 26. 2 Augustine, De spiritu et littera 9.15. NPNF 1 5.89.

Righteousness in Jewish Literature

195

is a Verhältnisbegriff. This view, in various permutations, influenced a stream of 20th-century scholars such as Schlatter, Käsemann, and Stuhlmacher in their interpretation of the Pauline δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as God’s saving activity in fulfillment of his covenant promises. This view was then picked up by the more recent New Perspective writers such as Dunn and Wright. The traditional view begins with the assumption that “righteousness” is essentially a Normbegriff having to do with ethical righteousness such that, according to God’s distributive justice, that righteousness is acknowledged and approved by God. In line with this, the traditional view then takes the term δικαιοσύνη, when used by Paul in soteriological contexts, as referring to the righteousness that believers receive by faith on the basis of the atoning death of Christ. The new view begins with the starting point that “righteousness” is a Verhältnisbegriff and then takes Paul’s phrase, “the righteousness of God,” as a subjective genitive that means either God’s saving activity or his covenant faithfulness or some combination of the two concepts. We have seen that the relational starting point of the new view is not borne out by the evidence. It rests on a false contrast with extrabiblical Greek usage, as if the Greco-Roman and the Hebraic concepts of righteousness were radically divergent. We have seen that in extrabiblical usage, the Greek term δικαιοσύνη can have a relational usage as well. In other words, faithfulness to one’s covenants and promises is deemed to be a subset of “righteousness.” We have also seen that the Old Testament usage does not support the relational theory, since “righteousness” is used neutrally (in reference to judicial activity in general), negatively (in reference to punitive judicial activity), and positively (in reference to judicial activity that involves vindication or deliverance by means of judgment upon the oppressors of God’s people). Cremer’s relational theory can get off the ground only if the usage of “righteousness” in the Old Testament (both Hebrew and Greek) is thoroughly positive (durchaus positiver). But it clearly is not. Thus Cremer’s relational theory breaks down. Where does this leave us? Usage in extrabiblical Greek or in the Old Testament does not determine Paul’s usage, but it does narrow the possibilities. At this point there is a presumption in favor of assuming that the Pauline δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ presupposes that δικαιοσύνη is a Normbegriff and that it probably does not mean God’s covenant faithfulness. However, before proceeding to the exegesis of Paul, it is important that we examine the Jewish literature of the Second Temple period in order to see if our preliminary conclusion is borne out, qualified, or overturned. We will therefore examine the following corpora to see whether the relational theory of righteousness is a semantic possibility for Paul: (a) the Dead Sea Scrolls; (b) the Apocrypha and Old Testament Pseudepigrapha composed in Hebrew; (c) the Apocrypha, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, and other Hellenistic Jewish literature composed in Greek; and (d) the New Testament itself viewed as Jewish literature composed in Greek.

196

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

The litmus test will be a comparison of (a/b) with (c/d), since we are most concerned to see to what extent alleged salvific or covenantal meanings of “the righteousness of God” have entered the linguistic bloodstream of the Jewish community that thought and wrote in Greek. In Chapter 4, we saw that the relational interpretation – in which “righteousness” is conformity to the terms of a relationship rather than to an external norm – is incorrect. We also saw that “the righteousness of God” in the OT is not a cipher for God’s covenant faithfulness. So we do not expect to see these meanings carried over into Jewish Greek usage, since they do not exist in the OT (either in Hebrew original or in Greek translation) to begin with. However, we did find that “righteousness of God” is frequently used in the OT in the iustitia salutifera or vindicatory/ delivering sense, understood not in Cremer’s sense but as a subdivision of God’s iustitia distributiva. We also found that “righteousness” could be used, in addition to its primary ethical and judicial sense, in reference to correctness, truthfulness in speech, and hence integrity, and that this category of usage, in a small handful of cases, occurs in covenantal contexts (e.g., Neh 9:8; Hos 2:19; Zech 8:8). Thus it is within the realm of possibility that we may find that these limited Hebraic usages – occurring much less frequently in the OT than Cremer thought, and without in any way offering support for his Verhältnisbegriff theory – were carried over into Jewish Greek usage via the Septuagint. This chapter will therefore test that hypothesis by examining and comparing the usage of “righteousness” in Jewish literature composed in Hebrew and in Jewish literature composed in Greek.

A. The Dead Sea Scrolls To begin with, we must recognize some basic methodological issues. First, the DSS are highly fragmentary, which means that in many cases it is difficult to determine the meaning or semantic usage of a word since not enough context has survived to make such a determination of meaning. Of the 300 occurrences of ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬, ֶ   ֶ ָ     ָ  ְ 74 fall into this category, so the statistics below will not take these 74 into account, leaving 226 meaningful occurrences. Second, the DSS are not exclusively sectarian writings but also contain Scripture scrolls, copies of Apocrypha and OT Pseudepigrapha (such as Tobit, Jubilees, and portions of the Enochian literature), and miscellaneous other writings that cannot with certainty be considered as authored by the Qumran sect. Nevertheless, with these caveats in place, it is still legitimate to examine the usage of the two nouns for “righteousness” in the DSS in order to get an idea of the semantic range in this important collection of Jewish texts. There are some notable contrasts between the usage of these two nouns in the DSS and their usage in the Old Testament. First, in the DSS the masculine noun is used more frequently than the feminine (masculine 73%; feminine

A. The Dead Sea Scrolls

197

27%), whereas in the Hebrew Bible the feminine noun is used more frequently (masculine 43%; feminine 57%). Second, the feminine noun is used to mean “alms” on four occasions in the DSS, a meaning not attested in the Hebrew Bible. Third, there are some usages in the Hebrew Bible that are not attested in the DSS (e.g., “rights”). However, the DSS usage is overall quite similar to that of the OT itself. First, as in the Hebrew Bible, the feminine form alone occurs in the plural (this occurs 12 times). Table 9. All 12 Occurrences of the Plural ‫ צדקות‬in the DSS Scroll Ref

Lemma Context

1QS I, 21 tsedaqah 1QS X, 23 tsedaqah 1QS XI, 3 tsedaqah 4Q260 V, 5 tsedaqah 11Q5 XIX, 11 tsedaqah 11Q5 XIX, 5 tsedaqah 11Q5 XIX, 7 tsedaqah 11Q6 4-5, 7 tsedaqah 1QH IV, 17 tsedaqah 4Q200 2, 6 tsedaqah 4Q200 2, 8 tsedaqah 4Q521 7+5 tsedaqah II, 7

“The priests shall rehearse the righteous acts of God” (my trans.). “For thanksgiving shall I open my mouth, the righteous acts of God shall my tongue recount always” (DSSR modified). “By his righteousness he shall blot out my transgression” (PTSDSSP). “In songs of thanksgi[ving I will o]pe[n ] vacat my mouth [and] my tongue shall rec[ount] the righteous acts of God contin[uously, as well as the faithlessness] of men, un[til] their sinful rebellion [comes to an e]nd” (DSSR). “I was in death’s thrall through my sins … but You saved me, O Lord, according to Your boundless compassion, Your myriad righteous acts” (DSSR) “according to Your boundless compassion, Your myriad righteous acts” (DSSR) “Blessed be the Lord, worker of righteousness, who crowns the pious with mercy and compassion” (DSSR) “according to] Your [boundless compassion,] Your myriad righteous acts” (DSSR) “I will [f]ind the proper reply to declare Your righteous deeds, patience, [abundant lovingkindne]ss, the deeds of Your strong right hand, forgiveness of the sins of my ancestors” (DSSR) “According to your ability, my son, gi[ve] alms, and hi[de] not [your face from any] [p]oor person” (Tobit 4:6) (DSSR) “If you have [much, my] son, [according to (your) bounty] [giv]e al[m]s from it” (Tobit 4:8) (DSSR) “[when] the One who revives [rai]ses the dead of His people. vacat Then we shall [giv]e thanks and relate to you the righ[teous acts] of the Lord” (DSSR)

DSSR = The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, ed. Parry and Tov PTSDSSP = Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project, ed. Charlesworth 3 The word ‫ צדקה‬is used three times with the meaning “alms” in the Hebrew fragments of Tobit found at Qumran (4Q200). There is also one occurrence of the word in a non-biblical text with this sense: “A man of generosit[y perfo]rms charity (‫ )צדקה‬for the poor … he takes care of all who lack property” (4Q424 3,9-10; DSSR 4.268-69). DSSR = The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, 6 vols. (ed. Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov; Leiden: Brill, 2004–2005).

198

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

Second, as in the Hebrew Bible, the masculine form is commonly used both adjectivally and adverbially. Third, as in the Hebrew Bible, the primary usage is ethical, followed by a significant percentage in judicial contexts, and then with a handful of remaining usages having to do with correctness. And fourth, “the righteousness of God” occurs 35 times, most often in hymnic or poetic literature. Table 10. All 35 Occurrences of “God’s Righteousness” in the DSS Scroll

Ref

Lemma

1QS I, 21 tsedaqah 1QS X, 23 tsedaqah 1QS X, 25 tsedaqah 1QS XI, 3 tsedaqah 1QS XI, 5 tsedaqah 1QS XI, 12 tsedaqah 1QS XI, 14 tsedaqah 1QH IV, 17 tsedaqah 1QH IV, 20 tsedaqah 1QH VI, 16 tsedaqah 1QH XII, 37 tsedaqah 1QH XV, 19 tsedaqah 1QH XVI, 2 tsedaqah 1QH XIX, 31 tsedaqah

Context “The priests shall rehearse the righteous acts of God” (my trans.). “For thanksgiving shall I open my mouth, the righteous acts of God shall my tongue recount always” (DSSR modified). “keeping faithfulness and strong judgment (mishpat) according to the righteousness of God” (my trans.). “By his righteousness he shall blot out my transgression” (PTSDSSP).4 “From the fountain of his righteousness is my justice (mishpat)” (PTSDSSP). “My judgment (mishpat) is by God’s righteousness” (PTSDSSP). “In the righteousness of his truth he judges me. In his great goodness he atones for all my iniquities. In his righteousness he cleanses me of the impurity of the human and of the sin of the sons of Adam” (PTSDSSP). “I will [f]ind the proper reply to declare Your righteous deeds, patience, [abundant lovingkindne]ss, the deeds of Your strong right hand, forgiveness of the sins of my ancestors” (DSSR) “Your righteousness” (DSSR) “All injustice [and ]wickedness You destroy for ever. Thus Your righteousness is revealed before all Your creatures” (DSSR) “For You atone for iniquity and purif[y] man from guilt by Your righteousness” (DSSR) “For in] Your righteousness You have stood me in Your covenant” (DSSR) “Your righteousness endures for ever” (DSSR) “Gladden the soul of Your servant with Your truth and cleanse me in Your righteousness. For just as I waited for Your goodness, so I hope in Your mercy and [Your] forgiveness” (DSSR)

4 James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations (Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993–).

A. The Dead Sea Scrolls

199

Continuation Table 10. All 35 Occurrences of “God’s Righteousness” in the DSS Scroll

Ref

Lemma

Context

1QH XXI, 2 tsedaqah “Your righteousness” (DSSR) 4Q260 V, 5 tsedaqah “In songs of thanksgi[ving I will o]pe[n ] vacat my mouth [and] my tongue shall rec[ount] the righteous acts of God contin[uously, as well as the faithlessness] of men, un[til] their sinful rebellion [comes to an e]nd” (DSSR). 4Q511 20 I, 1 tsedaqah “in] His [righte]ousness He shall clean[se me]” (DSSR) 4Q521 7+5 tsedaqah “[when] the One who revives [rai]ses the dead of His II, 7 people. vacat Then we shall [giv]e thanks and relate to you the righ[teous acts] of the Lord (tsidqot adonai)” (DSSR) 11Q5 XIX, tsedaqah “when You make them know Your mercy, when You teach them Your righteousness” (DSSR) 11Q5 XIX, tsedaqah “according to Your boundless compassion, Your myriad righteous acts” (DSSR) 11Q5 XIX, 11 tsedaqah “I was in death’s thrall through my sins … but You saved me, O Lord, according to Your boundless compassion, Your myriad righteous acts” (DSSR) 11Q6 4-5, 5 tsedaqah “[when You make them know] Your mercy, [when You teach them] Your righteousness” (DSSR) 11Q6 4-5, 7 tsedaqah “according to] Your [boundless compassion,] Your myriad righteous acts” (DSSR) 1QS XI, 15 tsedeq “to the end that I praise God for His righteousness, the Most High for His glory” (DSSR). 1QM IV, 6 tsedeq “When they go to battle they shall write on their banners, ‘The truth of God,’ ‘The righteousness of God,’ ‘The glory of God,’ ‘The justice of God’” (DSSR). 1QH XXIII, tsedeq “According to the abundance of Your mercy appoint a 2 I, 5 guard over Your righteousness” (DSSR) 4Q176 1-2 I, 1 tsedeq “and perform thy wonder and righteousness among thy people” (DSSR) 4Q258 XIII, 3 tsedeq “[He shall pa]rdon [all] my [iniquit]ies. [ And in His righteousness He shall purify me from the uncleanness of man … so that I may give thanks to God for ]His righ[teousness]” (DSSR). 4Q258 XIII, 3 tsedeq “[He shall pa]rdon [all] my [iniquit]ies. [ And in His righteousness He shall purify me from the uncleanness of man … so thatI may give thanks to God for ]His righ[teousness]” (DSSR). 4Q287 2, 13 tsedeq “And they shall bless there] Your holy [name] in the dwel[lings of the a]ngels of Your righteousness” (WAC) 4Q372 1, 28 tsedeq “to teach sinners your laws and all who abandon you [your] Tor[ah ] and evil so that your testimonies do not reproach me and to tell the words of [your] righteousness” (DSSR) “For [you judge ] your servants in your righteousness, 4Q381 33+35, 6 tsedeq and according to your lovingkindness”

200

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

Continuation Table 10. All 35 Occurrences of “God’s Righteousness” in the DSS Scroll

Ref

Lemma

Context

4Q428 19, 6 tsedeq “[all the deeds of] your [rig]hteousness for iniquity” (DSSR) 4Q443 1, 12 tsedeq “your [sal]vation and in [your] righteous[ness” (DSSR) 4Q511 48-49 tsedeq “the praises of His righteousness” (DSSR) +51, 2 4Q511 63 III, 1 tsedeq “And as for me, my tongue shall sing out Your righteousness, for You set it free” (DSSR) DSSR = The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, ed. Parry and Tov PTSDSSP = Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project, ed. Charlesworth WAC = Wise, Abegg, Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation

The following table seeks to summarize the data for all occurrences of “righteousness” (masculine and feminine) in the DSS, using nearly the same categories that were used in our analysis of OT usage in Chapter 4. Table 11. Categories of Usage for ‫צדק‬/‫צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ    ָ   ָ   ְ in the DSS

‫ צדק‬ ‫ צדקה‬ ֶ  ֶ           ָ   ָ   ְ

I. Legal righteousness Judging, ruling, executing justice Justice Righteousness of God (“my, his, your, of God”) Vindication Clothed with righteousness Rights

Total

%

51 13 25 12 0 1 0

38 1 13 23 1 0 0

89 14 38 35 1 1 0

39.4 6.2 16.8 15.5 0.4 0.4 0

102 78 0 8 5 11 0 0

23 7 7 0 1 3 1 4

125 85 7 8 6 14 1 4

55.3 37.6 3.1 3.5 2.7 6.2 0.4 1.8

III. Correctness Speaking righteousness, telling the truth Just balances, weights Doing something correctly

8 4 3 1

0 0 0 0

8 4 3 1

3.5 1.8 1.3 0.4

IV. Difficult cases

4

0

4

1.8

165

61

226

100

II. Ethical righteousness General With verbs of doing Righteous laws/word Gates, paths, cities, etc., of righteousness Righteousness before God Honesty Alms

Total

A. The Dead Sea Scrolls

201

As can be seen from the table above, the ethical meaning of righteousness predominates in the DSS. This can be seen right at the outset of the Damascus Document, “Listen, all who recognize/know righteousness” (CD I, 1), and at the outset of the Community Rule, which speaks of the Teacher’s responsibility to instruct the members of the Yahad “to do that which is good and upright before Him, just as He commanded through Moses and all His servants the prophets … to distance themselves from all evil and to hold fast to all good deeds; to practice truth (‫)אמת‬, justice (‫ )צדקה‬and righteousness (‫ )משפט‬in the land, and to walk no longer in a guilty, willful heart and lustful desires” (1QS I, 1-6; DSSR 1.2-3). These opening texts demonstrate the importance of ethical righteousness for the Qumran sectarians. They are calling Israel to return to the correct interpretation of the Law and to live in accordance with it, in order to be obedient and live the righteous life that God demands. A further illustration of this ethical usage is the phrase “The Teacher of Righteousness” (‫)מורה הצדק‬.5 A minority of scholars have argued that the nomen rectum should be taken adjectivally and the whole phrase translated “right or legitimate teacher,” in contradistinction to a false teacher.6 But it probably should be understood as “the one who teaches (ethical) righteousness,” a reading that is corroborated by the reference to “the appearance of one who teaches righteousness in the Last Days” (CD VI, 11).7 The usage of “righteousness” in a judicial sense is also found throughout the DSS, though not as frequently as the ethical sense. It is found, for example, in the references to the human kings or judges who are not to be blinded by bribes, alluding to or commenting on the relevant OT passages (e.g., 11Q19 LI, 11-17 [cp. Deut 16:18-20]; LVII, 19-20; DSSR 3.190-91, 200-1). Judicial usages are also frequent in reference to God as judge. One fragment reads: “with a judg]ment of righteousness (‫ )מש[פט צדק‬He will [judge” (4Q418 Frg. 214; DSSR 4.17273). Another affirms that “God is a righteous judge” (‫( )שופט צדק אל‬4Q423 Frg. 6; DSSR 4.194-95). We also have a poetic passage where the psalmist acknowledges his sinfulness as “a melting pot of iniquity” and confesses that he is “terrified by [God’s] righteous judgments (‫( ”)משפטי צדק‬1QH IX, 23; DSSR 5 The phrase occurs 12 times in the DSS: twice in the Damascus Document (CD I, 11; XX, 32); seven times in the Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab I, 13; II, 2; V, 10; VII, 4; VIII, 3; IX, 10; XI, 5); twice in the Psalms Pesher (4Q173 1, 4; 2, 2); and once in the Micah Pesher (1Q14 8-10, 6). 6 Frank Moore Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (London: G. Duckworth, 1958), 83; J. Weingreen, “The Title Moreh Sedek,” JSS 6 (1961): 162-74; Matthew Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins: Studies in the Jewish Background of the New Testament (originally 1961; reprinted in BJS 48; Chico: Scholars Press, 1983), 20; and others. 7 Benno Przybylski, Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought (SNTSMS 41; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 18. Translation from Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook (WAC), The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (New York: HarperCollins, 1996).

202

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

5.16-17). The fact that “God’s righteousness” is not thoroughly positive but is also used punitively is proved by this passage: “All injustice [and ]wickedness You destroy for ever. Thus Your righteousness (‫ )צדקתך‬is revealed before all Your creatures” (1QH VI, 15-16; DSSR 5.8-9). Having set the context of the ethical and judicial framework of “righteousness” in the DSS, we come now to the famous passage in 1QS XI that has been so widely quoted because of the strong linguistic parallel with Paul. In this passage, the psalmist acknowledges that it is “by the righteousness of God” that his sins are atoned for and that he is made righteous and kept in perfection of way. “As for me, my justification (‫ )משפטי‬lies with God. In His hand are the perfection of my walk and the virtue of my heart. [3] By His righteousness is my transgression blotted out. For from the fount of His knowledge has my light shot forth; upon his wonders has my eye gazed – the light of my heart upon the mystery [4] of what shall be. “He who is eternal is the staff of my right hand, upon the Mighty Rock do my steps tread; before nothing shall they retreat. For the truth of God – [5] that is the rock of my tread, and His mighty power, my right hand’s support. From His righteous fount comes my justification (‫)משפטי‬, the light of my heart from His wondrous mysteries. “Upon the eternal [6] has my eye gazed – even that wisdom hidden from men, the knowledge, the wise prudence from humanity concealed. The source of righteousness, gathering [7] of power, and abode of glory are from fleshly counsel hidden. “To them He has chosen all these has He given – an eternal possession. He has made them heirs in the legacy [8] of the Holy Ones; with the Angels has He united their assembly, a Yahad society. They are an assembly built up for holiness, an eternal Planting for all [9] ages to come. “As for me, to evil humanity and the counsel of perverse flesh do I belong. My transgressions, evils, sins, and corrupt heart [10] belong to the counsel of wormy rot and those who walk in darkness. “Surely a man’s way is not his own; neither can any person firm his own steps. Surely justification (‫ )משפט‬is of God; by His power [11] is the way made perfect. All that shall be, He foreknows, all that is, His plans establish; apart from Him is nothing done. “As for me, if [12] I stumble, God’s loving-kindness forever shall save me. If through sin of the flesh I fall, my justification (‫ )משפטי‬will be by the righteousness of God which endures for all time. “[13] Though my affliction break out, He shall draw my soul back from the Pit, and firm my steps on the way. Through His love He has brought me near; by His loving-kindness shall He provide [14] my justification (‫)משפטי‬. “By His righteous truth has He justified me; and through His exceeding goodness shall He atone for all my sins. By His righteousness shall He cleanse me of human [15] defilement “And the sin of humankind – to the end that I praise God for His righteousness, the Most High for His glory. “Blessed are You, O my God, who has opened to knowledge [16] the mind of Your servant. Establish all of his works in righteousness; raise up the son of Your handmaiden – if it please You – to be among those chosen of humankind, to stand [17] before You forever. “Surely apart from You the way cannot be perfected, nor can anything be done unless it please You.” (1QS XI, 2-17; DSSR 1.40-41).

There are several questions that must be addressed. First, what is meant by ‫משפטי‬ (lines 2, 5, 12, 14) and ‫( משפט‬line 10)? The rendering of ‫ משפט‬in 1QS XI as

A. The Dead Sea Scrolls

203

“justification,” and with the suffix, ‫משפטי‬, “my justification,” goes back to one of the earliest translations of the DSS, that by André Dupont-Sommer, itself translated into English by Geza Vermes.8 Vermes retained “my justification” in his widely used Penguin edition, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (1962–1995), then The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (1997, 2004).9 This tradition is continued by the Wise-Abegg-Cook translation10 quoted above and which has now become another standard English translation rivaling and perhaps replacing Vermes. This translation tends to find support among scholars who want to highlight the parallel between Paul and Qumran, some even going so far as to argue that Paul was influenced by Qumran.11 But Joseph Fitzmyer is critical of this translation, finding it “a bit too ‘Christian’” for his understanding and “tendentious,” arguing that “the Pauline nuance of the term has been read into the Qumran texts.”12 He opts for the translation “my judgment,” a translation that is perhaps less Pauline-sounding but still ambiguous. Joachim Jeremias is also among those questioning the translation “my justification,” but he argues that ‫ משפט‬refers to God’s gracious decision to allow the suppliant to enter the community, thereby making possible a life of perfect obedience to the Torah. “Thus mishpati is not the justification of the ungodly (justificatio impii), but rather predestination to the path of perfect obedience to the Torah.”13

8 André Dupont-Sommer, Les écrits esséniens découverts près de la mer Morte (Paris: Payot, 1959); ET: The Essene Writings from Qumran (trans. Geza Vermes; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1961). 9 Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York: Penguin Books, 1962, 1975, 1987, 1995); idem, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York: Penguin Books, 1997, 2004). 10 Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook (WAC), The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (New York: HarperCollins, 1996). 11 Siegfried Schulz, “Zur Rechtfertigung aus Gnaden in Qumran und bei Paulus,” ZTK 56 (1959): 155-85; Walter Grundmann, “Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit von Qumran und die Frage nach der Glaubensgerechtigkeit in der Theologie des Apostels Paulus,” RevQ 2 (1960): 23154; revised/ET: “The Teacher of Righteousness of Qumran and the Question of Justification by Faith in the Theology of the Apostle Paul,” in Paul and Qumran: Studies in New Testament Exegesis (ed. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1968), 85-114. To be fair, both Schulz and Grundmann also emphasize the chasm between Paul and Qumran with regard to justification: for Paul, Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes; for Qumran, justification ultimately rests on obedience to the Law. 12 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Biblical Basis of Justification by Faith: Comments on the Essay by Professor Reumann,” in “Righteousness” in the New Testament: “Justification” in the United States Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 201; idem, Responses to 101 Questions on the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), 127. 13 Joachim Jeremias, The Central Message of the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1965), 66-68 = idem, Jesus and the Message of the New Testament (Fortress Classics in Biblical Studies; ed. Kenneth C. Hanson; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 94.

204

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

Old Testament usage sheds light on that of the DSS. In the OT, there are 12 cases where ‫ משפט‬is used with the suffix “my” (‫ )משפטי‬in reference to a human being. In these cases, it is never translated “my justification” but typically something along these lines: “my right” (Job 27:2; 34:5-6; Isa 40:27; 49:4), “my just cause” (Ps 9:4), or “my vindication” (Ps 17:2; 35:23) (ESV).14 The usage of ‫ משפט‬in the DSS is in fundamental continuity with the OT usage. The term basically refers to a judgment, decision or verdict. The suffix “my” implies that it is God’s decision/verdict with respect to the suppliant. Second, what is the meaning of the references to “the righteousness of God” (line 12) or “His righteousness” (lines 3, 5, 14, 15) in this passage? Grundmann is influenced by Oepke15 and Käsemann16 (whom he cites) at two points: (1) he thinks “the righteousness of God” is “a Jewish formula which Paul adopted while radically altering its sense,”17 and (2) he interprets the phrase as having reference to God’s fidelity to his covenant, citing 1QH XV, 19-20 (“In Your righteousness You have stood me in Your covenant, and I have taken hold of Your truth”) and 1QS XI, 14 (“By His righteous truth has He justified me”), making reference especially to the use in both contexts of the word “truth” in the sense of fidelity or reliability.18 But there is slim basis for translating the phrase as “the covenant faithfulness of God.” The judicial dimension of the phrase is evident from the fact that “the righteousness of God” is used adverbially with either the noun or the verb of the ‫ שׁפט‬root: “from His righteous fount comes my ‫( ”משפט‬line 5); “my ‫משפט‬ will be by the righteousness of God which endures for all time” (line 12); “in the righteousness of his truth he judges me” (line 14; cp. “For [you judge ] your servants in your righteousness, and according to your lovingkindness” [4Q381 33+35, 6]). It is not that God judges his servants in his covenant faithfulness, but that he judges them in his righteousness. There is nothing in the context that would suggest the notion of covenant faithfulness here. E. P. Sanders appeals to the parallelisms and draws the conclusion that “the righteousness of God” in the DSS is tantamount to “God’s mercy.”19 However, as we have seen in a previous chapter when dealing with Hebrew parallelism in the Old Testament, parallelism does not necessarily eliminate the judicial dimension of the term, which brings its own semantic contribution to the overall parallelismus membrorum.

14 Electronic search of BHS using Logos Bible Software, Version 4 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.). 15 Albrecht Oepke, “Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ bei Paulus in neuer Beleuchtung,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 78 (1953): 257-64. 16 Ernst Käsemann, “Gottesgerechtigkeit bei Paulus,” ZTK 58 (1961): 367-78. 17 Grundmann, “The Teacher of Righteousness,” 99. 18 Ibid., 89, 100. 19 E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977), 305-12.

A. The Dead Sea Scrolls

205

It is much more likely that “the righteousness of God” in these passages is a development of the Old Testament motif of the saving righteousness of God, that is, his judicial activity that results in the vindication of his servants and, in most cases, the destruction of their oppressors. As we saw in Chapter 4, in the Old Testament, especially in the Psalms and Isaiah, the overwhelming majority of the occurrences of this usage have a strongly judicial context in which God is the judge, the wicked are oppressing the righteous, and the righteous are appealing to the divine Judge for a verdict (‫ )משפט‬that involves simultaneously the punishment of the oppressor and the vindication of the righteous who are being oppressed by them. God’s righteousness is, in these cases, both his attribute of being a righteous judge who rightly executes his iustitia distributiva and the act of deliverance itself so that God’s righteousness is conceived of as coming from God and being bestowed on the righteous oppressed. As an extension of this usage, the enemies become spiritualized so that they are the righteous man’s own sins, guilt, death (the punishment for sin), or even Satan himself (the evil spirit who leads into sin). Then, when God delivers the righteous who repent of their sins, it is an expression of his righteousness. For example: “Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, O God of my salvation, and my tongue will sing aloud of your righteousness” (Ps 51:14 ESV). The righteousness of God is expressed in a judicial activity of delivering the psalmist from bloodguiltiness, essentially an acquitting judgment that includes the forgiveness of sins. My argument is that these passages in the DSS are a further development of this OT usage. For example, the Qumran suppliant prays, “Gladden the soul of Your servant with Your truth and cleanse me in Your righteousness. For just as I waited for Your goodness, so I hope in your mercy and [Your] forgiveness” (1QH XIX, 31; DSSR 5.54-55). The righteousness of God here is parallel to his truth, mercy, and forgiveness. That does not mean that all of these terms are synonymous or interchangeable; rather, it shows that the judicial activity of God in providing forgiveness is an expression of his truth and mercy. The notion that the enemies of the psalmist can be extended to include even Satan is made clear in 11Q5 XIX, 1-17: [1] Indeed, no worm gives You thanks, nor any weevil recounts Your loving-kindness. [2] “The living, the living, they thank You” (Isa 38:19), they of uncertain step give You praise when You make them [3] know Your mercy, when You teach them Your righteousness (‫)צדקתכה‬. For the soul of all the living is in Your [4] hand, You alone breathe life into flesh. Render to us, O Lord, [5] by Your goodness; according to Your boundless compassion, Your myriad righteous acts (‫)כרוב צדקותיכה‬. The Lord [6] hears the voice of those who love His name, of His loving-kindness He deprives them not. [7] Blessed be the Lord, worker of righteousness (‫עושה‬ ‫)צדקות‬, who crowns the pious [8] with mercy and compassion. My soul clamors to praise Your name, to praise [9] Your loving-kindness with a joyous cry – to tell of Your faithfulness; of praise due You there is no measure. I was in death’s [10] thrall through my own sins; my iniquities had sold me to Sheol – but You saved me, [11] O Lord, according to Your boundless compassion, Your myriad righteous acts (‫)כרוב צדקותיכה‬. I, too, have loved [12] Your name and sought shelter in Your shadow. When I recall Your might, I take [13] heart and throw

206

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

myself on Your mercy. Forgive, O Lord, my sins, [14] cleanse me from my iniquities! Favor me with a constant and knowing spirit and let me not be shamed [15] by ruin. Let Satan have no dominion over me, nor an unclean spirit; let neither pain nor the will [16] to evil rule in me. Surely You, O Lord, are my praise; in You I place my hope [17] all the day (11Q5 XIX, 1-17; DSSR 5.192-93).20

In this prayer, the psalmist mentions several spiritual enemies – his own sin, death/ Sheol, and dark spiritual forces behind both – all of which combined to form a powerful triumvirate of evil from which he needed deliverance by God’s saving judicial activity: “I was in death’s thrall through my own sins; my iniquities had sold me to Sheol” (lines 9-10), and “Let Satan have no dominion over me, nor an unclean spirit; let neither pain nor the will to evil (‫ )יצר רע‬rule in me” (lines 15-16). But God, in his grace, compassion, mercy, and faithfulness, “saved” the psalmist (‫( )תצילני‬line 10) from these formidable enemies by forgiving his sins and by giving him a renewed, obedient heart (lines 13-14). Because the deliverance involves an implicit judgment on the psalmist’s foes (sin, death, and the evil inclination from Satan) and a judicial vindication of the pious psalmist who is crying out to God for help, the psalmist casts these deliverances in judicial terms, specifically thanking God for acting “according to Your boundless compassion (‫)כרוב רחמיכה‬, Your myriad righteous acts (‫( ”)כרוב צדקותיכה‬lines 5, 11). He even employs the very language of the oppressed in the canonical Psalms: “Blessed be the Lord, worker of righteousness (‫)עושה צדקות‬, who crowns the pious [8] with mercy and compassion” (lines 7-8) (cp. Psalm 103:6). The Qumran psalmist is “oppressed” by his own sin, death, and Satanic spiritual forces that lie behind his sin, especially the evil inclination (‫)רע יצר‬. And although the more literal forces are not mentioned in this particular psalm, we should also recall that the Qumran community was keenly aware of the persecutions that they and their leader, the Teacher of Righteousness, endured at the hands of the Jews whom they perceived to be apostate, “the wicked priest” (1QpHab VIII, 16; IX, 9; XII, 2, 8), “the man of the lie” (1QpHab II, 2; CD XX, 15), “the man of mockery” (CD I, 14), and “the traitors to the new covenant” (1QpHab II, 3). With these considerations in view, then, it is perfectly understandable that God’s deliverance of his pious servants – including their receiving atonement for sin, a renewed heart, and the grace of becoming a member of the Yahad – would be characterized using the ‫ צדק‬root, thus expressing the judicial aspect of God’s gracious salvific activity. The judicial aspect is most clearly seen in his judgment on the various spiritual forces of oppression, together with his vindication of his servants and placing them within the community where they may learn God’s righteousness. Further demonstrating that God’s ‫ צדקות‬in 11Q5 is not God’s covenant faithfulness but his righteousness (or more accurately, his righteous acts) is the 20 11Q5 is sometimes also signified 11QPsa. In addition, 11Q6 (11QPsb) is parallel; it is essentially a reproduction of 11Q5 but in a more fragmentary state.

A. The Dead Sea Scrolls

207

correspondence between the righteousness of God and the righteousness of man. The righteousness of the one (God) leads to the righteousness of the other (the pious Yahad member). “They of uncertain step give You praise when You make them know Your mercy, when You teach them Your righteousness” (lines 2-3). God’s gracious activity of saving, forgiving, renewing, and teaching the psalmist God’s righteousness leads to the righteousness of the psalmist in that he is now, because of God’s ‫צדקות‬, an obedient and righteous member of the community. In his righteousness, God has caused the psalmist to be cleansed of his former sins, has taught him his righteousness, and has caused him to become righteous in imitation of God himself. If Yahweh’s ‫ צדקות‬in 11Q5 were translated as God’s “covenant faithfulness,” this correspondence would be lost or at least obscured. Other divine qualities and actions – such as God’s ‫“( חסד‬lovingkindness/ mercy,” lines 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 13), ‫“( טוב‬goodness,” line 5), ‫“( רחמים‬compassion,” lines 5, 8, 11), ‫“( אמונה‬faithfulness,” line 9), and ‫“( חון‬favor,” line 17) are mentioned throughout this passage. But while these divine qualities are related to God’s “righteous acts,” these are not all interchangeable terms. The most striking parallelism is the usage – twice – of the phrase “according to Your compassion, Your myriad righteous acts,” in which God’s ‫ רחמים‬and God’s ‫ צדקות‬are parallel. But the parallelism is not synonymous; each term brings its own semantic contribution to the overall meaning, just as each optic piece in a pair of binoculars contributes to the overall stereo vision. God’s enacting a judicial verdict against the pious man’s oppressors, both literal and spiritual, is certainly an expression of God’s loving-kindness, mercy, goodness, compassion and faithfulness. But the judicial activity, gracious and saving though it may be, remains just that, God’s judicial activity. “The Lord works righteousness (‫ )צדקות‬and justice for all who are oppressed” (Ps 103:6 ESV). To summarize our investigation of the use of “righteousness” in the DSS, we see fundamental continuity between Hebrew OT usage and that of the DSS. All of the major categories and subcategories of OT usage are continued in the DSS, with only a handful of minor changes (e.g., the OT category “rights” is not found in the DSS, and the DSS adds the usage of “alms”). With regard to “God’s righteousness,” the usage can be neutral, positive, or punitive, just as in the OT. With regard to the positive, salvific usage, the judicial aspect continues, so that iustitia salutifera is a species of iustitia distributiva – only that in the DSS the enemies are spiritualized to a much greater degree than in the OT.

B. Apocrypha and OT Pseudepigrapha Composed in Hebrew In this section, we turn to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha composed in a Semitic language, usually Hebrew, though in some cases scholars speculate that the language of composition may be Aramaic. However, the Semitic originals have in most cases been lost or exist only in fragments, so our investigation will

208

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

proceed using the versions – usually Greek, Latin and/or Ethiopic – in which these works have come down to us. There are only four Apocryphal works composed in Hebrew that use the word “righteousness” (Tobit, 1 Maccabees, Sirach, and Baruch). We will examine the usage of δικαιοσύνη in these works, on the assumption that it renders ‫צדק‬/ ֶ  ֶ   ָ     ָ   ְ in the original. ‫צדקה‬ There are similarities and differences between the usage in the Apocrypha and the usage in the Hebrew OT and the portion of the LXX that translates the Tanak. The similarities are: (1) the usage can be divided roughly in half between “legal righteousness” and “ethical righteousness;” (2) there are some Hebraic usages that are continued in the Aprocrypha, such as the language of being clothed with righteousness, the category of righteousness before God, and the usage of verbs of doing with ethical righteousness. The differences are as follows: (1) there are no instances of “the righteousness of God” (“my, his, your”) that fall into the category of legal righteousness; (2) the usage of δικαιοσύνη with reference to almsgiving to the poor is a usage found in Tobit21 but not in the Hebrew OT and in the LXX only once (Deut 24:13); (3) specialized Hebrew OT usages such as “vindication,” “rights,” “honesty,” “gates, paths, cities of righteousness,” “just balances,” etc., do not occur in the Apocrypha although they do occur in the LXX when translating the Hebrew canonical text. 1. Tobit  22 There is no doubt that Tobit was originally composed in Hebrew, since about one fifth of the original Hebrew text has been recovered at Khirbet Qumran.23 However, the complete text is extant in Greek translation, a shorter recension called Greek I (G I) and a longer recension called Greek II (G II) by Robert Hanhart, the editor of the Göttingen Septuagint critical edition of Tobit.24 The word δικαιοσύνη occurs 11 times in G I and 8 times in G II, for a total of 19 21 Tobit 2:14; 12:8-9 (3x in the shorter text, Greek I); 14:8-9 (once in the longer form, Greek II); 14:11. 22 There is general agreement that Tobit was written after the canonization of the prophets (because of the reference to “the prophets of Israel” at 14:4) and before the Maccabean period (since the book does not reflect the issues stemming from the Hellenization crisis), that is, within the window from 250 to 175 BC. David A. deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 69; Daniel J. Harrington, Invitation to the Apocrypha (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 12; L. R. Helyer, “Tobit,” DNTB 1239; Carey A. Moore, “Tobit, Book of,” ABD 6.591. The book was not written later than 100 BC, since several Aramaic fragments of Tobit dating from the first century BC were found at Qumran (4Q196–200); see J. A. Fitzmyer, “The Aramaic and Hebrew Fragments of Tobit from Cave 4,” CBQ 57 (1995): 655-75. 23 Fitzmyer, “The Aramaic and Hebrew Fragments of Tobit,” 675. 24 Robert Hanhart, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum VIII.5: Tobit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983).

B. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Composed in Hebrew

209

times, although it occurs 13 times if one counts only the unique occurrences in GI and GII combined. Since this textual situation is complex, I have summarized the data in the following table showing all 19 occurrences comparing the two recensions: Table 12. All Occurrences of ∆ικαιοσύνη in Tobit (NETS)

The Longer Recension (GII)

The Shorter Recension (GI)

Tobit 1:3 I, Tobith, walked in the ways of truth and in righteous acts all the days of my life. Tobit 2:14 Now where are your acts of charity? Where are your righteous deeds? Tobit 4:5 Do righteous acts all the days of your life, and do not walk in the ways of injustice. Tobit 4:6 And to all those who do righteous- ness … the Lord will give them good counsel. Tobit 12:8 Prayer is good with fasting, but alms- giving with righteousness is more than wealth and injustice. Tobit 12:9 Those who give alms will enjoy life to the full. Tobit 13:6 And bless the Lord of righteousness and exalt the king of ages. Tobit 14:7a And they will bless the God of the ages in righteousness. Tobit 14:7b And those who love God in truth will rejoice. Tobit 14:8-9 Also your children are to be commanded to practice righteousness and almsgiving and to be mindful of God. Tobit 14:11 So now, my children, see what alms- giving does and what injustice does.

I, Tobith, walked in the ways of truth and righteousness all the days of my life. Where are your acts of charity and your righteous deeds? Do righteousness all the days of your life, and do not walk in the ways of injustice. And to all who do righteousness give alms from your possessions.

Subtotals

11

8

Prayer is good with fasting and almsgiving and righteousness. A little with righteousness is better than much with injustice. Those who practice almsgiving and righteousness will have fullness of life. And bless the Lord of righteousness and exalt the king of ages … Turn back, you sinners, and do what is just before him. And all the nations will bless the Lord. And all who love the Lord God in truth and righteousness will rejoice. But you, keep the law and the ordinances, and be merciful and just so that it may go well with you. So now, my children, see what almsgiving does and how righteousness delivers.

The ethical usage of δικαιοσύνη predominates in this book. It occurs in the description of Tobit as a man who walked in the ways of truth and righteousness all the days of his life (Tob 1:3), and in Tobit’s exhortation to his son not to transgress God’s commandments but to pursue righteousness all the days of

210

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

his life (Tob 4:5-6). But even more frequent is a subcategory of the ethical use of δικαιοσύνη in the context of almsgiving. In these passages, δικαιοσύνη still retains its fundamentally ethical sense, with almsgiving as a specific and representative type of righteous behavior. Thus δικαιοσύνη does not itself denote “almsgiving,” but “almsgiving” is a hyponym of δικαιοσύνη. In addition, the concept of “righteousness before God” is found in Tobit’s exhortation to sinners in his closing prayer to turn back and “do what is just before him [= God]” (ποιήσατε δικαιοσύνην ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ) (Tob 13:6 NETS). Righteousness is therefore an ethical concept that in some cases is closely related to the divine recognition of that righteousness. Although the locution “the righteousness of God” does not occur in the Tobit, there is one passage that uses “righteousness” as a divine quality; it is a reference to “the Lord of righteousness” (ὁ κύριος τῆς δικαιοσύνης) (Tob 13:6) in Tobit’s prayer of thanksgiving near the end of the book named after him (Tob 13:1-17).25 The thrust of the prayer is that although God afflicts, he will show mercy to those who turn to him with all their heart. Tobit seems to be extrapolating from his own experience of suffering in the exile to the experience of the nation as a whole: the people of God in exile can expect that if they turn to him, “he will gather you from all the nations among whom you have been scattered” (Tob 13:5 NRSV). It is in this context that Tobit exhorts the people to “bless the Lord of righteousness, and exalt the King of the ages” (Tob 13:6 NRSV). The precise import of the phrase is difficult to determine. In view of the return-from-exile theme, it is perhaps possible that the phrase refers to God’s covenant faithfulness, but this is not clear and there are no references in the context to God’s covenant promises to Israel. It is more likely that the phrase refers to God’s righteousness in his dealings with mankind. God is righteous in that if you turn back to him, he will turn back to you. “Turn back, you sinners, and do what is right before him (ποιήσατε δικαιοσύνην ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ); perhaps he may look with favor upon you and show you mercy” (Tob 13:6). God’s righteousness is manifest in that he shows favor to those who repent and do righteousness. 2. Sirach 26 Martin Hengel believes that Jesus ben Sirach was a pious Jew who looked askance at the developing Hellenistic tendencies of the Jewish aristocracy (as exemplified 25 The phrase, “the Lord of righteousness,” is probably to be taken as an attributive genitive, a Hebrew locution for “the righteous Lord.” 26 Sirach is almost universally acknowledged to have been written in a Semitic original between 200 and 175 BC and probably closer to the end of that window, e.g., around 180 BC, to allow sufficient time between Sirach and his translator grandson. An important clue to the date is ben Sirach’s detailed, eye-witness description of the high priest Simon II (219–196 BC) “ascending the holy altar … to arrange an offering for the Most High” (Sirach 50:1-21). On the other hand, Sirach appears to have been written before the Hellenization crisis under Antiochus Epiphanes. De Silva, Introducing the Apocrypha, 157-58; Alexander A. Di Lella, “Wisdom

B. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Composed in Hebrew

211

in Tobias and his family) and who sought to call the younger generation away from the blandishments of advancement in the Hellenistic world to a renewed loyalty to the Torah and the ancestral customs of Israel. However, in so doing, he employed certain Hellenistic ideas, such as the eternalizing and cosmicizing of Torah, identified now with a hypostasized Wisdom figure, in a bid to provide a revealed alternative to Stoicism’s eternal logos which permeates all things.27 Sirach employs δικαιοσύνη in ordinary ethical and judicial senses. For example, in the hymn in honor of the ancestors and patriarchs – Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, all the way down to David – we come to the concluding verse: “May he [= God] grant to you28 wisdom in your heart, to judge his people in righteousness (κρίνειν τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ) so that their good things might not vanish and their glory be to their generations” (Sir 45:26 NETS). This is a good example of Sirach’s judicial usage. The ethical usage is found in a list of things that grieve God, one of which is when a person is “brought from righteousness to sin” (ἐπανάγων ἀπὸ δικαιοσύνης ἐπὶ ἁμαρτίαν) (Sir 26:28 NETS). With regard to the righteousness of God, there is one passage that attracts our attention. In the course of Sirach’s reflection on God’s judgment on sinners, we read: “Who is to announce his acts of justice (ἔργα δικαιοσύνης)? Or who can await them? For his decree is far off” (Sir 16:22 NRSV). The context is Sirach’s recounting of some of the events in biblical history that demonstrate the truth that God judges the wicked. God judged the ancient giants who rebelled (v 7); he punished Lot’s neighbors in Sodom (v 8); he showed no mercy to the Canaanites whom he dispossessed of their land because of their sins (v 9); and he even put 600,000 Israelite men to death when they sinned (v 10). “Great as his mercy, so also is his chastisement; he judges a person according to one’s deeds. The sinner will not escape with plunder … Everyone receives in accordance with one’s deeds” (vv 12-14 NRSV). The wicked think they will be hidden from the Lord (v 17), but how can that be when even the mountains and the foundations

of Ben-Sira,” ABD 6.932; Harrington, Invitation to the Apocrypha, 79. Sirach’s grandson translated the work from Hebrew into Greek in (or soon after) 132 BC, “for in the thirty-eighth year, in the reign of Euergetes the king [Ptolemy VII Physkon Euergetes II], when I had arrived in Egypt and stayed a while, when I had discovered an exemplar of no little education, I myself too made it a compulsory task to bring some speed and industry to the translating of this tome” (Sirach, Prologue; NETS). 27 Martin Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh. vor Chr. (WUNT 10; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 19691, 19732). ET: Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (trans. John Bowden; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 131-75. 28 The word “you” (ὑμῖν) is plural and is probably addressed to the high priest Simon II and his sons. Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987), 514.

212

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

of the earth tremble when God comes in judgment (vv 18-19)? It is at this point that the reference to God’s acts of righteousness occurs: “Who is to announce [the Lord’s] acts of justice (ἔργα δικαιοσύνης)? Or who can await them?” (v  22 NRSV). Mere mortals cannot plumb the depths of God’s acts of justice; his judgments are sometimes hidden from view (v 21) and foolish people devoid of understanding may think they have nothing to fear (v 23), but the Lord’s justice is real and cannot be wished away. There can be little doubt that “righteousness” in this context is being used in reference to God’s distributive justice. 3. Baruch29 Baruch is comprised of four sections: (a) a narrative introduction (1:1–14); (b) a prayer of confession and repentance modeled after Daniel’s prayer of confession in Dan 9 (1:15–3:8); (c) a hymn in praise of wisdom (3:9–4:4); and (d) a prose message to the exiles in Babylon that the captivity is about to end (4:15–5:9). The first and the last sections are prose and the middle two sections are poetry. There is general agreement that the first two sections were originally composed in Hebrew, but there is uncertainty about the language of composition of the last two sections. I am convinced by David G. Burke’s reconstruction that all four sections of Baruch were originally composed in Hebrew, although I am agnostic about the question of compositional unity.30 29 The fact that Baruch has always been attached to LXX Jeremiah, and has linguistic similarities with it, suggests that the translator of LXX Jeremiah was also the translator of Baruch. “Since the grandson of Ben Sira, who translated the Wisdom of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus) into Greek in Egypt by 116 BCE, refers to the Law and the Prophets as a well-known and accepted collection in the Greek-speaking community of Alexandria, the Greek version of Bar 1:1–3:8 must have been completed before 116 BCE.” Anthony J. Saldarini, “The Book of Baruch: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” NIB 6.931. The second half (Bar 3:9–5:9) may have been composed by a different author at a later stage, but we have no way of knowing when. 30 David G. Burke, The Poetry of Baruch: A Reconstruction and Analysis of the Original Hebrew Text of Baruch 3:9–5:9 (SBLSCS 10; Chico: Scholars Press, 1982). Burke is following J. J. Kneucker, Das Buch Baruch: Geschichte und Kritik, Übersetzung und Erklärung auf Grund des wiederhergestellten hebräischen Urtextes (Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1879). In contrast to Burke, Emanuel Tov only provides a Hebrew reconstruction of the first half (Bar 1:1–3:8). He is more confident that the first half had a Hebrew Vorlage, because of more than 30 linguistic parallels with LXX Jeremiah, whereas the second half has far fewer linguistic parallels. Tov leaves open the question of the language of composition of the second half of Baruch. Tov, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8 (HSM 8; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976), 126. James R. Davila thinks Baruch was composed in Greek but intentionally written in a Septuagintal style. He takes sharp issue with Tov’s Hebrew reconstruction, labelling it “erroneous.” Davila, “(How) Can We Tell if a Greek Apocryphon or Pseudepigraphon has been Translated from Hebrew or Aramaic?” JSP 15.1 (2005), 51-55. The Davila-Tov debate gives me pause, but I have decided to follow what seems to be the current scholarly consensus represented by Tov.

B. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Composed in Hebrew

213

The following comes from the prayer of confession and repentance: “And you shall say: To the Lord, our God, belongs righteousness (τῷ κυρίῳ θεῷ ἡμῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη) but to us shame of faces as this day … for which things we have sinned before the Lord, and we disobeyed him and have not listened to the voice of the Lord, our God, to walk by the decrees of the Lord that he gave before us … To the Lord, our God, belongs righteousness (τῷ κυρίῳ θεῷ ἡμῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη) but to us and to our fathers shame of faces, as this day. All these bad things which the Lord spoke to us have come upon us. And we did not entreat the face of the Lord to turn away, each from the designs of their wicked heart. And the Lord kept watch over the bad things, and the Lord brought them upon us, for the Lord is just (δίκαιος) in all his works” (Bar 1:15-18; 2:6-9 NETS).

The entire prayer (Bar 1:15–3:8) is steeped in the language of the Hebrew Scriptures, especially Daniel’s prayer of confession in Dan 9:4-19. It was Daniel who first said: “To you, O Lord, belongs righteousness, but to us open shame, as at this day … for the Lord our God is righteous in all the works that he has done” (Dan 9:7, 14 ESV). These two sentences are picked up virtually word for word in Baruch. There is little need to dwell on them, for they are strongly judicial in their stamp, focusing not on the notion of God’s faithfulness to his promises, but on his justice in bringing punishment on Israel for her covenant breaking. God’s justice, of course, is not the last word, and Baruch will go on to appeal to God’s mercy in the course of the prayer of confession. Nevertheless, the judicial significance of the words δικαιοσύνη and δίκαιος in this context is unmistakable. These verses provide no support for Cremer’s theory that righteousness is a thoroughly positive concept or that it always refers to God’s saving activity in fulfillment of his covenant faithfulness. There is one occurrence of “the righteousness of God” in the ordinary ethical sense. The context is Mother Jerusalem grieving over her sons and daughters whom she reared (Bar 4:8). She is left desolate because of the sins of her children who “turned away from God’s law” (Bar 4:12). “And they did not recognize his statutes; neither did they walk in the ways of God’s commandments nor tread on the paths of instruction by his righteousness (οὐδὲ τρίβους παιδείας ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ αὐτοῦ ἐπέβησαν)” (Bar 4:13 NETS). “His [= God’s] righteousness” here seems to be basically equivalent to the moral uprightness taught in God’s law/statutes/commandments. This ethical righteousness is not only derived from keeping the Law, it is further understood in the sense of “righteousness before God,” that is, the righteousness that he recognizes and rewards: “For God will show your splendor in the whole earth beneath heaven. For your name will be called by God forever, ‘Peace of righteousness and glory of piety’” (κληθήσεται γάρ σου τὸ ὄνομα παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα Εἰρήνη δικαιοσύνης καὶ δόξα θεοσεβείας) (Bar 5:4 NETS). The righteousness that the nation will achieve by keeping the law will lead to the new creation (“splendor in the whole earth beneath heaven … forever”) in which will come the bestowal of a new name παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ, namely, “Peace, righteousness, and the glory of piety.” This reminds one of Isaiah’s promise that “the effect

214

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

of righteousness will be peace … forever” (Isa 32:17). The fact that “peace” and “glory” are the result of “righteousness” and “piety” is also reminiscent of Deuteronomic theology. This leads, in the concluding chapter (Bar 5), to two remarkable instances of the righteousness of God in a sense that seems to approach the Pauline idea of “the gift of righteousness from God.” The transition is logical. We have moved from ethical righteousness, to righteousness as eschatologically rewarded by God, and finally to the thought that all of this – both the ethical transformation and the reward itself – is a gift from God. ἔκδυσαι, Ιερουσαλημ, τὴν στολὴν τοῦ πένθους καὶ τῆς κακώσεώς σου καὶ ἔνδυσαι τὴν εὐπρέπειαν τῆς παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ δόξης εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. περιβαλοῦ τὴν διπλοίδα τῆς παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνης, ἐπίθου τὴν μίτραν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλήν σου τῆς δόξης τοῦ αἰωνίου … ἡγήσεται γὰρ ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ μετ’ εὐφροσύνης τῷ φωτὶ τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ σὺν ἐλεημοσύνῃ καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ τῇ παρ’ αὐτοῦ. Take off your robe of mourning and affliction, O Ierousalem, and put on the dignity of the glory from God forever. Put on the double-cloak of the righteousness that is from God; and put on your head the headband of the glory of the Everlasting … For God will lead Israel with merriment, by the light of his glory, together with the mercy and righteousness that is from him (Bar 5:2, 9 NETS).

In addition to echoing Isaiah 61:10,31 this remarkable passage almost seems to prepare the way for Paul’s thought of “righteousness from (ἐκ) God” (Phil 3:9). Αlthough Baruch uses the prepositional phrase παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ rather than Paul’s ἐκ θεοῦ, the thought is quite similar. However, in keeping with OT usage, the thought here is more the idea of “vindication from God”32 than the strictly Pauline notion of receiving from God the gift of the status of righteousness before God. 4. 1 Maccabees33 The first occurrence of δικαιοσύνη in 1 Maccabees is in the account of the beginnings of the Maccabean revolt in response to the forced Hellenization and persecution of the Jewish people under Antiochus Epiphanes. In the town of 31 “I delight greatly in the Lord; my soul rejoices in my God. For he has clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of his righteousness, as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels” (NIV, from the Hebrew). Oddly, the LXX does not use δικαιοσύνη here but instead has “a tunic of joy” (χιτῶνα εὐφροσύνης). See discussion in Chapter 4. 32 “No weapon that is formed against you shall succeed, and you shall confute every tongue that rises against you in judgment. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord and their vindication (lit. righteousness) is from me, declares the Lord” (Isa 54:17 ESV). 33 1 Maccabees must have been written after John Hyrcanus became high priest in place of his brother Simeon in 134 BC (see the final chapter of 1 Macc.). And given the book’s favorable view of the Romans (cp. the glowing report in 1 Macc 8:1-16), it was likely written before Pompey captured Jerusalem and defiled the temple in 63 BC. DeSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha, 248.

B. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Composed in Hebrew

215

Modein, the priest Mattathias and his five sons witnessed a Jewish man coming forward to offer a pagan sacrifice at the king’s command, and so, inflamed with zeal34 like Phinehas of old, Mattathias slew the man on the spot and tore down the pagan altar (1 Macc 2:23-26). Then he cried out, “Let everyone who is zealous in the law and is upholding the covenant follow me” (1 Macc 2:27 NETS), and fled with his sons into the mountains. The narrator then records that many other Jews followed them: “At that time many who were seeking righteousness and judgment (πολλοὶ ζητοῦντες δικαιοσύνην καὶ κρίμα) descended to the wilderness to live there” (1 Macc 2:29 NETS). Initially one might be tempted to think that this language refers to all who were seeking obedience to the Law, that is, ethical righteousness. But it probably refers to seeking righteousness and judgment by means of armed zeal activity on behalf of the holiness of God. A parallel in Jubilees suggests that they were seeking justice and vengeance for the Jewish nation: “And Levi and his sons will be blessed forever because he was zealous to do righteousness and judgment and vengeance against all who rose up against Israel” (Jub. 30:18).35 The second occurrence of δικαιοσύνη in 1 Maccabees falls under the subcategory of righteousness before God: “Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was accounted to him as righteousness (ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην)?” (1 Macc 2:52 NETS). The author of 1 Macc conflates two separate episodes in the life of Abraham, taking the language of Gen 15:6 and applying it to Abraham’s obedient response to God’s command to offer his son Isaac (Gen 22). The third and final occurrence is a little more subtle since it involves the use of the word “faith” in the same context. This is later in the story of the Maccabean revolt, when the second son of Mattathias, Simon, is chosen by the people to be their leader after his more famous older brother, Judas, has died in battle. The narrator says that they made him their leader and high priest “because he had done all these things, and for the justice and faith that he preserved in his nation” (διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν πεποιηκέναι πάντα ταῦτα καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην καὶ τὴν

34 It is important to distinguish between the Zealot movement that later attempted to overthrow the Roman government (AD 66–74) and the earlier Jewish model of zeal of which Phinehas was the biblical prototype (cp. Jub. 30:18; Gal 1:13-14; Phil 3:6; Acts 21:20; 23:12-14; m. Sanh. 9.6). This concept of zeal is essentially vigilante justice spurred by the intense emotion of witnessing gross violations of the Torah such as idolatry. As Philo argued, outrageous acts of impiety must be punished “without any delay,” bypassing the usual legal processes (Philo, Spec 1.54-55; cp. 2.253). It is anachronistic to view Jewish individuals acting with violent zeal to defend the honor of God as revolutionaries. Gedalyahu Alon, Jews, Judaism and the Classical World (trans. Israel Abraham; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977), 112-24; David Rhoads, “Zealots,” ABD 6.1044-45; Torrey Seland, “Saul of Tarsus and Early Zealotism: Reading Gal 1,13-14 in Light of Philo’s Writings,” Biblica 83 (2002): 449-71. 35 ET: O. S. Wintermute, “Jubilees,” OTP 2.113.

216

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

πίστιν, ἣν συνετήρησεν τῷ ἔθνει αὐτοῦ) (1 Macc 14:35 NETS). The correlation of δικαιοσύνη and πίστις in this text should not be viewed in a Pauline sense, for the word πίστις here most likely refers to faithfulness and loyalty to the Law of Moses. This then implies that δικαιοσύνη means ethical righteousness, viewed here in terms of obedience to the Law. 5. Jubilees36 The word “righteousness” (iustitia)37 occurs 26 times in the extant Latin version of Jubilees.38 We cannot examine every one of these, but they fall in the same general pattern that we have seen: (1) when used of humans, iustitia usually denotes ethical righteousness, usually in reference to observing the Mosaic Law; (2) there are a handful of cases of “righteousness” used in reference to correctness or fidelity in speaking the truth (as in the Old Testament); and (3) when used of God, iustitia is God’s distributive justice. To illustrate the first class of instances, consider the following passages. In Abraham’s farewell to Ishmael and Isaac and their children, he exhorts his sons and grandsons to guard themselves against all sexual immorality and idolatry. He commands them to worship the Most High God alone and to “do what is true and righteous before him, so that he might direct you aright and grant you mercy” (facite veritatem et justitiam in conspectu ejus, ut dirigat vos et det vobis

36 Jubilees is considered by scholars to be a 2nd-century BC Jewish document in the genre of re-written Bible. The earliest fragment of Jubilees at Qumran is dated to ca. 75–50 BC, which provides us with an absolute terminus ad quem, indicating that it was probably written in the century before then. But given the allusions to Maccabean history, it was probably written in the decades after the Hellenization crisis, ca. 161–40 BC. O. S. Wintermute, “Jubilees,” OTP 2.43-44. 37 Since I am not equipped to read Ethiopic, and no concordance of the Ethiopic text is known to me, to identify the passages in which “righteousness” occurs, I relied on the Latin text of R. H. Charles, Masehafa Kufase, or the Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees (Anecdota Oxoniensia; Oxford: Clarendon, 1895). Charles helpfully prints the Ethiopic on one page, and the corresponding Latin, when present, on the facing page. I have also consulted the Latin text of Hermann Rönsch, Das Buch der Jubiläen, oder Die kleine Genesis (Leipzig: Fues, 1874). I accessed both volumes online via the searchable, digital American Theological Library Association (ATLA) Historical Monographs Collection: Series 1. 38 As the Qumran fragments demonstrate, Jubilees was originally composed in Hebrew, then translated into Greek (ca. 200 AD?) and Syriac (ca. 500 AD?). The Greek and Syriac versions of Jubilees are no longer extant apart from fragmentary quotations. From the Greek it was translated into Latin (ca. 450 AD?) and Ethiopic (ca. 500 AD?). Access to Jubilees, then, is primarily through the Latin and the Ethiopic, although the Latin only has chs. 13, 15-42, and 45-49, while all 50 chapters are extant in Ethiopic. See James C. VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees (Harvard Semitic Monographs 14; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977), 1-16, esp. the diagram of the textual history, with hypothetical dates, on p. 15.

B. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Composed in Hebrew

217

misericordiam) (Jub. 20:9-10).39 This is not only an instance of righteousness in the ethical sense; it also contains the notion of “righteousness in the sight of God” (justitia in conspectu ejus), indeed, even adding the notion that doing what is upright and righteous before God will elicit his favor and mercy.40 Another critically important passage in Jubilees that falls under this first usage is the rewriting of the story of Levi and Simeon exacting revenge on the people of Shechem for defiling their sister Dinah. In the biblical account, the two sons of Jacob are condemned for their rashness. In the rewritten account of Jubilees, they are highly praised for their zeal, using the language of “the reckoning of righteousness” later used of Phinehas for his zeal (Ps 106:31).41 In the immediately preceding context, the author of Jubilees takes the moral of the story to be a warning against “any man in Israel who wishes to give his daughter or sister to any man who is from the seed of the gentiles” (Jub. 30:7).42 Endogamy is one of the major motifs of Jubilees.43 It flows from the desire to ensure that the Jews keep themselves separate from the Gentiles, since the Gentiles are viewed as hopelessly corrupt, wicked, unclean, and characterized by idolatry.44 And so in this context, the author of Jubilees uses the word “righteousness” several times: Therefore I command you, saying, “Proclaim this testimony to Israel and see how it was for the Shechemites and their sons, how they were given into the hand of the two children of Jacob and they killed them in judgment. And it was reckoned to them for truth45 and it was 17

39 ET mine. O. S. Wintermute’s translation (OTP 2.52-142) is based mainly on the Ethiopic, but since the Ethiopic and the Latin are in substantial agreement, I have used Wintermute as a base, making alterations where the Latin differs from the Ethiopic. 40 The Ethiopic more explicitly affirms that doing righteousness elicits God’s favor: “Do what is upright and righteous before him, so that he might be pleased with you” (Wintermute, OTP 2.94). On the basis of the Ethiopic, R. H. Charles suggests that the Latin dirigat should be emended to diligat. APOT 2.43. 41 “Then Phinehas stood up and intervened, and the plague was stayed. And that was counted to him as righteousness from generation to generation forever” (Ps 106:30-31 ESV). 42 ET: Wintermute, OTP 2.112. 43 Endogamy is a kinship value in which marriage is preferred within one’s extended family or tribe, and certainly a Jew may marry only another Jew. The high value placed on endogamy is found in the OT (Gen 24:3; 27:46–28:2) and continues in the Apocrypha (e.g., Tobit) and Pseudepigrapha (e.g., Jub. 22:20; 30:7). See deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha, 45, 76, 289-92. 44 When Abraham gave his blessing to Jacob, he said: “Separate yourself from the gentiles and do not eat with them, and do not perform deeds like theirs. And do not become associates of theirs. Because their deeds are defiled, and all of their ways are contaminated, and despicable, and abominable. They slaughter their sacrifices to the dead, and to the demons they bow down. And they eat in tombs. And all their deeds are worthless and vain … Be careful, my son, Jacob, that you do not take a wife from any of the seed of the daughters of Canaan, because all of his seed is (destined) for uprooting from the earth” (Jub. 22:16-17, 20; ET: Wintermute, OTP 2.98). 45 The Ethiopic has “righteousness” twice where the Latin has it only once: “And it was a righteousness [Latin: veritas] for them and it was written down for them for righteousness” (Wintermute, OTP 2.113). I was able to verify this by checking the Ethiopic text as found in Charles.

218

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

written down for them for righteousness (et conputatum est illis in veritate et conscriptum est illis in justitia).” 18And the seed of Levi was enrolled for the priesthood and levitical (orders) to minister before the Lord for all days just as we [angels] do. And Levi and his sons will be blessed forever because he was zealous for the truth and performed judgment and defense against all who were set over Israel. 19 And thus is registered for him as a testimony in the heavenly tablets blessing and righteousness in the sight of the God of all (Et sic refertur illi in testimonium in tabulis caeli benedictio et justitia in conspectu Dei omnium). 20 And the righteousness which a man did during his life will be remembered (et memorabitur justitia, quam feciet homo in vita sua) in all of the (appointed) times of the year; to a thousand generations it appears and comes to him and to his seed after him, and he was written down as a friend and a righteous one in the heavenly tablets (et scriptus est amicus et justus in tabulis caeli) (Jub. 30:17-20).46

The next few verses make clear that this is not merely a one-time incident, but an example for all Israel to follow.47 If the Jewish people of the author’s day are faithful to follow the principle of endogamy, separation from Gentiles, and zeal for the Mosaic Law, then they too will have “righteousness” written down for them in the heavenly tablets. This implies that “righteousness” here is “righteousness before God,” since it is divinely recognized and recorded in the heavenly tablets. In addition, it is clear that there are eschatological consequences – those who do not have “righteousness” recorded in the heavenly tablets are blotted out of the book of life.48 In the second class, the word “righteousness” is used in reference to doing something correctly, acting with integrity, or speaking the truth. And he will renew his covenant with you (et renovabit testamentum eius cum ipso), so that you might be a people for him, belonging to his inheritance forever. And he will be God for you and for your seed in truth and righteousness (et ipse erit tibi et semini tuo in Deum in veritate et justitia) throughout all the days of the earth (Jub. 22:15).49

The covenantal language in the immediate context (“he will renew his covenant with you”) does not prove that “in righteousness” here means “in covenant faithfulness.” Rather, it means that God will be their God “in truth and righteousness,” that is, really, truly, and with integrity. The language of this passage echoes that of Zech 8:8: “And they shall be my people, and I will be their God, in faithfulness and in righteousness” (ESV; cp. Hos 2:19-20), a passage that we examined in Chapter 4. 46 ET: Wintermute, OTP 2.113 (modified). 47 “All of these words I have written for you, and I have commanded you to speak to the children of Israel that they might not commit sin or transgress the ordinances or break the covenant which was ordained for them so that they might do it and be written down as friends” (Jub. 30:21; ET: Wintermute, OTP 2.113-14). 48 “But if they transgress and act in all the ways of defilement, they will be recorded in the heavenly tablets as enemies. And they will be blotted out of the book of life and written in the book of those who will be destroyed and with those who will be rooted out from the land” (Jub. 30:22; ET: Wintermute, OTP 2.114). 49 ET: Wintermute, OTP 2.98 (modified).

B. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Composed in Hebrew

219

This interpretation is supported by the following parallel, which also uses “in truth and righteousness,” but this time when characterizing the activity of humans: And those who are preserved will not be turned back from their wickedness to the way of truth, because they will all lift themselves up for deceit and wealth so that one shall take everything that belongs to his neighbor; and they will pronounce the great name but not in truth and not in righteousness (et nomen magnum nominabunt non in veritate et non in justitia) (Jub. 23:21).50

This language echoes that of Isaiah 48:1: “Hear this, O house of Jacob … who swear by the name of the Lord and invoke the God of Israel, but not in truth nor in righteousness” (NASB). The point is not that the people of Israel are unfaithful to the covenant, but that their religious profession is insincere (cp. Isa 29:13). “It is neither reliable (truth) nor correct (righteousness). It is in fact a lie.”51 In the third class, that is, cases where righteousness is attributed to God in some way, we have a passage such as the following, where Abraham is giving his farewell to Isaac. Abraham says that he is old and has sought to do God’s will all his life, in particular, hating idols and serving only the one true and living God. He gives the following reason for his doing so: For he is the living God, and holy and faithful and more righteous than all (quia Deus vivens est et sanctus et fidelis et iustus ex omnibus), and there is no accepting of persons with him, to accept gifts, because God is righteous and one who executes judgment (quoniam Deus iustus est et iudicium exercens) with all who transgress his words and despise his testimony (Jub. 21:4).52

In sum, the usage of “righteousness” language in Jubilees is similar to that of the Hebrew OT, since all three main categories are present – judicial, ethical, and correctness. There is no evidence of “righteousness” as a relational concept, and there is strong evidence of “God’s righteousness” as distributive justice. The OT use of “God’s righteousness” as vindicatory/delivering righteousness is not present in Jubilees. 6. 1 Enoch 53 There are three passages in 1 Enoch that use the language of the righteousness of God (1 Enoch 71:14; 99:10; 101:3). Since 1 Enoch tends to be regarded as the quintessential example of apocalyptic literature, Stuhlmacher cited these three 50 ET: Wintermute, OTP 2.101 (modified). 51 John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40–66 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 261. 52 ET: Wintermute, OTP 2.95 (modified). 53 First Enoch is a composite work comprised of strata written at various times, stretching from the 4th century BC to the 1st century AD. The complexities involved in the analysis of the textual history of the Enochian literature prohibit extensive discussion here. One of the verses we will examine (1 Enoch 71:14) falls in the youngest stratum, the Book of Similitudes (chs. 37–71), which is considered by most recent scholarship to belong to the 1st century AD, the consensus reached by the SNTS Pseudepigrapha Seminar (1977–78). The other two verses we will examine (1 Enoch 99:10; 101:3) belong to the Epistle of Enoch (chs. 91–105/7), which most scholars date to sometime in the 2nd century BC. George W. E. Nicklesburg, “Enoch,

220

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

passages as evidence that “the righteousness of God” is not God’s attribute as a judge but his saving power.54 Therefore we will examine each in turn. In the first passage, 1 Enoch 71:14, an angel (or perhaps God himself) is heard saying to Enoch: “You are that son of man who was born for righteousness, and righteousness dwells on you, and the righteousness of the Head of Days55 will not forsake you.”56 This is related to an earlier passage in which the angel said, “This is the son of man who has righteousness, and righteousness dwells with him” (46:3).57 The subsequent context (46:4-8) makes clear what is meant by the statement that he has righteousness or that righteousness dwells in him: he will raise kings and mighty ones from their couches of luxury so that worms will be their couch, with no hope of rising from the couch of death; he will crush the teeth of sinners; he will overturn kings from their thrones and their kingdoms because they do not worship the true God but gods they have made with their hands, or acknowledge that their kingship was given to them by God, and because they persecute the godly. Thus “the righteousness of the Head of Days” that will not depart from the Son of Man is a judicial righteousness that involves his role as God’s vice-regent who executes judgment on the world. In the second passage, 1 Enoch 99:10, we read: “Then blessed will be all who listen to the words of the wise, and learn to do the commandments of the Most High; and walk in the paths of his righteousness (καὶ πορεύσονται ἐν ὁδοῖς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ), and do not err with the erring [or do not become wicked with the wicked]; for they will be saved.”58 “Path(s) of righteousness” is a biblical phrase59 with strong ethical connotations, and the addition of the pronoun “his” does not change its fundamentally ethical meaning. With the pronoun, the phrase does not denote the judicial righteousness of God, whether saving or punitive, but the ethical righteousness demanded by God, as indicated by the parallel phrase, “the commandments of the Most High.” The immediately preceding context First Book of,” ABD 2.508-16; E. Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” OTP 1.6-7; J. J. Collins, “Enoch, Books of,” DNTB 313-18. 54 Peter Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (2nd ed.; FRLANT 87; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 167-69. 55 “The Head of Days” in Enoch is God himself, “the Ancient of Days” of Daniel 7:9, 13. See 1 Enoch 46:1-2: “There I saw one who had a head of days, and his head was like white wool. And with him was another, whose face was like the appearance of a man … And I asked the angel of peace, who went with me and showed me all the hidden things, about that son of man – who he was and whence he was (and) why he went with the Head of Days.” English translation from George W. E. Nicklesburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation Based on the Hermeneia Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 59-60. 56 ET: Nicklesburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 95. 57 ET: Ibid., 60. 58 ET: Ibid., 152; translation in brackets from E. Isaac, OTP 1.80. Greek from “Apocalypsis Henochi Graece,” ed. M. Black, in Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum Quae Supersunt Graeca (ed. Albert-Marie Denis; PVTG 3; Leiden: Brill, 1970). 59 Ps 23:3; Prov 8:20 (cp. 4:11); Matt 21:32; 2 Pet 2:21.

B. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Composed in Hebrew

221

warns of God’s coming judgment on those who carve images of gold, silver, wood, stone, and clay (99:6-9). The immediately following context pronounces a woe on those who spread evil for their neighbors, who lay the foundations of sin and deceit, and who practice lawlessness and unrighteous deeds (99:11-16). The strongly ethical character of the surrounding context suggests that walking “in the paths of his [God’s] righteousness” in 99:10 has to do with walking in the paths of God’s moral law, and has nothing to do with God’s covenant faithfulness or his eschatological deliverance of his people. Stuhlmacher was wrong to cite this text in support of his saving-power interpretation of the righteousness of God. The third instance is 1 Enoch 101:1-3 where we read: “So contemplate, O human beings, the deeds of the Most High and fear to do evil in his presence … If he sends forth his wrath against you and your deeds, will you not be entreating him? Why do you speak with your mouth proud and hard things60 against his majesty [Ethiopic: against his righteousness]? You will have no peace.”61 Here we have a textual issue. The Greek manuscripts have “against his majesty” (ἐπὶ τῇ μεγαλωσύνῃ αὐτοῦ), while the Ethiopic has “against his righteousness.” Nicklesburg opts for the Greek textual tradition, “against his majesty,” arguing that it is supported by the subsequent context where even sailors are afraid of the storms of the sea, yet sinners do not fear the Most High (101:4-9).62 In any case, even if the Ethiopic reading were adopted as original, “his [God’s] righteousness” in this context would be neither his covenant faithfulness nor his saving deliverance of his people, but, given the apocalyptic context of the scenes of final judgment, God’s righteousness in executing judgment upon sinners.63 Thus, Stuhlmacher’s citation of these three passages from 1 Enoch does not support his interpretation of “the righteousness of God.” The first passage refers 60 Cp. “Look, he comes with the myriads of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, to destroy all the wicked, and to convict all humanity for all the wicked deeds that they have done, and the proud and hard words that wicked sinners spoke against him” (1:9; famously quoted in Jude 14-15) (ET: Nicklesburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 20). The hard words that sinners have spoken against God would seem to be against “his majesty,” but even if they are against “his righteousness,” it is against his righteousness as the holy judge coming “to execute judgment on all (ποιῆσαι κρίσιν κατὰ πάντων)” and “to convict all humanity (ἐλέγξει πᾶσαν σάρκα)” for their wicked deeds. 61 ET: Nicklesburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 156; translation in brackets from E. Isaac, OTP 1.82. 62 Nicklesburg also points to a parallel passage (1 Enoch 5:4) where the Ethiopic translator has the same confusion: “You have spoken proud and hard words with your unclean mouth against his majesty” (Greek: κατὰ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης αὐτοῦ / Ethiopic: ṣedqa zi’ahu [“against his righteousness”]). George W. E. Nicklesburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 504. 63 God’s “wrath” is mentioned in the same verse (1 Enoch 101:3). See also the description of the final judgment in the next chapter, “when [God] hurls against you the flood of the fire of your burning,” when “the heavens and all the luminaries will be shaken” and “all the sons of earth will seek to hide themselves from the presence of the Great Glory” (102:1-3). ET: Nicklesburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 157.

222

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

to God’s distributive justice, the second to ethical righteousness; and the third is textually uncertain, but even if the reading “righteousness” is adopted, it denotes God’s distributive justice in the context of the final judgment. The eschatological saving righteousness of God is simply not present in 1 Enoch, the quintessentially apocalyptic text where, if anywhere, we would expect to find it. 7. Psalms of Solomon 64 The Psalms of Solomon (Pss. Sol.), written just prior to the Christian era in the first century BC, have tended to attract the greatest interest on account of their explicit witness to Jewish messianism in the last century of the pre-Christian era (cf. Pss. Sol. 17 and 18). I will not address this issue here. What interests me is their potential as a source for understanding Paul’s soteriology. Their relevance for Pauline studies is increased if, as many scholars believe, the Pss. Sol. were written by Pharisees, although such an identification is not necessary for my argument.65 Words derived from the ΔΙΚ-root are plentiful in the Psalms of Solomon. The adjective δίκαιος occurs 34 times, and the noun δικαιοσύνη occurs 25 times. These terms are used in reference to human ethical righteousness and in reference to God’s judicial righteousness (iustitia distributiva). There are no references to the righteousness of God that would support the translation, “the covenant faithfulness of God.” Let us now examine several of the key passages. There are three references to God’s “righteous judgments” (τὰ κρίματά σου [or τοῦ θεοῦ] τὰ δίκαια) (Pss. Sol. 2:10; 5:1; 8:8). On one occasion, it is stated that “the Lord’s judgments [are] in righteousness” (τὰ κρίματα κυρίου ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ) (9:5 NETS); on another occasion, the psalmist proclaims that “our Lord is righteous and devout in his judgments forever” (δίκαιος καὶ ὅσιος ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ἐν κρίμασιν αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα) (10:5 NETS). Three times it is stated that God is a righteous judge: “You have exposed their sins, that your judgment might be evident … God is a righteous judge (ὁ θεὸς κριτὴς δίκαιος), and he will not marvel at a person” (2:17-18 NETS); “May God remove those who arrogantly do all injustice; for the Lord our God is a great and mighty judge in righteousness” (κριτὴς μέγας καὶ κραταιὸς κύριος ὁ θεὸς 64 A number of historical references in the Pss. Sol. place them firmly in the 1st century BC. “Arrogantly the sinner broke down the strong walls with a battering ram” (Pss. Sol. 2:1) is regarded by most scholars as referring to Pompey’s invasion of Jerusalem in 63 BC. His death in Egypt is also alluded to (Pss. Sol. 2:25-27). M. Lattke, “Psalms of Solomon,” DNTB 855; Joseph L. Trafton, “Solomon, Psalms of,” ABD 6.115; R. B. Wright, “Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2.640-41. 65 Pharisaic authorship is argued by Dieter Lührmann, “Paul and the Pharisaic Tradition,” JSNT 36 (1989): 75-94. Others argue that the Pss. Sol. were authored by the Essenes, the Hasidim, or others. See J. O’Dell, “The Religious Background of the Psalms of Solomon (Reevaluated in the Light of the Qumran Texts),” RevQ 3 (1961): 241-57; R. B. Wright, “Psalms of Solomon,” OTP 2.639-70.

B. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Composed in Hebrew

223

ἡμῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ) (4:24 NETS); “The dispersion of Israel was among every nation … that you may be justified, O God, in your righteousness (ἵνα δικαιωθῇς, ὁ θεός, ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου) by reason of our acts of lawlessness; for you are a righteous judge (σὺ κριτὴς δίκαιος) over all the peoples of the earth” (9:2 NETS). In all of these cases, God’s righteousness as judge is manifested in his punishment of the sinners among the nation of Israel. Indeed, the dispersion of Israel among the nations was God’s righteous punishment upon the nation for its “acts of lawlessness” (ἀνομίαι). The language of the “justification” of God, that is, the acknowledgment that God is right and just in his judgments, occurs seven times in the Pss. Sol. (2:15; 3:5; 4:8; 8:7, 23, 26; 9:2).66 We see much the same thing in Pss. Sol. 2, which is subtitled, “A Psalm. Pertaining to Salomon. Concerning Ierousalem” (NETS). It is a meditation on a recent military attack on the city of Jerusalem by the Roman forces under Pompey the Great. The psalmist attributes this distressing event to God’s judgment on the inhabitants of Jerusalem because of their sins. It is in this context that we find one reference to God’s “righteous judgments,” two references to God being a righteous judge or king, and one reference to God’s righteousness. “For in your judgments is your righteousness, O God, (ὅτι ἐν τοῖς κρίμασίν σου ἡ δικαιοσύνη σου, ὁ θεός). For you have repaid sinners according to their works” (2:15-16 NETS). “And now see, the nobles of the earth, the judgment of the Lord (τὸ κρίμα τοῦ κυρίου), for he is a great and righteous king (ὅτι μέγας βασιλεὺς καὶ δίκαιος); judging (κρίνων) what is under heaven … to separate between righteous and sinner, to repay the sinners forever according to their works” (2:32-33 NETS). The righteousness of God in this context has to do with his role as king and judge, a role that involves rewarding the righteous and punishing sinners, i.e., distributive justice. Another important psalm for understanding not only the Jewish usage of “righteousness” terminology but also Jewish soteriology is Pss. Sol. 9. This latter point is important, since Paul’s soteriology is generally regarded as involving, on some level, a response to Jewish soteriology. At this point we enter into a highly contested issue with scholars polarized into two main camps. The first camp, represented by H. Braun,67 holds that the Pss. Sol. reflect a legalistic 66 The fact that the language of the justification of God in the Pss. Sol. is used in the context of defending God’s distributive justice supports my reading of Rom 3:4 in Chapter 6 below. Paul explicitly quotes Ps 51:4 [50:6LXX] (“that you may be justified in your words”); it is likely that the Pss. Sol. are also drawing upon the same canonical language. 67 H. Braun, “Vom Erbarmen Gottes über den Gerechten: Zur Theologie der Psalmen Solomos,” ZNW 43 (1950-51): 1-54. Agreeing with Braun, but with qualifications: William L. Lane, “Paul’s Legacy from Phariseeism: Light from the Psalms of Solomon,” Concordia Journal 8 (1982): 130-38; Mark A. Seifrid, Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme (NovTSup 68; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 109-33; Simon Gathercole, Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1-5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 63-7.

224

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

piety that oscillates between hope in God’s mercy and confidence in one’s own righteousness, with the latter being more basic. The second camp, led by E. P. Sanders, reacted strongly against Braun’s characterization, and holds that the psalms do not betray any hint of legalism but fit within the paradigm of covenantal nomism, that is, the idea that salvation is by grace on the basis of God’s covenant with Israel and that obedience is merely the means by which one remains within the covenant.68 In my view, both Braun and Sanders overstated their case. Against Sanders, Pss. Sol. 9:4-5 makes it very clear that the performance of good deeds – righteousness – is the means of obtaining eschatological life: Τὰ ἔργα ἡμῶν ἐν ἐκλογῇ καὶ ἐξουσίᾳ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡμῶν τοῦ ποιῆσαι δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἀδικίαν ἐν ἔργοις χειρῶν ἡμῶν· καὶ ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου ἐπισκέπτῃ υἱοὺς ἀνθρώπων. ὁ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην θησαυρίζει ζωὴν αὑτῷ παρὰ κυρίῳ, καὶ ὁ ποιῶν ἀδικίαν αὐτὸς αἴτιος τῆς ψυχῆς ἐν ἀπωλείᾳ· τὰ γὰρ κρίματα κυρίου ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ κατ᾿ ἄνδρα καὶ οἶκον. Our works are in the choosing and power of our soul, to do righteousness or injustice in the works of our hands, and in your righteousness (ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου) you visit human beings. The one who does righteousness stores up life for himself with the Lord, and the one who practices injustice is responsible for the destruction of his own soul, for the judgments of the Lord are in righteousness (τὰ γὰρ κρίματα κυρίου ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ) for each man and household (NETS).

This passage establishes a strong connection between the righteousness of humans and the righteousness of God. Three stages of righteousness can be discerned here: (1) humans, by their own choosing and power, do righteousness (ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην); (2) in so doing, they store up life for themselves with the Lord, which implies that a second stage has occurred, namely, the divine recognition of this righteousness so that the doers of righteousness are now “righteous” before God; and (3) God in his righteousness (ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου) visits human beings, determines who has achieved this status of being “righteous” before God, and bestows the eschatological reward of life – and thus “the judgments of the Lord are in righteousness (τὰ κρίματα κυρίου ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ)” according to both the individual and the household. In this context, the righteousness of God is his distributive justice in rewarding the righteous with eternal life. On the other hand, Sanders has rightly pointed out that the Pss. Sol. do not require perfect obedience and make much of God’s mercy (3:5-8; 9:6-8; 15:13). Furthermore, Law-keeping is not viewed as meritorious, since the Law is part of God’s gracious covenant with Israel (9:10; 10:4). Sanders’s correction needs to be heard. But in the end, the soteriology of the Pss. Sol. includes both elements. 68 E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977), 387-409. Cp. Mikael Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous: A Comparative Study of the Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Letters (ConBNT 26; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1995), 74-5; and Daniel Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid; WUNT II/140; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/ Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 35-51.

B. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Composed in Hebrew

225

Yes, there is mercy for those who repent, but repentance is turning oneself back to the Law. It is a way of getting back onto the path of righteousness. In the final analysis, righteousness by Law-keeping is still the necessary means of obtaining eschatological life. Pss. Sol. 2 focuses on the righteousness of God in his historical judgments on Israel, whether in the dispersion among the nations or in the more recent military action of Pompey in Jerusalem. But in Pss. Sol. 9, the righteousness of God is oriented toward the individual, eschatological reward of the righteous by means of their doing the righteousness demanded by the law and achieving a status of being “righteous” before God. The concept of the righteousness of God in Pss. Sol. 9 is diametrically opposed to Paul’s concept of a righteousness from God attained by faith in Christ apart from the works of the law. But in spite of this Christological difference, both the author of Pss. Sol. and Paul are working within the same conceptual framework of distributive righteousness, and neither adopts the notion that “the righteousness of God” is a cipher for his covenant faithfulness. The difference between them is not linguistic but theological. Both affirm the need for righteousness before God; they differ on the means of attaining that righteousness. 8. Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 69 Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (L.A.B.) was composed originally in Hebrew, subsequently translated into Greek, and is extant now only in a flawed Latin translation of the Greek.70 The word iusticiae occurs most frequently to refer to God’s commandments, i.e., his “statutes,”71 a Latin rendering that was inspired    ִ ֻ The word is used once with by the LXX’s choice of δικαιώματα to render ‫חקּים‬. reference to ethical righteousness. David, speaking to Jonathan regarding King Saul’s persecution, makes reference to his own father Jesse’s outstanding ethical righteousness: “The righteousness of my father (iusticia patris mei) helps me so that I should not fall into the hands of your father” (L.A.B. 62:5).72 A contrast 69 Most scholars favor a date toward the end of the 1st century AD. Craig A. Evans, Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005), 49. Daniel Harrington thinks the Hebrew original was composed in Palestine prior to the destruction of Herod’s temple in AD 70, although some have argued for a post-AD 70 date based on possible allusions to the destruction of the temple (L.A.B. 19:7; 26:13). Harrington points out that it was definitely written before AD 100, since biblical texts were suppressed in Palestine after that time. Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo,” DNTB 864; idem, “Philo, Pseudo-,” ABD 5.345; idem, “Pseudo-Philo,” OTP 2.299; idem, “The Biblical Text of Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,” CBQ 33 (1971): 1-17. 70 Howard Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum with Latin Text and English Translation (AGJU 31; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 1.ix. 71 L.A.B. 9:8; 11:15; 12:2; 19:9; 30:2; 48:5; 54:5. 72 ET: D. J. Harrington in OTP 2.375. Latin text prepared by Harrington and published as Pseudo-Philon, Les Antiquités Bibliques (SC 229-30; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1976).

226

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

is obviously being drawn here between Jonathan’s wicked father and David’s righteous father. In the Midrash, Jesse was one of the four most outstanding righteous men since the world began, and so David is here appealing to the ethical righteousness of his father as the explanation for Saul’s inability to harm him.73 A few verses later in the same chapter, the word iusticia occurs again, but this time it is unclear whether it means ethical or legal righteousness. The conversation has now shifted and Jonathan is answering David. Jacobson translates: “Come to me, my brother David, and I will tell you of your judgement (dicam tibi iusticiam tuam). My soul pines away greatly over your sadness, because we are now separated from each other. Our sins (peccata nostra) have caused this … But let us be mindful of one another day and night while we live … For your kingdom is in this world, but from you will be the beginning of a kingdom which will come in its time” (L.A.B. 62:9).74

Harrington has a different rendering: “Come to me, my brother David, and I will tell you of your righteousness.”75 But Harrington’s rendering does not fit the context that follows: Jonathan is not boasting of David’s ethical righteousness but telling David, in oracular fashion, the outcome of what is going to happen based on God’s decision to hand the kingdom over to David and to take it away from Saul. In fact, as Jacobson points out, not only is there nothing in Jonathan’s speech about David’s ethical righteousness, but Jonathan even says that the reason they have to be separated is because of “our sins” (peccata nostra). Thus, iusticiam tuam most likely refers to “what God and the future hold in store for David.”76 Jacobson’s legal interpretation seems to better fit the context. The language of “the righteousness of God” does not occur explicitly in L.A.B., either in the form iustitia mea/tua/sua or in the full form iustitia Dei. However, before we leave L.A.B., it is worth pointing out that the concept of God’s distributive justice is clearly present even if the terminology is not. For example, after the flood, L.A.B. has God say these words: “But when the years appointed for the world have been fulfilled, then the light will cease and the darkness will fade away. And I will bring the dead to life and raise up those who are sleeping from the earth. And hell will pay back its debt, and the place of perdition will return its deposit so that I may render to each according to his works (ut reddam unicuique secundum opera sua) and according to the fruit of his own devices, until I judge (quousque iudicem) between soul and flesh … And no one who has been pardoned [lit. justified] by me (qui in me iustificatus est) will be tainted. And there will be another earth and another heaven, an everlasting dwelling place” (L.A.B. 3:10).77

This passage is interesting because it employs the language of justification in the context of God’s distribution of reward and punishment at the final day of judgment when the dead have been raised. The wicked will go to the place



Baba Bathra 17a. Cited by Jacobson, 2.1190; Harrington, OTP 2.375 note c. ET: Jacobson, 1.190-1. 75 ET: Harrington, OTP 2.375. 76 ET: Jacobson, 2.1194. 77 ET: Harrington, OTP 2.307. 73 74

B. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Composed in Hebrew

227

of perdition, whereas the righteous who have been “justified” (or perhaps “vindicated”)78 are those who will be free from all pollution or taint and will dwell forever in the new creation. This is similar to L.A.B.’s version of Hannah’s prayer, where she says that God will bring the righteous to life but the wicked he will shut up in darkness until they perish – all of which will occur as a result of God’s sure “judgment” (iudicium) (L.A.B. 51:5). 9. 4 Ezra 79 Like L.A.B., 4 Ezra was probably written in Hebrew, then translated into Greek, and from there into Latin. Although Syriac, Ethiopic, Armenian, and other versions exist, I will be using the Latin text. The word iustitia occurs in the first and third visions of the so-called Ezra Apocalypse (chs. 3-14). In the first vision, it occurs once, in chapter five, which is a description of the signs of the coming end of the age. Unrighteousness and unrestraint (iniustitia et incontinentia) will increase on the earth beyond anything known before. So bad will it be that one country shall ask its neighbor, “Has righteousness (iustitia), or anyone who does right (iustum faciens), passed through you?” and the reply will be in the negative (4 Ezra 5:11).80 It is clear that the usage of “righteousness” here falls under the category of ethical righteousness. In the third vision, the word occurs six times, this time with more variety. After a temporary messianic kingdom that lasts 400 years, the world will return to primeval silence; then, after seven days, the world and all the dead will be awakened for judgment. “And the Most High shall be revealed upon the seat of judgment (sedem iudicii),81 and compassion shall pass away, and patience shall be withdrawn; but judgment alone (iudicium 78 ET: Jacobson, 1.93. 79 Fourth Ezra was clearly written as a theological response to the destruction of Herod’s temple in AD 70. It claims to have been written in the thirtieth year after the destruction of the first temple by the Babylonians (“In the thirtieth year after the destruction of our city,” 4 Ezra 3:1), but this is to be taken in a typological sense as the thirtieth year after the destruction of Herod’s temple in AD 70, thus yielding a date of AD 100 for the composition of the book. B. M. Metzger, “The Fourth Book of Ezra,” OTP 1.520. This is corroborated by the three-headed eagle in Vision 5 of 4 Ezra, which is taken as code for the Flavian dynasty of Roman emperors (Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian), whose reigns collectively spanned AD 69–96. Michael E. Stone, “Esdras, Second Book of,” ABD 2.612; idem, Faith and Piety in Early Judaism: Texts and Documents (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 166. 80 ET: B. M. Metzger, OTP 1.532. For the Latin text, I have consulted both Robert L. Bensly, ed., The Fourth Book of Ezra: The Latin Version Edited from the MSS (Texts and Studies 3.2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1895), and A. Frederik J. Klijn, ed., Der Lateinische Text der Apokalypse des Esra (TUGAL 131; Berlin: Akademie, 1983). 81 “The divine judgment is a clearly judicial function; the judgment seat is also a legal characteristic. In the Hebrew Bible, the judgment seat is often specifically connected with the king’s judicial function.” Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 220.

228

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

solum) shall remain, truth (veritas) shall stand, and faithfulness (fides) shall grow strong. And recompense (opus) shall follow, and the reward (merces) shall be manifested; righteous deeds (iustitiae) shall awake, and unrighteous deeds (iniustitiae) shall not sleep. Then the pit of torment shall appear, and opposite it shall be the place of rest” (4 Ezra 7:33-36).82

The term “righteous deeds” (iustitiae), as the antonym of “unrighteous deeds” (iniustitiae), obviously has reference here to ethical righteousness. But it is noteworthy that this occurs in the context of an apocalyptic description of the day of judgment, which is viewed in strictly legal terms as God’s judicial activity of executing distributive justice, that is, reward for the righteous and punishment for the wicked, a common motif in Jewish apocalyptic literature. Note as well that the judgment of God will be in accordance with perfect truth (veritas), fidelity (fides),83 and the complete withdrawal of divine mercy and compassion (“compassion shall pass away, and patience shall be withdrawn”). As a result, “judgment alone shall remain (iudicium solum remanebit).” Two additional instances of iustitia in an ethical sense, i.e., “righteousness” as upright human behavior, occur later in the same chapter (4 Ezra 7:105, 114) in the same apocalyptic context of a description of the day of judgment. Given the severity of this passage’s emphasis on God’s impartial and merciless judgment, it strongly militates against the Cremer hypothesis that righteousness is a thoroughly positive, relational concept. Finally, in 4 Ezra 8, we have potentially two occurrences of iustitia that at first seem to provide support for Cremer’s perspective, since one is an instance of divine righteousness used in a positive, saving sense. However, these two occurrences of iustitia are in doubt because of the existence of two divergent Latin textual traditions at 4 Ezra 8:20-36, the so-called “Confessio Esdrae” or “Prayer of Ezra.”84 The first textual tradition is that found in the Latin text as edited by Robert Bensly at the end of the 19th century; this tradition is the textual basis for Bruce Metzger’s English translation of 4 Ezra in Charlesworth’s Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. The first textual tradition has both occurrences of iusticia. The second textual tradition is found in the Latin text edited by A. F. J. Klijn in 1983, the edition which supplies the foundation for Michael Stone’s English translation in his Hermeneia commentary on 4 Ezra. The word iusticia, which occurs twice in the first textual tradition, does not occur at all in this second textual tradition. Here are the two texts side by side. Continuing in the dialogue between Ezra and God from the previous chapter, in chapter 8, Ezra now pleads with God to have mercy on frail human beings who are inevitably sinful. 82 ET: B. M. Metzger, OTP 1.538. 83 “Faithfulness” (fides) in this context does not mean “covenant” faithfulness, or keeping one’s promises of grace, but God’s faithful adherence or fidelity to his own internal divine moral standards grounded in his unchanging holy nature. Here fides signifies judicial rectitude and the rendering of verdicts that are in accordance with the truth and with God’s moral law. 84 Klijn, 15, 57-61; Stone, Fourth Ezra, 269-75.

B. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Composed in Hebrew

229

Table 13. Two Textual Traditions at 4 Ezra 8:31-36 Bensly

Klijn

For we and our fathers have passed our lives in ways that bring death, but you, because of us sinners, are called merciful (misericors).

31 For we and those who were before us have done deeds in ways that bring death, but thou, because of us sinners, art called merciful (misericors).

31

32 For if you have desired to have pity on us, 32 For if thou hast desired to have pity on us, who have no works of righteousness (nobis who have no good works (qui non habemus non habentibus opera iusticiae), then you facta bona), then thou wilt be called merciful will be called merciful (misericors). (miserator). 33 For the righteous (iusti), who have many works (operae multae) laid up with you, shall receive their reward in consequence of their own deeds (ex propriis operibus recipient mercedem).

33 For the righteous (iusti), who have many works (opera multa) laid up with thee, shall receive their reward in consequence of their own deeds (de suis operibus habent mercedem recipere).

But what is man, that you are angry with 34 But what is man, that thou art angry with him; or what is a mortal race, that you are so him; or what is a corruptible race, that thou bitter against it? art so bitter against it? 34

35 For in truth there is no one among those 35 For in truth there is no one among those who have been born who has not acted who have been born who has not acted wickedly, and among those who have existed wickedly, and among those who have existed there is no one who has not transgressed. there is no one who has not transgressed. 36 For in this, O Lord, your righteousness and your goodness will be declared, when you are merciful to those who have no store of good works (In hoc enim adnuntiabitur iusticia tua et bonitos tua, Domine, cum misertus fueris eis qui non habent substantiam operum bonorum).”

36 For in this, O Lord, thy goodness will be declared, when thou art merciful to those who have no store of [good] works (In hoc enim ostendetur bonitas tua, Domine, quando misertus fueris illorum qui non habent substantiam operum [bonorum]).

The Bensly tradition has been recorded mostly in liturgical manuscripts, whereas the Klijn tradition is supported by the most reliable Latin manuscripts.85 Particularly in v 36, iusticia tua is lacking in the primary manuscript tradition and thus appears to be a secondary addition due to the liturgical use of the Prayer of Ezra (= 4 Ezra 8:20-36) in the church.86 This is supported by internal 85 Klijn, 13-15; Stone, Fourth Ezra, 4. According to R. H. Charles, “The beauty of the prayer itself [the Confessio Esdrae = 4 Ezra 8:20-36] led to its being excerpted and used for liturgical and devotional purposes. As a consequence, it occurs in a separate form in a number of MSS. of the Latin Bible.” APOT 2.594. Charles also recognizes the two textual traditions; however, unlike Klijn and Stone, Charles thinks it impossible to determine which textual tradition is older. 86 “This remarkable prayer (vss. 20-36) played a significant role in the liturgy of the early church as may be seen from its quotation in the Apostolic Constitutions, its separate status in numerous manuscripts of the Vulgate and the Mozarabic Liturgy, and its transmission in two

230

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

considerations as well. In the midst of the ongoing description of the day of judgment, including the emphasis on God’s distributive justice in rewarding the righteous “in consequence of their own deeds,” it would be quite unexpected and out of place to find the phrase “your righteousness” (iusticia tua) used in a positive, merciful sense in conjunction with “your goodness” (bonitas tua). It is quite possible that the liturgical text-form was corrupted by Christian scribes who were familiar with Pauline usage. Stuhlmacher did not register any awareness of this text critical issue and simply appealed to 4 Ezra 8:36 as another piece of evidence to support his claim that “the righteousness of God” was a technical term in pre-Christian Judaism for God’s merciful faithfulness.87 10. Life of Adam and Eve 88 In the Life of Adam and Eve (L.A.E.), the word δικαιοσύνη occurs only once, and in a sense that means “ethical righteousness before God.” It is used in the account of Adam’s moment of sin and fall. As soon as he eats of the forbidden fruit, at that very moment, his eyes are opened “and I knew that I was naked of the righteousness with which I had been clothed” (ἔγνων ὅτι γυμνὴ ἤμην τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἧς ἤμην ἐνδεδυμένη) (L.A.E. 20:1). It is significant that this thought of Adam being clothed with righteousness is then explained in terms of Adam’s possession of divine glory, for as soon as he realizes that he is naked he cries out, weeping, “Why have you done this to me, that I have been estranged from my glory with which I was clothed?” (ἀπηλλοτριώθην ἐκ τῆς δόξης μου ἧς ἤμην ἐνδεδυμένη) (L.A.E. 20:2). And a few verses later, Adam casts blame upon Eve: “Why have you wrought destruction among us? You have estranged me from the glory of God” (ἀπηλλοτρίωσάς με ἐκ τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ) (21:6).89 This shows that the glory with which Adam was clothed was the divine glory, possibly related to the concept of the image of God. It is also significant that the recensions.” Jacob M. Myers, I and II Esdras: Introduction, Translation and Commentary (AB 42; Garden City: Doubleday, 1974), 258. The Mozarabic Liturgy, which goes back to the seventh century, may be found in Migne, Patrologia latina 85.878-79. The term “Mozarabic” applies to Roman Catholics living under Muslim rule in the Iberian Peninsula. 87 Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus, 172-3; idem, Biblische Theologie, 327, 330. 88 Although M. de Jonge and J. Tromp have argued that the Life of Adam and Eve is of Christian provenance, most scholars have held that it is a Jewish text composed in Hebrew in the 1st century AD. M. de Jong and J. Tromp, The Life of Adam and Eve and Related Literature (GAP; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997); John R. Levison, “Adam and Eve, Life of,” ABD 1.64-66; idem, “Adam and Eve, Literature Concerning,” DNTB 1-6. 89 ET: M. D. Johnson, OTP 2.281. Greek text from A.-M. Denis, Concordance grecque des pseudépigraphes d’ancien Testament (Louvain-la-Neuve: Université Catholique de Louvain, Institut Orientaliste, 1987), 815-18. Denis’s Greek text is derived from Marcel Nagel, La Vie grecque d’Adam et d’Eve: Apocalypse de Moïse (3 vols.; Ph.D. Dissertation; University of Strasbourg, 1972).

B. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Composed in Hebrew

231

two concepts are interchangeable, since Adam’s nakedness is defined as the loss of the primal righteousness with which he had been clothed, which is equivalent to being estranged from the divine glory with which he had been clothed. Thus there is good reason to think that δικαιοσύνη in this passage means not just “ethical righteousness” but, more specifically, “ethical righteousness before God,” that is, a status of righteousness in which one is treated as righteous in the sight of God. In addition to the noun, the adjective δίκαιος is attributed to God in L.A.E. It occurs in the passage where the angels are expelling the primeval couple out of paradise after they sinned. As they are being driven out, Adam pleads with the angels to permit him a moment to seek mercy from God. So they stop driving him out and Adam begs God for mercy. Then the Lord asks the angels why they have stopped driving Adam out of paradise. He asks, “Is the guilt mine, or did I judge badly?” (μὴ ἐμόν ἐστι τὸ ἁμάρτημα ἢ κακῶς ἔκρινα;). At this rebuke, the angels immediately fall to the ground, as if to retract their questioning of God, and say, “You are righteous, Lord, and you judge uprightly” (δίκαιος εἶ κύριε καὶ εὐθύτητας κρίνεις) (L.A.E. 27:1-5).90 The affirmation that the Lord is δίκαιος is equivalent to the affirmation that he judges uprightly – in particular, in the case of Adam and Eve, that he has not erred in his judicial verdict and that the penal execution by means of the angels is just and right. Our survey of “righteousness” terminology in the Apocrypha and OT Pseudepigrapha composed in Hebrew and now extant in another language (Ethiopic, Greek, or Latin) has shown that the OT usage is generally followed, with the three major categories: (1) judicial righteousness; (2) ethical righteousness; and (3) a handful of cases having to do with speaking the truth or doing something correctly and with integrity. When used in the ethical sense, “righteousness” is most commonly understood in the sense of obedience to the Mosaic Law. And an important subcategory of the ethical usage is “righteousness” as a status of righteousness before God, usually on the basis of intrinsic righteousness. We saw this in the following passages: “do what is just before him” (Tob 13:6); “it was accounted to him as righteousness” (1 Macc 2:52); “do what is true and righteous in his sight” (Jub. 20:9-10); the references to Simeon and Levi’s zealotry as being “written down for them as righteousness” in the heavenly tablets (Jub. 30:17-20); the exhortation to “do righteousness” and thus “store up life for oneself with the Lord” (Ps. Sol. 9:4-5); and the account of Adam’s fall in which he reflects upon the fact that he is now naked of the righteousness in which he had originally been clothed (L.A.E. 20:1). These are all significant, because they prepare the way for Paul’s use of δικαιοσύνη as denoting a status of righteousness before God. There is, of course, a major difference between the understanding of this status in these Jewish writings and in Paul’s theology: whereas for these Jewish writers, this status of righteousness before God is grounded in one’s inherent righteousness

90

ET: M.D. Johnson, OTP 2.285.

232

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

that comes from obeying the law (what Paul would refer to as “the righteousness of the law”), for Paul it comes from God as a gift of grace received by faith on the ground of Christ’s atoning death and resurrection (i.e., “the righteousness of faith”). When applied to God in this body of literature, “righteousness” is his distributive justice in punishing the wicked and rewarding the righteous. God’s righteousness or iustitia salutifera (“my, his, your righteousness”), viewed not in terms of Cremer’s theory as a relational concept but in terms of God’s delivering/vindicating righteousness as a subset of God’s iustitia distributiva, has not been continued in this body of literature to the degree that it was in the Qumran sectarian writings. In this body of literature, it appears only in Bar 5:2, 9, where it is essentially a quotation of the “robe of righteousness” passage in Isa 61:10. The closest that we come in this body of literature to an OT covenantal usage of “righteousness” is the one passage in Jub. 22:15 that speaks of God being “God for you and for your seed in truth and righteousness throughout all the days of the earth,” echoing the OT language of Zech 8:8 and Hos 2:19-20. This usage, however, is not to be taken as support for Cremer’s relational theory, but only for the category of “correctness” that we already saw in the OT usage of “righteousness.”

C. Apocrypha, OT Pseudepigrapha, and Other Hellenistic Jewish Writings Composed in Greek Having examined the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha composed in a Semitic language (usually Hebrew, possibly Aramaic), we turn now to the Apocrypha and OT Pseudepigrapha composed in Greek. We will look first at two books of the Apocrypha composed in Greek: the Wisdom of Solomon and Fourth Maccabees. Then we will examine three OT Pseudepigrapha composed in Greek: the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Testament of Job, and the Paraleipomena of Jeremiah (also known as 4 Baruch). In this section, we will also examine the usage of “righteousness” in some of the major writings or authors from Hellenistic Judaism, none of which can be classified as Apocrypha or OT Pseudepigrapha. In this subcategory, we will examine three Jewish writings composed in Greek: the Letter of Aristeas, Book 3 of the Sibylline Oracles, and the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides. Although these three texts are pseudonymous, they do not belong to the category of OT Pseudepigrapha proper, since none claims the authority of a biblical figure. We will conclude this section with a survey of “righteousness” in two Jewish authors who wrote exclusively in Greek: Philo and Josephus. There is a fundamental similarity among all of these writings or authors, since their provenance is clearly that of Greek-speaking Hellenistic Judaism. As I argued in Chapter 2, “Methodological Considerations,” this body of Jewish literature is significant, since it will enable

C. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha. Hellenistic Jewish Writings Composed in Greek 233

us to test whether the Hebraic/relational theory of righteousness has resulted in a transference of linguistic meaning, with the result that δικαιοσύνη is a “Greek word with a Hebrew meaning” (or so it is alleged). Since “the only unassailable evidence for a calque will come from non-translational documents,”91 the use of δικαιοσύνη in Jewish literature composed in Greek (not composed in Hebrew and later translated into Greek) is the decisive litmus test that will enable us to determine whether a specialized Hebraic/relational meaning has been carried over from Hebrew into the lexicon of the Koiné Greek spoken by Hellenistic Jews. Because of the weight that I am placing upon Jewish literature composed in Greek for deciding the lexical semantics of δικαιοσύνη, determination of the language of composition for any given Jewish text will obviously be of salient importance. In some cases, there is little doubt among scholars that a particular Jewish text was originally composed in Hebrew or in Greek. However, there are some texts which are ambiguous, since they come to us in Greek but display a degree of Semitic interference that could be taken as evidence that the document was originally composed in a Semitic language and that the extant Greek text is a translation from the Semitic original. On the other hand, Semitic interference could still be consistent with the hypothesis that the language of composition was Greek. The so-called “Semitisms” in the Greek could be explained not as translations of a Semitic Vorlage but as arising from conscious or unconscious imitation of the biblical Greek register of the Septuagint, in which case the “Semitisms” would be more accurately labeled “Septuagintisms.” Arguments for each text will be made in the footnotes. My working assumption, following the currently accepted scholarly practice, is that evidence of Semitic interference in a Jewish Greek text is not sufficient, in itself, to warrant identifying it as a work translated from a Semitic original.92 1. Wisdom of Solomon 93 The Wisdom of Solomon uses δικαιοσύνη in ordinary human judicial contexts. For example, in the very first verse, human judges are exhorted, “Love righteousness, you who judge the earth” (ἀγαπήσατε δικαιοσύνην, οἱ κρίνοντες τὴν γῆν) (Wis 1:1 91 Cameron Boyd-Taylor, “Calque-culations: Loanwords and the Lexicon,” BIOSCS 38 (2005): 90. 92 “We must reckon with the possibility that apparent Semitisms in Greek words could be stylistic features imitating the LXX. The logical conclusion, noted by numerous scholars, is that Septuagintalisms ... cannot be advanced as decisive proof of Semitic interference due to translation from a Semitic Vorlage.” James R. Davila, “(How) Can We Tell if a Greek Apocryphon or Pseudepigraphon has been Translated from Hebrew or Aramaic?” JSP 15.1 (2005), 3-61, quote from p. 34. 93 The Wisdom of Solomon has been dated as early as 220 BC and as late as AD 100. Appealing to the fact that the author uses 35 words or usages not attested in extra-biblical Greek prior to the Augustan age, David Winston argues that the work was likely composed

234

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

NETS). Later, in the context of Solomon’s prayer for wisdom to fulfill his royal task, we are informed that God created humans for three purposes: “to rule over the creatures that were made by you and to manage the world in holiness and righteousness and to pronounce judgment in uprightness of soul” (καὶ διέπῃ τὸν κόσμον ἐν ὁσιότητι καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἐν εὐθύτητι ψυχῆς κρίσιν κρίνῃ) (Wis 9:2-3 NETS). Solomon then concludes his prayer by affirming that he seeks wisdom so that “I will judge your [God’s] people justly” (διακρινῶ τὸν λαόν σου δικαίως) (Wis 9:12 NETS). If δικαιοσύνη can be used in reference to human judicial activity, it is not suprising that the term is also applied to the judicial activity of God himself. This can be seen in the passage in Wisdom 12, which contains a discussion of whether God’s destruction of the Canaanites was just: But being righteous (δίκαιος), you manage all things righteously (δικαίως), considering it alien to your power to condemn (καταδικάσαι) anyone who does not deserve to be punished. For your strength is the beginning of righteousness (δικαιοσύνης ἀρχή), and your sovereignty over all causes you to spare all (Wis 12:15-16 NETS).

The author of Wisdom argues that God’s punishment of the Canaanites was just, because they were guilty of sorcery, slaughter of children, and human sacrifice (Wis 12:3-6). No one can come before God to plead as an advocate for the unrighteous Canaanites. “Who will say, ‘What have you done?’ Or who will resist your judgment? … For neither is there any god besides you … to whom you should prove that you have not judged unjustly (ὅτι οὐκ ἀδίκως ἔκρινας)” (Wis 12:12-13 NRSV). In this passage, God’s righteousness is his just punishment of those who deserve it, not saving righteousness or covenant faithfulness. Another passage that falls under the category of God’s justice is the following: “He will take his zeal as his whole armor and make creation his weapons for vengeance on his enemies; he will put on righteousness as a breastplate and wear impartial justice as a helmet (ἐνδύσεται θώρακα δικαιοσύνην [S -ύνης] καὶ περιθήσεται κόρυθα κρίσιν ἀνυπόκριτον); he will take holiness as an invincible shield and will sharpen stern anger for a sword, and creation will fight with him against those without sense” (Wis 5:17-20 NETS). There is a strong echo of the language of Isaiah 59:17 here. God puts on “righteousness” and “impartial justice” as part of his “vengeance” and “anger” (vv 17, 19) in order to judge the lawless and evildoers (v 23) and to provide a warning to kings and judges (6:1ff). after 30 BC. He further argues that the reign of Gaius Caligula (AD 37–41) provides the most likely setting for the work, but he has not been able to convince other scholars of this specific date. David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon (AB 43; Garden City: Doubleday, 1979), 2025; idem, “Solomon, Wisdom of,” ABD 6.122-23. In agreement with Winston’s terminus post quem and arguing for a 1st century AD date without necessarily specifying the Caligula connection is D. A. deSilva, “Wisdom of Solomon,” DNTB 1268-69; idem, Introducing the Apocrypha, 132-33.

C. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha. Hellenistic Jewish Writings Composed in Greek 235

In addition to the judicial usages, the standard ethical usages of δικαιοσύνη are also found in the Wisdom of Solomon. Lady Wisdom teaches the four virtues of Hellenistic moral philosophy: “And if anyone loves righteousness, the fruits of her labors are virtues, for she teaches self-control and understanding, righteousness and courage (καὶ εἰ δικαιοσύνην ἀγαπᾷ τις, οἱ πόνοι ταύτης εἰσὶν ἀρεταί· σωφροσύνην γὰρ καὶ φρόνησιν ἐκδιδάσκει, δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἀνδρείαν); nothing is more useful in life than these for human beings” (Wis 8:7 NETS). It is significant that the passages that use δικαιοσύνη in an ethical sense also indicate that ethical righteousness is the basis of eschatological life. For example, the author exhorts his readers not to zealously seek death by the error of their life, or bring destruction on themselves by their sinful deeds, “for righteousness is immortal” (δικαιοσύνη γὰρ ἀθάνατός ἐστιν) (Wis 1:15 NETS). In another passage, the impious are amazed at the salvation of the righteous (now “counted amongst divine sons” and “their lot amongst the holy ones,” v 5). So the ungodly lament how foolish they were and repent, saying, “Surely we strayed from the way of truth, and the light of righteousness did not shine on us (τὸ τῆς δικαιοσύνης φῶς οὐκ ἐπέλαμψεν ἡμῖν), and the sun did not rise on us. We were entangled in the thorns of lawlessness and destruction” (Wis 5:6-7 NETS). A little further on in the same chapter, it is clearly affirmed that “the righteous live forever (δίκαιοι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ζῶσιν), and in the Lord is their reward … Therefore they will receive a glorious crown and a beautiful diadem from the hand of the Lord” (Wis 5:15-16 NETS). Righteousness is again connected with immortality later in the book, where it is stated that “to know you [= God] is perfect righteousness, and to recognize your might is the root of immortality” (τὸ γὰρ ἐπίστασθαί σε ὁλόκληρος δικαιοσύνη, καὶ εἰδέναι σου τὸ κράτος ῥίζα ἀθανασίας) (Wis 15:1-3 NETS). The eschatological linkage between righteousness and immortality is significant, for it shows that δικαιοσύνη in the ethical sense elicits the divine recognition and approval of that righteousness, so that it is “righteousness before God” and, as such brings, with it an eschatological reward. 2. 4 Maccabees 94 Fourth Maccabees was written in highly polished Greek that employs a plethora of philosophical terms and rhetorical devices, and even shows the influence of 94 4 Maccabees has been dated by scholars as early as the beginning of the 1st century AD and as late as the time of the emperor Hadrian (d. AD 138). Following Elias Bickerman, a date firmly within the 1st century is most likely, without necessarily adopting his view that the second temple was still standing. Bickerman argued that the reference to Apollonius as “governor (στρατηγός) of Syria, Phoenicia, and Cilicia” (4 Macc 4:2) was a modernizing statement intended to reflect contemporary political arrangements (cp. 2 Macc 3:5; 4:4 where Apollonius is identified as the “governor of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia”). Since Syria, Phoenicia, and Cilicia formed a single Roman administrative unit only during the period AD 19–72 (Acts 15:23, 41; Gal 1:21; Columella 2.10.18; Pliny, Nat. Hist. 18.122; Tacitus, Annals 2.58; and Inscriptiones Graecae XIV, 746), the book was probably composed in that window.

236

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

Hellenistic ideas.95 Whoever wrote this work clearly had an excellent Greek education and could in that sense be characterized as a thoroughly Hellenized Jew, at least at the level of acculturation. Nevertheless, 4 Maccabees is essentially a powerful polemic against apostasy and a clarion call to loyalty to the Torah and the ancestral religion of the Jews, even to the point of martyrdom. The author’s stated aim is to demonstrate that “pious reason is absolute master of the passions” (αὐτοδέσποτός ἐστιν τῶν παθῶν ὁ εὐσεβὴς λογισμός) (4 Macc 1:1 NETS). To make his case, he appeals to the story of the aged Jewish priest Eleazar, the famed seven brothers, and their mother, who suffered martyrdom for their commitment to the Jewish Law during the Hellenization crisis in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (ca. 167 BC). This was the time when decrees were passed making the observance of the Mosaic Law a crime punishable by death, and even mothers were thrown down headlong for circumcising their infant sons (4:2425). Indeed, the tyrant Antiochus “tried through tortures to compel everyone in the nation to renounce Judaism” (4:26). That Eleazar, the seven brothers, and their mother were able to endure excruciating tortures shows that the passions can be conquered only through reason. “The holy man died nobly in his tortures; he stood firm even in tortures unto death, by virtue of reason, in defense of the law. By common acknowledgement, then, pious reason is master of the passions” (6:30-31 NETS). If reason can overcome torture, then it can overcome passions and pleasures as well (6:35). Although the author is totally opposed to Jewish assimilation to Hellenism, he unhesitatingly appropriates the categories of Hellenistic moral philosophy to make his case, and packages the whole argument in a highly rhetorical Greek style. But in spite of his interpretation of the Law in terms of Hellenistic moral philosophy, the author remained devoutly committed to “the ancestral law” (ὁ πάτριος νόμος) (4:23; 5:33; 16:16; cp. 8:7; 9:1, 29; 18:5).96 This he interpreted literally as including the dietary restrictions (1:34; 4:26; 5:2-3, 14, 25-27; etc.), the Elias Bickerman, “The Date of Fourth Maccabees,” in Studies in Jewish and Christian History (3 vols.; AGJU 9; Leiden: Brill, 1976–86), 1.275-81. See also the refinement of Bickerman’s terminus ad quem in David A. deSilva, 4 Maccabees (GAP; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 14-18; idem, 4 Maccabees: Introduction and Commentary on the Greek Text in Codex Sinaiticus (Septuagint Commentary Series; Leiden: Brill, 2006), xiv-xvii. DeSilva’s refinements are in light of the criticisms of Bickerman by Jan Willem van Henten, “Datierung und Herkunft des Vierten Makkabäerbuches,” in Tradition and Re-interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honour of Jürgen C. H. Lebram (ed. J. W. van Henten et al; Studia post-Biblica 36; Leiden: Brill, 1986), 136-49. 95 deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha, 352-79. 96 “His chief aim is to show that the highest Greek virtues were subsumed under loyalty and devotion to the Law of Moses … Despite his orientation to Greek philosophy, he remains in every respect absolutely faithful to the Law of Moses … The work stands as a unique memorial to an unknown loyalist Jew of the Diaspora, who was open to Greek philosophy and learning without for a moment compromising his Jewish faith.” Hugh Anderson, “Maccabees, Books of: Fourth Maccabees,” ABD 4.452-54.

C. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha. Hellenistic Jewish Writings Composed in Greek 237

cancelation of debts every seventh year (2:8), the law of gleaning (2:9), and the prohibition against cutting down the cultivated trees of Israel’s enemies (2:14), just to name a few Mosaic commandments cited in this work. This demonstrates that the author’s interpretation of the Law in light of Hellenistic moral philosophy involved no relaxation of the literal requirements of the Law.97 The word δικαιοσύνη occurs five times in 4 Maccabees, and all five occurrences are in the context of the author’s conviction that the moral teaching of the Mosaic Law and Hellenistic moral philosophy are one and the same. The first two occurrences come in the opening paragraph, where the author is explaining his thesis. He argues thus: If, then, it is apparent that reason prevails over the passions hindering self-control, namely, gluttony and lust, 4 then it is also plainly apparent that it holds sway over the passions impeding justice (τῶν τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἐμποδιστικῶν παθῶν κυριεύειν), such as malice, and over the passions impeding courage, namely, anger, fear and pain … 6 For reason does not overcome its own passions but those opposed to justice, courage and self-control (οὐ γὰρ τῶν αὑτοῦ παθῶν ὁ λογισμὸς κρατεῖ, ἀλλὰ τῶν τῆς δικαιοσύνης καὶ ἀνδρείας καὶ σωφροσύνης ἐναντίων), and it overcomes these not so that it destroys them but so that one does not give way to them (4 Macc 1:3-4, 6 NETS).98 3

It is clear that δικαιοσύνη here is one of the four cardinal virtues of Hellenistic moral philosophy, and the passions are being classified according to the virtues that they impede. Like the Hellenistic moralists, he defines reason as “the mind preferring, with sound judgment, the life of wisdom” (1:15 NETS). But when asked what wisdom is, he answers straightforwardly that “it is … the training of the Law (αὕτη … ἐστὶν ἡ τοῦ νόμου παιδεία), by means of which we learn divine matters reverently and human matters advantageously” (1:17).99 This then leads to the next verse, where the author states that the wisdom which comes from the training of the Law is comprehended in the four cardinal virtues: “Now the kinds of wisdom are prudence (φρόνησις), justice (δικαιοσύνη), courage (ἀνδρεία), and self-control (σωφροσύνη)” (1:18 NETS). How does the Law do this? Our author gives several illustrations. In view of our craving for the pleasure of eating, the Law prohibits all sorts of foods, thus causing our appetites to be restrained and checked by reason (1:33-35). In view of the passion of sexual lust, the Law commands, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife,” and so reason is enabled to overcome sexual passion “since the law has told us not to covet” (2:1-6).100 In view of our love of money, the Law 97 Cp. Philo’s critique of those who took the allegorical method too far, to the point of disregarding literal observance of the Law (Migr 89-93). 98 A similar usage of δικαιοσύνη is found in 2:6, which also makes reference to “the passions that hinder justice” (τῶν κωλυτικῶν τῆς δικαιοσύνης παθῶν), and immediate reference is made to gluttony, drunkenness, and love of money (2:7-8). 99 ET mine. Cp. “it [the Law] trains us in justice (δικαιοσύνην παιδεύει)” (5:24 NETS). 100 Whereas the author of 4 Maccabees thinks the Law’s prohibition of coveting actually enables reason to overcome this sinful desire, Paul thinks it only stirs up the sinful passions: “I

238

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

commands us to lend without interest, to cancel all debts every seventh year, and to leave some of the harvest for poor gleaners (2:8-9), and so on. Thus, as we live in conformity with the Law, the Law instructs our reason and places a check upon our sinful passions. The result, then, is that we become righteous, δίκαιος, by means of the Law. This brings us to the final occurrence of δικαιοσύνη in 4 Maccabees, where this thought is stated plainly. The context is Eleazar’s speech before the tyrant Antiochus, who was trying to force him to eat pork and threatening to torture him: But it [the Law] teaches us self-control so that we overcome all pleasures and desires, and it also exercises us in courage so that we endure all pain willingly; 24 it trains us in justice so that in all our dealings we act impartially,101 and it teaches us piety so that we worship the only living God in a way that befits his greatness (4 Macc 5:23-24 NETS). 23

σωφροσύνην τε γὰρ ἡμᾶς ἐκδιδάσκει ὥστε πασῶν τῶν ἡδονῶν καὶ ἐπιθυμιῶν κρατεῖν καὶ ἀνδρείαν ἐξασκεῖ ὥστε πάντα πόνον ἑκουσίως ὑπομένειν 24 καὶ δικαιοσύνην παιδεύει ὥστε διὰ πάντων τῶν ἠθῶν ἰσονομεῖν καὶ εὐσέβειαν ἐκδιδάσκει ὥστε μόνον τὸν ὄντα θεὸν σέβειν μεγαλοπρεπῶς. 23

In other words, God’s Law trains (παιδεύει) us in self-control, courage, justice, and piety. The author of 4 Maccabees, then, adopts the central tenets and framework of Hellenistic moral philosophy, especially the central concern for the cardinal virtues and for reason as that which can control the passions that hinder the exercise of the virtues. However, our author argues that the only way reason can be truly equipped to control the passions is by means of the moral training of a “law-observant life” (νόμιμος βίος) (5:36; 7:15), “conducting one’s life by the law” (τῷ νόμῳ πολιτευόμενος) (2:8; 4:23; 5:16).102 In addition to δικαιοσύνη, the related word δίκη is used even more frequently in 4 Maccabees. The phrase, “the divine justice” (ἡ θεία δίκη), is employed around nine times in this book, and clearly in the sense of God’s retributive justice in punishing evil. In keeping with the author’s view that divine judgment comes both on earth in this life and spiritually after death,103 the term is used in both senses. It refers to divine judgment in this life in his narrative of the would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’ But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness” (Rom 7:7-8 ESV). 101 NETS has a note indicating that ὥστε διὰ πάντων τῶν ἠθῶν ἰσονομεῖν could alternatively be translated “so that we hold in balance all our inclinations.” deSilva translates: “so that we render what is due in all our interactions.” 4 Maccabees: Introduction and Commentary on the Greek Text in Codex Sinaiticus, 17. 102 deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha, 360. 103 “The tyrant Antiochus was punished on earth, and now that he has died, he continues to undergo chastisement … For these deeds divine justice has pursued and will pursue the accursed tyrant” (4 Macc 18:5, 22 NETS).

C. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha. Hellenistic Jewish Writings Composed in Greek 239

Hellenization crisis, where the author describes how the high priesthood was removed from Onias and handed over to Jason (because of bribery), and how Jason then took the opportunity to change the Jewish way of life by an enforced Hellenization “in complete transgression of the law” (4:19), including the erection of a Greek gymnasium on the citadel of Jerusalem. “The divine justice (ἡ θεία δίκη), provoked by these acts, caused Antiochus himself to wage war against them” (4:21 NETS). But in most of the other occurrences, “divine justice” has to do with post-mortem judgment – sometimes in a neutral sense in which the future judgment is in view (8:14, 22), but most frequently in a clearly punitive sense, having to do with the future “everlasting torture by fire imposed by divine justice” incurred by the Greek tyrant for his crimes (9:9, cp. 9:32; 11:3; 12:12), and once, it refers to both temporal and eschatological judgment (18:22). Fourth Maccabees is highly significant for our interpretation of Paul’s doctrine of justification because it demonstrates that the ΔΙΚ-group is firmly rooted in the same linguistic world as the Old Testament, with a focus on both divine justice and human righteousness. Furthermore, it shows that in Jewish thought δικαιοσύνη is a status of being δίκαιος achieved by means of keeping the Law. This is the view that Paul will attack directly with the anti-nomistic polemic of his Rechtfertigungslehre. As we will see, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ for Paul is the status of righteousness that comes from God apart from the Law; it is the righteousness of faith in opposition to the righteousness of the Law. It may well be that the Jewish doctrine of the righteousness that comes from the Law that is the foil of the Pauline teaching finds its most articulate and sustained expression in 4 Maccabees. 3. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs104 R. H. Charles appealed to the alleged Hebraisms in the Greek text to argue that the T. 12 Patr. are a translation from a Hebrew original.105 However, he has not been followed by the majority of scholars.106 The so-called Hebraisms can be explained in the same way that they can be explained in the New Testament and other Jewish literature composed in Greek, namely, as Septuagintisms.107 104 The prophecy of a priestly messiah in T. Levi 18:1-14 suggests a time of composition during the Hasmonean period (167 BC–63 BC) when these Jewish rulers served as both priests and kings. H. C. Kee, “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” DNTB 1201; idem, OTP 1.77778. 105 R. H. Charles, The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1960; reprinted from Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1908), xxiiixlii. 106 “Charles did not find many followers for his extremely improbable theory of a double translation from the Hebrew.” H. W. Hollander and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (SVTP 8; Leiden: Brill, 1985), 27. 107 “An author who decided to compose a series of testaments of the sons of Jacob for an audience (whether Jewish or Christian) which knew them through the Greek Bible, may well

240

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

The substance of the ethical exhortations in the T. 12 Patr., though clothed in Jewish garb, is clearly rooted in Hellenistic moral philosophy, as evidenced by the frequent use of abstract nouns for virtue or vice, e.g., ἀγαθοποιΐα, ἀγαθοσύνη, ἀγαθότης, ἀλαζονεία, δικαιοπραγία, εὐσέβεια, εὐσπλαγχνία, κακοποιΐα, συνείδησις, σωφροσύνη, φιλαργυρία, and φιληδονία. Most of these words are not used in those portions of the LXX that are translations from a Hebrew Vorlage, and are much more frequent in the Apocryphal books of the LXX that were composed in Greek.108 The word δικαιοσύνη occurs 14 times in the T. 12 Patr., most commonly with an ethical meaning, which is to be expected in view of the ethical nature of the work. Each testament has a traditional title that summarizes the main point of that patriarch’s moral exhortation, typically based on that patriarch’s own moral failure or for some virtue associated with him as drawn from the accounts in Genesis. The Testament of Reuben purports to be the last words of a wiser Reuben warning his sons against the sin of πορνεία, with his own sin of defiling his father’s bed (Gen 35:22) as the negative example to be avoided. Thus the subtitle is “concerning thoughts,” that is, lustful thoughts of sexual immorality.109 The Testament of Simeon is subtitled περὶ φθόνου110 (“concerning envy”), since he was so envious of Joseph that he instigated the plot to kill him.111 The Testament of Joseph is given one of the four cardinal virtues of Hellenistic moral philosophy as its subtitle: περὶ σωφροσύνης (“concerning self-control”). The Testament of Asher is subtitled περὶ δύο προσώπων κακίας καὶ ἀρετῆς (“concerning the two faces of vice and virtue”), and opens with an exposition of the doctrine of the two spirits (cp. 1QS III, 13–IV, 26), the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit, and the way in which the human will inclines toward the one or the other: have chosen a type of Greek which deliberately imitated that of the LXX.” Hollander and de Jonge, Commentary, 28. 108 Howard Clark Kee, “The Ethical Dimensions of the Testaments of the XII as a Clue to Provenance,” NTS 24 (1977-78): 259-70. 109 Note the close connection between the two nouns (ἔννοια and πορνεία) in this passage: “For ye hear regarding Joseph how he guarded himself from a woman, and purged his thoughts from all fornication (καὶ τὰς ἐννοίας ἐκαθάρισεν ἀπὸ πάσης πορνείας), and found favour in the sight of God and men … For if fornication overcomes not your mind (ἐὰν γὰρ μὴ κατισχύσῃ ἡ πορνεία τὴν ἔννοιαν), neither can Beliar overcome you” (T. Reu. 4:8, 11). ET: R. H. Charles, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Translations of Early Documents, Series 1: Palestinian Jewish Texts [Pre-Rabbinic]; London: SPCK, 1925), 28. 110 While the LXX uses the word ζηλόω (Gen 37:11) rather than φθόνος, both Philo (Ios 5, 17) and Josephus (Ant 2.10) use φθόνος in their retelling of the story. 111 The biblical account indicates that all the brothers of Joseph hated him (Gen 37:4, 5, 8, 11, 18, 20, 26). However, because Simeon was singled out by Joseph later on and bound before his brothers’ eyes while they set out for home (Gen 42:24), the inference was made that Simeon was the ringleader and therefore more culpable. Cp. Philo, Ios 175-77; for further references to this Jewish interpretive tradition, including the Targums, see Hollander and de Jonge, Commentary, 110.

C. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha. Hellenistic Jewish Writings Composed in Greek 241 God has given two ways to the sons of men and two dispositions and two kinds of action and two modes of living and two ends. Therefore, all things are by twos, one over against the other. (There are) two ways, of good and evil, and with them there are the two dispositions in our breasts distinguishing between them. Thus, if the soul has pleasure in the good, every action of it is in righteousness (πᾶσα πρᾶξις αὐτῆς ἐστιν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ), and if he sins, he repents immediately. For having his thoughts set on righteous things (δίκαια) and casting away wickedness, he immediately overthrows the evil and uproots the sin. But if it (the soul) turns the disposition to evil, every action of it is in wickedness, and driving away the good, and ruled by Beliar he takes hold of the evil (T. Ash. 1:3-8).112

It is critical to observe that the terms δικαιοσύνη and δίκαια are used with strongly ethical denotations, that is, referring to upright actions that are in conformity with God’s moral law. This straightforward moralistic thrust is consistent with the usage of δικαιοσύνη throughout the T. 12 Patr., and one is hard pressed to find any specialized covenantal, relational, salvific, or apocalyptic overtones here. The primary usage of δικαιοσύνη in the T. 12 Patr. is ethical. However, there are three passages that may break the mold in that they speak of “the righteousness of God” in some way (although one of these we will question on text-critical grounds). The first of these is found in the Testament of Judah, where we find a meditation on the messianic expectations associated with the Shiloh prophecy (Gen 49:10). Judah is represented as reminding his sons before he died that the Lord swore an oath to him that the kingship would never cease from his seed. However, there will be a period of time when the kingship will be interrupted by Gentile rule, but it will be restored again at the coming of the offspring of Judah, the messiah. Judah says, “But the Lord will bring upon them divisions one against the other, and there will be continuous wars in Israel, and among men of other nations my kingship (ἡ βασιλεία μου) will be brought to an end, until the salvation of Israel comes (ἕως τοῦ ἐλθεῖν τὸ σωτήριον Ἰσραήλ), until the appearing of the God of righteousness (ἕως παρουσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς δικαιοσύνης), to give Jacob rest in peace, and all the Gentiles” (T. Jud. 22:1-2).113 The meaning of the phrase, “the appearing of the God of righteousness,” is not immediately clear. It is likely that the genitival modifier τῆς δικαιοσύνης is a Hebraic/attributive genitive, so that the phrase could be translated “the righteous (or just) God.” However, the phrase does not refer merely to God’s static attribute of justice. This can be seen from the fact that the whole phrase is “the appearing of the righteous God,” which draws our attention to the future revelation of God’s justice. There is also a salvific overtone here, which is reinforced by the earlier reference to the coming of “the salvation of Israel.” In all probability, T. Jud. 22:1-2 is to be taken as an allusion to Deutero-Isaiah’s concept of God’s righteousness as an eschatological, forensic act of vindication that will involve judgment on the oppressors of Israel and the reestablishment of God’s kingship, in order “to give Jacob rest in peace,

112 113

ET: Hollander and de Jonge, Commentary, 341-42. ET: Ibid., 221.

242

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

and all the Gentiles.” Thus, we have a rare instance of iustitia salutifera in Jewish literature composed in Greek. The second instance of “the righteousness of God” is in the Testament of Zebulon, where the prophecy of Malachi 4:2 [3:20MT/LXX] is quoted. The division into the northern and southern kingdoms is predicted, followed by the exile and Israel’s repentance in the land of exile. “And after these things there will arise to you the Lord himself, the light of righteousness, with healing and compassion in his wings (καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἀνατέλλει ὑμῖν αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος, φῶς114 δικαιοσύνης, καὶ ἴασις καὶ εὐσπλαγχνία ἐπὶ ταῖς πτέρυξιν αὐτοῦ). He will redeem all the captivity of the sons of men from Beliar (αὐτὸς λυτρώσεται πᾶσαν αἰχμαλωσίαν υἱῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐκ τοῦ Βελιάρ), and every spirit of deceit will be trodden down” (T. Zeb. 9:8).115 The meaning of “righteousness” in T. Zeb. 9:8 ultimately reduces to the question of its meaning in the OT passage being quoted. There can be little doubt that God is referred to under the epithet “the light of righteousness,” not because of God’s faithfulness to his promises to Israel, but because of the vindication that he brings to his people in their exile. Just as the sun rises in the east and brings joy to the world, so the Lord himself will rise upon Israel, bringing deliverance and restoration after the exile. From a New Testament, Christological point of view, the sun/light of righteousness is none other than the Messiah himself, who comes to reverse the exile of condemnation and alienation from God by providing the eschatological salvation of which Israel’s post-exilic restoration was but a type and shadow. This does not mean that righteousness means salvation, but that the salvation (“he will liberate every captive of the sons of men from Beliar”) is brought about in a righteous manner through the judicial activity of God resulting in vindication and justification. This interpretation is confirmed by the NETS translation of the LXX text of Mal 4:2 [3:20MT/LXX] that is quoted here: “And for you who fear my name a sun of justice shall rise, and healing is in its wings” (καὶ ἀνατελεῖ ὑμῖν τοῖς φοβουμένοις τὸ ὄνομά μου ἥλιος δικαιοσύνης καὶ ἴασις ἐν ταῖς πτέρυξιν αὐτοῦ). Additionally, it is possible that Malachi’s epithet for God, “the sun of justice,” shows the influence of Persian religion where Ahura Mazda, the primal god of justice, is pictured as a winged solar disc.116 These two passages are rare instances in Jewish literature composed in Greek in which the OT iustitia salutifera usage is echoed. The third (alleged) “righteousness of God” passage in the T. 12 Patr. is one of the Jewish texts heavily relied on by Oepke, Käsemann, and Stuhlmacher

114 Closely following the Hebrew (‫צדקה‬ ‫)שׁמשׁ‬, the LXX of Mal 4:2 has “sun of ָ    ָ   ְ   ֶ    ֶ righteousness” (ἥλιος δικαιοσύνης). Possibly ἥλιος (“sun”) was changed in T. Zeb. 9:8 to φῶς (“light”) to avoid the pagan associations with solar deities in Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Persian religions. 115 ET: Hollander and de Jonge, Commentary, 271. 116 Ralph L. Smith, Micah–Malachi (WBC 32; Waco: Word Books, 1984), 339.

C. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha. Hellenistic Jewish Writings Composed in Greek 243

for their apocalyptic interpretation of Gerechtigkeit Gottes as a technical term for God’s saving power. It is a passage in the Testament of Dan (subtitled περὶ θυμοῦ καὶ ψεύδους, “concerning anger and lying”), and as quoted by these scholars it reads: “Depart, therefore, from all unrighteousness, and cleave unto the righteousness of God (ἀπόστητε οὖν ἀπὸ πάσης ἀδικίας καὶ κολλήθητε τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ Θεοῦ), and your race will be saved for ever.”117 But several manuscripts insert τοῦ νόμου, which results in a very different meaning. The authoritative critical edition, edited by M. de Jonge, has: “Depart, therefore, from all unrighteousness, and cleave to the righteousness of the law of the Lord (καὶ κολλήθητε τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ νόμου Κυρίου), and my race will be saved for ever” (T. Dan 6:10).118 Of course, to make this text relevant for his dissertation, Stuhlmacher claimed that the addition of τοῦ νόμου was “obviously a late, reinterpreting correction.”119 But he was relying on the textual analysis of R. H. Charles, whose initial reconstruction of the transmission history of the text has been completely revised by M. de Jonge.120 In addition, the strong ethical focus of the immediate context would suggest that the reading with τοῦ νόμου is correct. Dan is here pictured as exhorting his children to be on guard against Satan (6:1), to keep themselves from every evil work (6:8), to cast aside anger and lies (6:8). Furthermore, the Law of God (νόμος Θεοῦ) is mentioned in the immediately preceding verse, where Dan exhorts his children to pass the things he is saying on to the next generation, “that the Saviour [variant reading: ‘father’] of the Gentiles may receive you; for he is true and longsuffering, meek and lowly, and teaching the law of God through his works” (ἔστι γὰρ ἀληθὴς καὶ μακρόθυμος, πρᾷος καὶ ταπεινός, καὶ ἐκδιδάσκων διὰ τῶν ἔργων νόμον Θεοῦ) (T. Dan 6:9).121 Another consideration that supports the ethical interpretation is the use of the verb κολλάομαι (always with the dative) elsewhere in the T. 12 Patr. It is used on four other occasions, and in each instance it has an ethical meaning.

117 ET: R. H. Charles, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 76. 118 The Greek text is that edited by M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text (PVTG I,2; Leiden: Brill, 1978), 110-11. ET: Hollander and de Jonge, Commentary, 290. 119 Peter Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus, 171 n1. Translation mine. 120 See de Jonge’s introduction, xxxiii-xli, for a sketch of his view of the transmission history of the text and how it differs from that of Charles, on whom Stuhlmacher relied. According to de Jonge’s reconstruction, the manuscripts fall into two families, I and II, with family I being regarded by him as superior (xxxv). The manuscripts that omit τοῦ νόμου belong to family II. The stemma produced by Charles led him to the opposite relative weighting of the manuscripts and therefore to the decision in his critical edition to treat τοῦ νόμου as secondary. 121 ET: Hollander and de Jonge, Commentary, 290. Note, however, that Charles considers the quoted portion above to be a later Christian interpolation. R. H. Charles, The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, xlix, 142.

244

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

I know, my children, that in the last times your sons will forsake simplicity122 (καταλείψουσιν ... τὴν ἁπλότητα) and will cleave to insatiable desire (κολληθήσονται τῇ ἀπληστίᾳ) and leaving guilelessness they will draw near to wickedness and forsaking the commandments of the Lord (καταλιπόντες τὰς ἐντολὰς Κυρίου) they will cleave to Beliar (κολληθήσονται τῷ Βελίαρ) (T. Iss. 6:1).123 And I say these things to you from experience, my children, that you may flee [variant: ‘drive out’] hatred and cleave to the love of the Lord (κολληθῆτε τῇ ἀγάπῃ τοῦ Κυρίου). Righteousness casts out hatred (ἡ δικαιοσύνη ἐκβάλλει τὸ μῖσος), humility destroys hatred. For he who is righteous (ὁ δίκαιος) and humble is ashamed to do what is wrong (T. Gad 5:2-3).124 Therefore, you, my children, do not become people with two faces, one of goodness and one of wickedness, like them.125 But cleave to goodness only (ἀλλὰ τῇ ἀγαθότητι μόνῃ κολλήθητε), for God rests upon it and men desire it. Flee away from wickedness destroying the devil [variant: ‘the (evil) inclination’] with your good actions (T. Ash. 3:1-2).126

In all four occurrences of the verb κολλάομαι (+ dative) in the T. 12 Patr., it has an ethical connotation. In all four cases, there is a contrast between ethical righteousness and ethical wickedness. In one particularly relevant example, cleaving to Beliar is the same as forsaking the commandments of the Lord (T. Iss. 6:1), which supports the textual reading “cleave to the righteousness of the law of the Lord” in T. Dan 6:10.127 In another passage, cleaving to the love of God is connected with (ethical) “righteousness” as that which drives out the sin of anger (T. Gad 5:2-3). Also worthy of note is the fact that in two of the above parallel passages, the same imperative form (κολλήθητε) is used as in T. Dan 6:10. 122 The subtitle of T. Iss. is περὶ ἁπλότητος (“concerning singleness”). Ἁπλότης is a virtue that captures the singleness of purpose of the godly, that is, their moral integrity and lack of double-mindedness in obeying the commandments of the Lord. Hollander and de Jonge, Commentary, 233-34; Joseph Amstutz, ΑΠΛΟΤΗΣ: Eine begriffsgeschichtliche Studie zum jüdisch-christlichen Griechisch (Theophaneia 19; Bonn: Hanstein, 1968). Howard Clark Kee points out that the meaning of ἁπλότης in the T. 12 Patr. must be understood against the backdrop of the doctrine of the two spirits, the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit, with the will that inclines toward one or the other (T. Ash. 1:3-9; T. Jud. 20:1-2). The godly are characterized by singleness, because their lives are characterized by whole-hearted, singleminded devotion to the will of God. “The summum bonum of the faithful in Test XII is ἁπλότης, according to which the divisive effects of the spirit of evil are overcome.” Howard Clark Kee, “The Ethical Dimensions of the Testaments of the XII as a Clue to Provenance,” NTS 24 (197778): 264-66. 123 ET: Hollander and de Jonge, Commentary, 248. 124 ET: Ibid., 325, 328. 125 “Like them,” viz., like those who, while giving alms to the poor, steal and defraud; who, while abstaining from certain foods, commit adultery; and who, while fasting, commit evil deeds (T. Ash. 2:5-10). “Such men are like swine, hares, for they are half clean, but in reality they are unclean” (v 9). 126 ET: Hollander and de Jonge, Commentary, 348-49. 127 A similar contrast between the law and Beliar is found in T. Levi 19:1: “And now, my children, you have heard everything. Choose for yourselves light or darkness, the Law of the Lord or the works of Beliar.” ET: H. C. Kee, OTP 1.795.

C. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha. Hellenistic Jewish Writings Composed in Greek 245

Finally, T. Dan 6:10 itself provides a clue when the introductory imperative, “forsake all [ethical] unrighteousness,” is immediately restated in positive terms, “and cling to the [ethical] righteousness of the Law of God.” Whenever δικαιοσύνη is set in contrast to its standard antonym ἀδικία, the ethical sense of δικαιοσύνη is invariably in view, which is corroborated by the highly ethical, even moralistic, thrust of the T. 12 Patr. as a whole. Indeed, this final, clinching argument suggests that even if τοῦ νόμου were omitted, following the older textcritical judgment of Charles rather than de Jonge, we would still be compelled to read the statement, “cleave to the righteousness of God,” in an ethical sense, along the same lines as “cleave to the love of God,” i.e., remain committed to conduct characterized by love for God (objective genitive) and commitment to his moral standards (T. Gad 5:2). The ethical parenesis of the context does not support Stuhlmacher’s claim that T. Dan 6:10 is an exhortation to “cleave” to the apocalyptic demonstration of God’s saving power. In conclusion, Stuhlmacher’s use of T. Dan 6:10 as evidence that “the righteousness of God” was a technical term in apocalyptic Judaism referring to God’s saving power is shown to be invalidated by both textual criticism and the context of the Testament of Dan and the T. 12 Patr. as a whole. Before leaving the T. 12 Patr., there is one instance of “righteousness before God” that is relevant to the Pauline usage. “For persons who are good, who are single-minded – even though they are considered by the two-faced to be sinners – are righteous before God” (οἱ γὰρ ἀγαθοὶ ἄνδρες καὶ μονοπρόσωποι, κἂν νομισθῶσι παρὰ τῶν διπροσώπων ἁμαρτάνειν, δίκαιοί εἰσι παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ) (T. Asher 4:1).128 There is a contrast in the two prepositional phrases introduced by παρά – “before the two-faced” versus “before God.” In the eyes of the twofaced, good men can appear to be sinners because of their imperfections. But in the eyes of God, they are considered righteous, because although they do commit sins on occasion, they are “good as a whole” (a phrase used four times in various forms in T. Asher 4:2-5). 4. Testament of Job 129 In contrast to Job’s ignorance of the real reasons for his suffering in the biblical account, at the very outset of the Testament of Job an angel tells Job of all the calamities that Satan is going to bring upon him. The angel exhorts him to be like a boxer in the games130 who endures to win the victor’s wreath: 128 ET: H. C. Kee, OTP 1.817. 129 The Testament of Job is difficult to date, but was probably written during the 1st century BC or AD, and possibly as late as the 2nd century AD. R. P. Spittler, “Testament of Job,” OTP 1.833; idem, “Job, Testament of,” ABD 3.870. 130 The phrase ὡς ἀθλητὴς πυκτεύων is hard to translate. R. Thornhill has “like a boxer in the games” in the main text, with the note, “Lit. ‘like an athlete boxing.’” H. F. D. Sparks, ed., The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984), 623.

246

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

It will be repaid to you doubly (ἀποδοθήσεταί σοι διπλάσιον), so you may know that the Lord is impartial (ἀπροσωπόληπτος) – rendering good things to each one who obeys (ἀποδιδοὺς ἑκάστῳ τῷ ὑπακούοντι ἀγαθά). And you shall be raised up in the resurrection. For you will be like an athlete boxing (ὡς ἀθλητὴς πυκτεύων), both enduring pains and winning the crown. Then will you know that the Lord is just, true, and strong (δίκαιος καὶ ἀληθινὸς καὶ ἰσχυρὸς ὁ Κύριος), giving strength to his elect ones (Test. Job 4:7-11).131

The distributive justice of God is strongly affirmed in the immediate context by the use of the verb ἀποδίδωμι (“it will be repaid to you doubly” and “rendering good things to each one who obeys”), together with the affirmation of God’s impartiality in rewarding the obedient.132 This statement is then followed by the conclusion that, once the reward of the righteous has been given, “Then you will know that the Lord is δίκαιος, true, and strong.” At the last day, God is proved to be “just, true, and strong” because he rewards those who, like Job, are obedient to God in spite of great testing. Interestingly, the fact that God is “true” (ἀληθινός or ἀληθής)133 is connected, both here and later (43:13-14),134 not with the notion of God’s covenant faithfulness in spite of human sin, but with the notion of God’s integrity and faithfulness in judging and distributing rewards, both temporal (double restoration of goods) and eschatological (being raised in the resurrection).135

131 ET: R. P. Spittler in OTP 1.841, only Spittler’s “like a sparring athlete” has been replaced with Thornhill’s “like an athlete boxing” (see previous note). Greek text from S. P. Brock, Testamentum Iobi (PVTG 2; Leiden: Brill, 1967). 132 The use of the verb “to repay” with reference to the divine iustitia distributiva, together with the affirmation that God is an impartial judge, immediately reminds one of Rom 2:6-11: ὅς ἀποδώσει ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ ... οὐ γάρ ἐστιν προσωπολημψία παρὰ τῷ θεῷ. 133 The SV text has ἀληθής for ἀληθινός at 4:11. See The Testament of Job According to the SV Text (ed. Robert A. Kraft with Harold Attridge, Russell Spittler, and Janet Timbie; Texts and Translations 5, Pseudepigrapha Series 4; Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature and Scholars’ Press, 1974), 26. 134 “Righteous is the Lord (δίκαιός ἐστιν κύριος), true are his judgments (ἀληθινὰ αὐτοῦ τὰ κρίματα). With him there is no favoritism (προσωποληψία). He will judge us all together (κρινεῖ ἡμᾶς ὁμοθυμαδόν). Behold the Lord has come! Behold his holy ones are prepared, while crowns lead the way with praises” (Test. Job 43:13-14). ET: R. P. Spittler in OTP 1.862. 135 Cp. Rev 15:3; 16:7; 19:2 (“True and righteous [δίκαια καὶ ἀληθιναί] are your ways/ judgments”), where ἀληθινός is paired with δίκαιος in a penal/judicial context.

C. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha. Hellenistic Jewish Writings Composed in Greek 247

5. Paraleipomena of Jeremiah (= 4 Baruch) 136 The decision to classify this text as one that was composed in Greek was a difficult one, since scholars are split on this issue.137 There is one passage in this pseudepigraphical work where δίκαιος is used that is significant for my thesis. The setting of the book is that Jeremiah has gone with the exiles into Babylon, while Baruch remains in Jerusalem. After Baruch sends a letter to Jeremiah by an eagle, Jeremiah responds with a letter that runs as follows:

136 This pseudepigraphical Jewish text was probably written in the 2nd century AD. It refers to “the vineyard of Agrippa” (3:14) and “the farm of Agrippa” (3:21; 5:22), which would place the work after AD 41. The destruction of Herod’s temple is referred to typologically under the figure of the destruction of the first temple by the Babylonians. In addition, a key aspect of the text is the 66-year sleep of Abimelech, so adding 66 years to AD 70 brings us to AD 136. The text expresses hope for the restoration of the temple, but after the Bar Kokhba revolt (AD 132–35), Judaism turned against such nationalistic hopes, thus indicating that the book was probably written before that shift in Jewish thought. Although of Jewish provenance, later Christian interpolations can be discerned throughout the text. S. E. Robinson, “4 Baruch,” OTP 2.414; idem, “Baruch, Book of 4,” ABD 1.622. 137 C. F. A. Dillmann, R. H. Charles and Jens Herzer posit that the original language was Greek, and Gerhard Delling, A.-M. Denis, Ann-Elizabeth Purintun, and S. E. Robinson argue for a Semitic original. The arguments for a Semitic original, as usual, rest on the alleged Hebraisms in the Greek text, e.g., verbs with cognate objects (e.g., ηὔξατο εὐχήν, 9:3; λίθοις λιθοβολήσωμεν, 9:22), the use of partitive ἐκ to mean “some of” (e.g., ἐπάρας ἐκ τῶν σύκων = “taking some of the figs,” 5:35; cp. 7:29), and the Hebraic redundant pronoun (e.g., ᾧ πᾶσα κρίσις [or κτίσις] κέκρυπται ἐν αὐτῷ = “in whom all judgment [or creation] was hidden in him,” 9:6). But all of these so-called Hebraisms are found in Jewish texts composed in Greek, including the NT, and are better regarded as Septuagintisms. The more weighty argument is the odd passage where Jeremiah is relating to Baruch that he went out of the city and found some Jewish people “hung up [i.e., being executed by bodily suspension] by King Nebuchadnezzar, weeping and crying, ‘Have mercy on us, God Zar!’ (ὁ θεὸς Ζάρ)” (7:25). The argument is that the Greek translator, not knowing what the Hebrew word Zar meant, and perhaps thinking it was a proper name, decided to transliterate it instead. However, as Jens Herzer has shown, our author is probably following the lead of the LXX which renders zar with ἀλλότριος on several occasions (Deut 32:16; Ps 43:21; 80:10; Jer 2:25; 3:13; 37:8) in reference to foreign gods or foreign rulers, and sometimes both (cf. TDOT 4:54). It is likely, then, that ὁ θεὸς Ζάρ simply means “foreign god,” as the author himself goes on to explain: after Jeremiah saw this spectacle of his own countrymen being crucified, he wept “not only because they were hung up but because they were calling on a foreign god (ἐπεκαλοῦντο θεὸν ἀλλότριον)” (7:26). Cp. LXX Jer 16:13: “And I will hurl you from this land into a land that you and your fathers have not known, and there you shall serve other gods (δουλεύσετε ἐκεῖ θεοῖς ἑτέροις) who will show you no mercy” (NETS mod.). Although the language of composition is probably Greek, ὁ θεὸς Ζάρ provides strong support for the Jewish rather than Christian provenance of the document (contra Dillmann, J. Rendel Harris, and others). Jens Herzer, 4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou) (SBLWGRW 22; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 128-29; idem, Die Paralipomena Jeremiae: Studien zu Tradition und Redaktion einer Haggada des frühen Judentums (TSAJ 43; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 126-27.

248

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

My beloved son, do not be negligent in your prayers, beseeching God on our behalf, that he might direct our way until we come out of the jurisdiction of this lawless king. For you have been found righteous before God (δίκαιος γὰρ εὑρέθης ἐνάντιον τοῦ θεοῦ), and he did not let you come here, lest you see the affliction which has come upon the people at the hands of the Babylonians (7:24-25).138

The significance of this is that it demonstrates, again, the category of usage that we have seen in the OT and continued in the Jewish literature, namely, “ethical righteousness before God.” It is ethical righteousness, to be sure, but it is ethical righteousness that has been recognized as such by God and which elicits certain favorable divine actions. This usage, I will argue in Chapter 6, is the usage that Paul most frequently has in mind when he uses ΔΙΚ-terms in the context of his Rechtfertigungslehre.139 6. Letter of Aristeas 140 The word δικαιοσύνη is frequently used in reference to moral uprightness, e.g., “for the sake of justice and the promotion of good deeds” (πρὸς δικαιοσύνην καὶ καλῶν ἔργων) (Ep. Aris. §18).141 When the high priest Eleazar was asked to explain the strange (to Greeks) passages in the Torah about kosher laws, he replied, “Our lawgiver (ὁ νομοθέτης ἡμῶν) … laid down the principles of piety and justice (διαστειλάμενος … τὰ τῆς εὐσεβείας καὶ δικαιοσύνης) and expounded 138 ET and Greek text from Paraleipomena Jeremiou (ed. and trans. Robert A. Kraft and Ann-Elizabeth Purintun; Texts and Translations 1, Pseudepigrapha Series 1; Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972), 38-39. However, note that the SBL Greek text edited by Herzer reads the pronoun αὐτοῦ instead of τοῦ θεοῦ, but in any case the pronoun clearly refers to God. Herzer, 4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou), 28. In addition, Herzer notes in his textual apparatus that one manuscript reads the plural (δίκαιοι γὰρ εὑρέθησαν) and the Ethiopic version has “but you found justice before God.” 139 Cp. δικαιοῦται παρὰ τῷ θεῷ (Gal 3:11); δίκαιοι παρὰ τῷ θεῷ (Rom 2:13); and δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ (Rom 3:20). 140 If the Letter of Aristeas is taken at face value, it purports to have been written during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (king of Egypt from 285 to 247 BC), but modern scholars discount the text’s eyewitness claim. Aristeas is usually dated somewhere in the 2nd century BC, with the main debate being over whether to date it early in that century (200–170 BC) or later (150–100 BC), i.e., before or after the Hellenization crisis. C. C. Caragounis, “Aristeas, Epistle of,” DNTB 116-17. A few scholars would date it in the 1st century BC, and hardly anyone would push it as late as the 1st century AD. Since it contains an apology for the Septuagint, “the Christian era and the preceding century may be discounted, if only on the ground that a work such as Aristeas would be superfluous at a time when the Greek Old Testament was in wide circulation and had established itself as authoritative.” Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), 48. In addition, Josephus appears to have relied on Aristeas for his account of the translation of the Torah into Greek (Ant. 12.11118). 141 Moses Hadas, ed. and trans., Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas) (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951), 102-3.

C. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha. Hellenistic Jewish Writings Composed in Greek 249

them point by point, not alone by prohibitions but by commandments” (§131), and added that the kosher laws were not established out of concern for mice and weasels, but “for the sake of justice (δικαιοσύνης ἕνεκεν), to promote holy contemplation and the perfecting of character” (§144). By learning to avoid unclean animals (which tend to be violent carnivores) and eat only gentle, herbivorous creatures, people would learn to “practice righteousness (δικαιοσύνῃ συγχρῆσθαι) in spirit and oppress no one, trusting in their own strength, nor rob anyone of anything, but must guide their lives in accordance with justice (ἐκ δικαίου) … a symbol that they must be just (εἶναι δικαίους) and achieve nothing by violence” (§§147-48).142 In sum, “all that is said of food … and of unclean creeping things and of animals is directed toward justice and just intercourse among men (πρὸς δικαιοσύνην καὶ τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων συναναστροφὴν δικαίαν)” (§§168-69).143 The word is also used in reference to the justice of kings in their dealings with others as those with judicial authority. King Ptolemy of the Hellenistic kingdom of Egypt had written to the high priest in Jerusalem requesting him to send learned elders to translate the Hebrew Torah into Greek (§§35-50). In his response to King Ptolemy, the high priest Eleazar wrote that Andreas and Aristeas, the men through whom the king had sent his epistle, were true gentlemen, outstanding in culture, and “in every respect worthy of your own conduct and righteousness” (τῆς σῆς ἀγωγῆς καὶ δικαιοσύνης ἄξιοι κατὰ πάντα) (§43).144 Later, in the section of the letter describing the symposium scene when speeches are being made at dinner, the king asks one of the visitors from Judea, “What is the most essential quality of kingship?” The Jewish man replies to the Greek king, “To keep oneself incorruptible … to be sober the greater part of life, to honor justice (δικαιοσύνην προτιμᾷν), and to make friends of men of this character; for God too is a lover of righteousness (καὶ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς φιλοδίκαιός ἐστιν)” (§209). Having looked at the judicial and ethical usages of δικαιοσύνη with reference to human righteousness in the Letter of Aristeas, we must now turn to the concept of divine righteousness. There are no explicit occurrences of “the righteousness of God” in the Letter of Aristeas, but the idea is implicitly present in one or two passages. As the speeches at the symposium continue, King Ptolemy asks how one can build physical structures so that a king’s public works will remain in the future. The Jewish visitor replies that he must not coerce anyone to work as a builder without paying them. “For if he reflected that God treats the human race considerately, supplying them with health and perceptivity and other gifts, he would himself emulate this principle and render due reward for laborious toil (τῶν κακοπαθειῶν ἀποδιδοὺς τὴν ἀντάμειψιν). And works consummated 142 Hadas, Aristeas, 152-53, 158-59. 143 Ibid., 166-67. Cp. the discussion of the rationale for hand-washing before prayer, another example of how the Jews make all their distinctive practices “symbols of righteousness and truth” (§306; Ibid., 220-21). 144 Ibid., 116-17.

250

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

in righteousness are also abiding (τὰ γὰρ ἐκ δικαιοσύνης τελούμενα, ταῦτα καὶ διαμένει)” (§259).145 Monuments thus built ἐκ δικαιοσύνης will endure and bring lasting honor to the king who out of his treasury expended the funds necessary to have them constructed. But the key point for our purpose is that such equitable remuneration of laborers is a kingly act that emulates the righteousness of God, who bestows his gifts on the human race. Clearly, the righteousness of God in this passage is iustitia distributiva pure and simple (ἀποδιδοὺς τὴν ἀντάμειψιν146), not his faithfulness in keeping his promises to his covenant people. The other passage that makes an implicit connection between the righteousness of God and that of the king, though more tenuous than the one above, is found in the response to King Ptolemy’s question as to how he may live amicably with the multitude of the citizens of his kingdom, given that they are of such different origins. The Jewish respondent says, “By assuming the proper role for each (τὸ πρέπον ἑκάστῳ συνυποκρινόμενος147), taking justice as a guide (καθηγεμόνα λαμβάνων δικαιοσύνην); for so indeed you do, since God grants you right judgment (θεοῦ σοι διδόντος εὖ λογίζεσθαι)” (§267). The point seems to be that when the king takes on various roles, as if playing parts in a stage play, he must also “take justice as a guide” as a corrective to rank hypocrisy.148 Within the limits of justice, then, the king must learn to play the appropriate role in his dealings with the different groups in his kingdom.149 The implicit reference to God’s righteousness is found in the concluding statement that King Ptolemy is already doing this, since God is granting him “right judgment” (εὖ λογίζεσθαι). This seems to imply that the justice of the human king is a bestowment of the divine King, the ultimate font of true justice. If this passage is to be taken as an implicit recognition of the righteousness of God, then it reinforces our conclusion above that the righteousness of God in the Letter of Aristeas is his distributive justice in giving to every man his due. 145 Hadas, Aristeas, 202-3. 146 LSJ ἀντάμειψις = “exchanging, requital” (from ἀνταμείβομαι = “exchange one thing with another, repay, requite, punish”) is a rare word prior to the ecclesiastical writers. According to a TLG search, it occurs only six times before Origen: Aesopus, Fabulae 45.11; Euripides, Troiades 915; Ps 118:112 LXX; Ep. Aristeas 259 (our text); Vita Aesopi Westermanniana 75.8; Severus Iatrosophista, De instrumenti infusoriis seu clysteribus ad Timotheum 28.19. 147 LSJ συνυποκρίνομαι = “accommodate oneself by pretending.” Cp. ὑποκρίνομαι, ὑπόκρισις = “playing a part on the stage.” 148 So Hadas in his commentary: “Taking justice as a guide: A proper corrective to what might appear a counsel to hypocrisy” (Aristeas, 204). 149 Similar advice to “play the part” was given to King Ptolemy earlier in the discourse, but it is also immediately followed by a qualification that seems to take it back: “Always look to your own fame and eminence, so that what you say and think may be in keeping with them, knowing that all men over whom you rule think and talk about you. You ought not to show yourself inferior to the actors (οἱ ὑποκριταί), for they look to the role they must play (ὑποκρίνεσθαι) and suit their actions to it. You, however, are not playing a part (σὺ δὲ οὐχ ὑπόκρισιν ἔχεις), but are truly king, God having granted you the leadership which your character merits” (§§218-19; Hadas, Aristeas, 184-87).

C. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha. Hellenistic Jewish Writings Composed in Greek 251

7. The Sibylline Oracles 150 The word δικαιοσύνη occurs only three times in Book 3 of the Sibylline Oracles, all in reference to ethical righteousness. In describing the origins of the Jewish people, the text reads, “There is a city in the land of Ur of the Chaldeans, from which originates a race of most righteous people (γένος ... δικαιοτάτων ἀνθρώπων) … always concerned with good counsel and noble deeds.” Unlike the Chaldeans who were led astray by astrology and misled as to “good ways and righteous deeds” (ὁδούς τ’ ἀγαθὰς καὶ ἔργα δίκαια), the Jews are a people who “care for righteousness and virtue” (μεριμνῶσίν τε δικαιοσύνην τ’ ἀρετήν) (Or. Sib. 3.218-34).151 The passage then goes on to narrate how the twelve tribes left Egypt, traveled through the wilderness with God’s accompaniment in the form of a pillar of fire by night and a pillar of cloud by day, and how God appointed Moses as the leader of the people (3.248-54). At this point the text states that when the people came to Mount Sinai, “God gave the law from heaven, having written all righteous things on two tablets (γράψας πλαξὶν δυσὶ πάντα δίκαια)” and commanded them to practice (ποιεῖν) it on pain of punishment, whether human or divine (3.256-60).152 Picking up on this theme that the law contains “all righteous things,” it is later said of the Jewish people that they “obtained the law of the Most High in righteousness” (ἐν δὲ δικαιοσύνῃ νόμου Ὑψίστοιο λαχόντες) (3.580)153 and as a 150 The Sibylline Oracles are comprised of twelve books composed in Greek hexameter, partly by Jews and partly by Christians, over a long span from the 2nd century BC to the 7th century AD. John J. Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” OTP 1.317-24. They were composed under the name of the famed Sibyl(s) of Greco-Roman antiquity to claim the prestige of (purported) pagan authority for their moral, political, and prophetic messages. Scholars are in nearuniversal agreement that one of the oldest sections is Book 3 and that, aside from lines 1-96 and a brief Christian interpolation at line 776, Book 3 is largely of Hellenistic Jewish provenance. Based on references to the seventh Greek (Ptolemaic) king of Egypt (lines 192-93, 314-18, and 608-10), Book 3 is generally dated from the mid-2nd century BC or perhaps a bit later. Alexander Polyhistor (c. 105–c. 40 BC) appears to have known an early recension of Book 3, thus providing a mid-1st century BC terminus ad quem. John J. Collins, “The Development of the Sibylline Tradition,” ANRW II.20.1 (1986): 421-59; idem, “The Jewish Transformation of Sibylline Oracles,” in Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism (JSJSup 54; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 181-97, esp. 186-87; Rieuwerd Buitenwerf, Book III of the Sibylline Oracles and Its Social Setting with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (SVTP 17; Leiden: Brill, 2003), esp. 61-64, 124-34, 167-70. 151 ET: Rieuwerd Buitenwerf, Book III of the Sibylline Oracles, 193. Greek text from A.M. Denis, Concordance grecque des pseudépigraphes d’ancien Testament (Louvain-la-Neuve: Université Catholique de Louvain, Institut Orientaliste, 1987), 893-96. Denis’s text is derived from J. Geffcken, Die Oracula sibyllina (GCS 8; Leipzig: Heinrichs, 1902). 152 ET: Buitenwerf, Book III of the Sibylline Oracles, 193-94. 153 ET: Ibid., 240. Various text-critical and syntactical possibilities exist here. Some MSS read the genitive νόμου while others have the accusative νόμον. The verb λαγχάνω can take either case. With the accusative, it means “to obtain by lot”; with the genitive, “to become possessed of a thing.” See LSJ λαγχάνω I-II and discussion in Buitenwerf, 259-60. R. H. Charles has “in

252

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

result were taught to avoid the idolatry and sexual immorality that characterize the Gentiles (3.586-600). A few lines later, the Gentiles are exhorted to convert from their wicked lifestyle and to appease God by offering sacrifices, honoring righteousness (τὴν δὲ δικαιοσύνην τίμα), and oppressing no one (3.624-30). There is one instance where the adjective δίκαιος is possibly applied to God, but more careful scrutiny shows that it modifies the word “law.” In an eschatological context, when God comes to judge the world, the sons of God will live quietly around the temple protected by God (3.702-3). Then the nations will see how much God loves and helps them. They will say, “Come, let us all fall on the ground and pray to the immortal King, the great and eternal God. Let us send (gifts) to the temple, for he is the sole Ruler! Let us all consider the law of the highest God, for it is the most righteous of all (laws) on earth” (νόμον ὑψίστοιο θεοῦ φραζώμεθα πάντες ὅστε δικαιότατος πέλεται πάντων κατὰ γαῖαν) (3.71620).154 The Sibylline Oracles, then, use the words from the ΔΙΚ-group (δίκαιος and δικαιοσύνη in particular) in a straightforwardly ethical manner. What stands out is the tight connection between δικαιοσύνη and νόμος. The law of the Most High God given to the Jewish people – “for only to them has the great God given reasonable counsel” (3.584)155 – is itself “most righteous,” contains “all righteous things,” and therefore is alone capable of creating a “most righteous people” who care for “righteousness and virtue.” 8. The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides In a short gnomic collection of 230 Greek hexameter lines, Pseudo-Phocylides156 sets forth the ethics of the Mosaic Law in such a manner that it appears to be in perfect harmony with Hellenistic moral philosophy.157 There is no debate that righteousness possessing the law of the Most High” (APOT 2.389). Alternatively, J. J. Collins takes λαγχάνω + ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ and the genitive νόμου as modifying δικαιοσύνῃ: “Sharing in the righteousness of the law of the Most High” (OTP 1.375). In any case, it is clear that the law and righteousness go hand in hand. 154 ET: Buitenwerf, Book III of the Sibylline Oracles, 243. 155 ET: Ibid., 240. 156 Phocylides of Miletus was a 7/6th century BC pagan Greek poet who wrote hexameter poetry and elegiac gnomai or aphorisms. OCD 1173; Brill’s New Pauly 11.145. Our text is pseudonymous in that it claims to have been written by his more famous namesake. The modern consensus is that the real author of this work was a highly Hellenized (possibly Alexandrian) Jew who flourished between 100 BC and AD 100. Walter T. Wilson, The Sentences of PseudoPhocylides (CEJL; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005), 6-7; P. W. van der Horst, “PseudoPhocylides,” OTP 2.567-68. Reliance on the language of the LXX demonstrates that the work postdates the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. For a list of LXX parallels, including rewordings (in hexameter) of specific stipulations in the legal portions of the Greek translation of the Torah, see Wilson, Sentences, 17-19. 157 This Jewish author “placed these sentences in the mouth of a Greek thinker who lived centuries earlier in order to show that already in ancient times the wisdom of the Greeks was

C. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha. Hellenistic Jewish Writings Composed in Greek 253

the original language of the work is Greek.158 The work is a series of gnomai or aphorisms mostly taken from the Mosaic Law but reworded in Greek hexameter and packaged in terms of the four cardinal virtues. It begins with a prologue and concludes with an epilogue, both of which utilize words from the ΔΙΚ-group. Ταῦτα δίκῃσ’ ὁσίῃσι θεοῦ βουλεύματα φαίνει159 Φωκυλίδης ἀνδρῶν ὁ σοφώτατος ὄλβια δῶρα. ... 228 Ἁγνείη ψυχῆς, οὐ σώματός εἰσι καθαρμοί. 229 Ταῦτα δικαιοσύνης μυστήρια, τοῖα βιεῦντες 230  ζωὴν ἐκτελέοιτ’ ἀγαθὴν μέχρι γήραος οὐδοῦ.160 1 2

These counsels of God by His holy judgments Phocylides wisest of men sets forth [lit. reveals], gifts of blessing. … 228 Purifications are for the purity of the soul, not of the body. 229 These are mysteries of righteousness; living thus 230 may you live out a good life, right up to the threshold of old age.161 1 2

The moral aphorisms of the Mosaic Law, presented in the substance of the poem in Greek hexameter, are called both “divine resolutions/counsels” (βουλεύματα θεοῦ) and “holy judgments” (δίκαι ὁσίαι) from God the great king over all the earth.162 Although our author does not explicitly appeal to the authority of the Torah (for that would ruin the conceit), his use of the word φαίνω (“to reveal”) further indicates his belief that God is the ultimate source of the moral precepts of the poem; the author has not fabricated them out of his own mind, but since he is a poet inspired by the divine muse, they come from the revealed will of God.163 influenced by the spirit of Moses, with the result that Jewish Torah and Greek ethic were thoroughly in agreement. In this process, the ceremonial parts of the law were ignored, and the interest of the author is directed exclusively to the issue of how one should so lead one’s life that it pleases God and receives God’s blessing.” Eduard Lohse, Theological Ethics of the New Testament (trans. M. Eugene Boring; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 22-23. 158 van der Horst, “Pseudo-Phocylides,” OTP 2.566. 159 The word order of line 1 creates a complex sentence structure. The main phrase is ταῦτα βουλεύματα θεοῦ (“these counsels of God”). The adverbial dative phrase δίκῃσ’ ὁσίῃσι (“by holy judgments”) modifies the verb φαίνει. Note that δίκῃσ’ (= δίκῃσι[ν]) is a poetic form of the dative plural of δίκη (usually spelled δίκαις). 160 Greek text from P. W. van der Horst, The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides with Introduction and Commentary (SVTP 4; Leiden: Brill, 1978), 88-102, which reproduces the critical edition of Douglas Young, ed., Theognis: Ps.-Pythagoras, Ps.-Phocylides, Chares, Anonymi Aulodia, Fragmentum Teliambicum (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana; Leipzig: Teubner, 19712). 161 ET: van der Horst, Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides, following Ludwich’s conjectural emendation of ἁγνείῃ for ἁγνείη (line 228). Arthur Ludwich, Über das Spruchbuch des falschen Phokylides (Thesis; Königsberg: Hartung, 1904), 23. 162 See LSJ δίκη III. 163 Remember, the author is claiming to be the famous Greek poet Phocylides of ancient time. Cp. the similar use in Sirach of the language of revelation, but this time explicitly in

254

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

As commentators have noted, the prologue and the epilogue frame the entire body of aphorisms (lines 3-227), and so the two must be taken together. The verbal affinity between ταῦτα δίκῃσ’ ὁσίῃσι θεοῦ βουλεύματα (line 1) and ταῦτα δικαιοσύνης μυστήρια (line 229) provides a mutually interpretive framework for interpreting the ΔΙΚ-terminology used in both (δίκαι and δικαιοσύνη).164 The concept of “holy judgments” is found in Plato’s Laws where he describes the annual selection of judges (κριταί or δικασταί) for the law courts (δικαστήρια). The citizens are to choose judges deemed the most likely to “decide the suits … in the best and holiest way” (ἄριστ’ ἂν καὶ ὁσιώτατα τὰς δίκας … διακρίνειν), which is the opposite of “giving unjust judgments” (ἀδίκως κρῖναι τὴν δίκην) (Plato, Leges 767d-e).165 The term “holy” is relevant in this judicial context, because the judges are sworn into their office by “adjuring the god” (τὸν θεὸν ὀμόσαντες) in the temple, ensuring that their judicial role is undertaken in the consciousness that they are being watched by God (probably Zeus) himself. Similarly, in Hesiod, justice stands in contrast to the “crooked judgments” (σκόλιαι δίκαι) of judges influenced by bribes: “For at once Oath starts to run along beside crooked judgments (Ὁρκος ἅμα σκολιῇσι δίκῃσιν), and there is a clamor when Justice (Δίκη) is dragged where men, gift-eaters, carry her off and pronounce verdicts with crooked judgments (σκολιῇς δίκῃς κρίνωσι θέμιστας)” (Hesiod, Opera et dies 219-21).166 In the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides, these counsels of God’s will, revealed through the holy judgments of the Creator-King, are subsequently equated in the epilogue with “the mysteries of righteousness” (δικαιοσύνης μυστήρια) in accordance with which the readers are urged to conduct their lives (τοῖα βιεῦντες). The entire content of the Sentences is hereby summarized under the heading of “righteousness.”167 The term is clearly being used here in a fundamentally ethical sense, since “righteousness” is regarded as the sum of all virtue, as the

connection with the Law of Moses: “All these things are the book of the covenant of the most high God (βίβλος διαθήκης θεοῦ ὑψίστου), the law which Moses established as a heritage for the congregations of Jacob … It reveals instruction like the light (ὁ ἐκφαίνων ὡς φῶς παιδείαν)” (Sirach 24:23, 27). For this parallel and the translation, I am indebted to Walter T. Wilson, The Mysteries of Righteousness: The Literary Composition and Genre of the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides (TSAJ 40; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,1994), 168-70. 164 Wilson, Sentences, 68. 165 Plato: Laws, Books 1-VI (LCL; trans. R. G. Bury; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001), 444-45. The phrase also occurs in the singular (ὁσίη δίκη) in Theognis: “There is nothing among mankind better than a father and a mother, Cyrnus, who care about holy justice (οὐδὲν ἐν ἀνθρώποισι πατρὸς καὶ μητρὸς ἄμεινον / ἔπλεθ’, ὅσοις ὁσίη[ς], Κύρνε, μέμηλε δίκη[ς])” (Theogn. 131-32). Greek Elegiac Poetry (LCL; trans. Douglas E. Gerber; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003), 192-93. 166 Hesiod: Theogony, Works and Days, Testimonia (LCL; trans. Glenn W. Most; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006), 104-5. 167 Wilson, Sentences, 68; idem, Mysteries, 170-74; van der Horst, Sentences, 260.

C. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha. Hellenistic Jewish Writings Composed in Greek 255

real Phocylides is himself reputed to have said (as we saw in Chapter 3, pp. 86, 95). But the ethical righteousness is rooted in the judicial righteousness of God’s own will as revealed through his holy judgments. The iustitia ethica promoted by the Sentences is rooted in the more fundamental iustitia distributiva of God himself. There is no notion here of a saving righteousness in fulfillment of God’s faithfulness to his promises. 9. Philo 168 The most common usage of δικαιοσύνη in Philo is as one of the four virtues, which is a commonplace of Hellenistic moral philosophy. A representative passage that illustrates both Philo’s dependence on Hellenistic moral philosophy and his allegorical method of interpreting the Scripture is in his commentary on Gen 2:10-14, the passage about the river that flows out of Eden and then separates to become four rivers, the Pishon, the Gihon, the Tigris, and the Euphrates. Philo thinks that the four rivers represent the four virtues – prudence (φρόνησις), temperance (σωφροσύνη), courage (ἀνδρεία), and justice (δικαιοσύνη) – which flow from the generic virtue of God himself (Leg 1.63-65; cp. Post 128). Not surprisingly, he also defines the virtue of δικαιοσύνη, represented by the River Euphrates, in characteristically Platonic terms. Philo defines δικαιοσύνη as that state of the soul “when the three parts of the soul are all in harmony with one another” (Leg 1.72), that is, when the two inferior parts of the soul – the passionate and the appetitive parts – are in submission to the rational part of the soul, that is, when the charioteer that steers the soul (again borrowing from Plato) is the rational part rather than the passionate and appetitive parts which, when given the reins, only drive the chariot over the precipice. “When the two inferior parts, the passionate and the appetitive part, are disposed to yield to the superior [sc. rational] part, then justice (δικαιοσύνη) exists” (Leg 1.72).169 168 The dates of Philo’s birth and death are unknown but are usually listed as c. 20-15 BC– c. AD 50. Gregory E. Sterling, “Philo,” DNTB, 789; Peder Borgen, “Philo of Alexandria,” ABD 5.333. The only event in Philo’s life to which a date can be assigned is his trip from Alexandria to Rome in AD 39-40. He went to Rome as the head of an embassy to the emperor Caligula (Gaius) on behalf of the persecuted Jewish community of Alexandria. In the treatise describing this event, Philo begins by referring to himself as a gray-headed, aged man (Legatio ad Gaium 1). Philo probably lived beyond AD 47, based on a possible reference in Anim 58 to a horse race that took place that year in honor of the emperor Claudius (cp. Pliny the Elder, Historia Naturalis 8.160-61). Kenneth Schenck, A Brief Guide to Philo (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 9-14, 23 n1. 169 C. D. Yonge, trans., The Works of Philo (New Updated Edition; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993), 33. Philo uses the charioteer analogy in the next paragraph: “But when, on the contrary, passion and appetite get riotous and disobey the reins, and by the violence of their impetuosity throw off and disregard the charioteer, that is to say reason, and when each of these passions get hold of the reins themselves, then there is injustice. For it is inevitable, that through any ignorance or vice of the charioteer, the chariot must be borne down over precipices, and must

256

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

However, one must not think that Philo took his cue only from Plato when seeking to define justice. If anything, Philo was even more concerned to base his philosophy on divine revelation as found in the Mosaic Law. Commenting on the injunction of Moses not to add to or take anything away from the Law, he regards the Law as a perfect summary of ethical duty and, as such, that which inculcates righteousness, “for there is nothing which has been omitted by the wise lawgiver which can enable a man to partake of entire and perfect justice (πρὸς ὁλοκλήρου καὶ παντελοῦς μετουσίαν δικαιοσύνης)” (Spec 4.143).170 Philo also utilizes the commonplace about piety toward God and righteousness toward men. All the innumerable lessons and teachings found in the Mosaic Law may be summed up under two heads: “the regulating of one’s conduct towards God by the rules of piety and holiness, and of one’s conduct towards men by the rules of humanity and justice” (τό τε πρὸς θεὸν δι’ εὐσεβείας καὶ ὁσιότητος καὶ τὸ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους διὰ φιλανθρωπίας καὶ δικαιοσύνης) (Spec 2.63; cp. Abr 208).171 Philo takes his description of justice in yet another direction. Rather than focusing merely on the soul, or on the law as inculcating virtue, he looks at the external relationships between humans and even couches his definition in terms of justice as an impartial judge that renders to each his due (distributive justice): Justice is conversant about the distribution of things according to merit (ἀπονεμητικὴ τῶν κατ’ ἀξίαν ἐστὶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη), and does not take the part either of accuser or of defendant, but acts as a judge (δικαστής). As therefore a judge does not desire beforehand to defeat any one, nor to oppose and make war upon any one; but delivers his own opinion and judges, deciding for the right (βραβεύει τὸ δίκαιον), so also justice, not being the adversary of any one, distributes its due to every thing (οὕτως ἡ δικαιοσύνη οὐδενὸς οὖσα ἀντίδικος ἀπονέμει τὸ κατ’ ἀξίαν ἑκάστῳ πράγματι) (Leg 1.87).172

Elsewhere, Philo writes that “It is the part of justice to point out how we ought to honour equality (ἰσότητα τιμητέον), and to assign to every man his due according to his deserts (τὸ κατ’ ἀξίαν ἀπονεμητέον ἑκάστοις)” (Mos 2.9).173 And, again, according to the Mosaic constitution, judges need three virtues to exercise their office properly: wisdom so as not to be deceived; courage so as not to be swayed by compassion and let the wicked go unpunished; and justice (δικαιοσύνη) “so as to dispense to each party what they deserve” (εἰς τὴν τῶν κατ’ ἀξίαν ἐπιβαλλόντων ἑκάστοις ἀπονομήν) (Spec 4.57).174

fall into the abyss; just as it must be saved when the charioteer is endowed with skill and virtue” (Leg 1.73). Plato first used this analogy in Phaedrus 246a–254e; cp. discussion of Plato’s definition of δικαιοσύνη in Chapter 3. 170 Yonge, Works of Philo, 630. 171 Ibid., 574. 172 Ibid., 34-35. 173 Ibid., 492. 174 Ibid., 621.

C. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha. Hellenistic Jewish Writings Composed in Greek 257

This understanding of justice in distributive terms is consistent with other statements by Philo in which he takes an Aristotelian approach and speaks of “equality (ἰσότης) as the first principle [or beginning/fountain/mother] of δικαιοσύνη” (Spec 2.204; 4.230-31, 238; Plant 122; Legat 85). Philo sees this principle taught in the Mosaic Law itself when it requires just weights and measures (Her 162, quoting Lev 19:35-36; Deut 25:13-15; cp. Spec 4.194). In Book IV of his Special Laws, Philo has a fairly long section dealing with the office of the judge (ὁ δικαστής) as set forth in the Mosaic constitution (Spec 4.55-78). Just as fire is warm in itself before it brings warmth to others, “so also ought the judge to be full of pure unalloyed justice (ἀνάπλεως εἶναι δικαιοσύνης ἀκραιφνοῦς), if he is to irrigate all who come before him with justice (τὰ δίκαια), in order that from him, as from a sweet fountain (ὥσπερ ἀπὸ πηγῆς γλυκείας), a wholesome spring may be afforded to all who thirst for a dispensation of good law (εὐνομία)” (Spec 4.56). As the fountain of justice, the judge must himself be filled with justice. However, there is a yet higher font (πηγή) of justice than the human judge, for he is but the steward of God’s justice and dispenses it to others when he responsibly fulfills his stewardship. For the judge should be blind, not showing any favoritism to those with whom he is acquainted, but is “to be guided by such an opinion as this, that judgment is of God (ἡ μὲν κρίσις τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν) [Deut 1:17]; and that the judge is the minister and steward of his judgment (ὁ δὲ δικαστὴς ἐπίτροπος τῆς κρίσεως); and a steward is not allowed to give away the things of his master, as he has received as a deposit (παρακαταθήκη) the most excellent of all the things which exist in human life, from the most excellent of all beings” (Spec 4.71).175 The justice that the human judge dispenses is “the most excellent of all the things which exist in human life” and as such it really comes from “the most excellent of all beings” (viz., God), and has been temporarily entrusted to him for safekeeping as a deposit (παρακαταθήκη) from God. Indeed, God himself, who is all-sufficient in himself and who has no need of any created thing, is “the everlasting fountain of … justice” (Spec 1.277).176 One final reference to the righteousness of God is found in fragment II of Philo’s treatise on providence.177 Writing in the mode of theodicy, Philo defends God against the arguments of the atheists who deny providence and think that all is governed by chance: “God is not a tyrant who practises cruelty and violence and all the other acts of insolent authority like an inexorable master, but he is rather a sovereign invested with a humane and lawful authority, and as such he governs all the heaven and the whole world in accordance with justice (μετὰ 175 Yonge, Works of Philo, 622. Yonge rendered παρακαταθήκη as “pledge,” but I have changed this to “deposit,” as a slightly more accurate gloss. LSJ defines it as “a deposit of money or property entrusted to one’s care,” of course with metaphorical uses as here. 176 Yonge, Works of Philo, 560. 177 Fragment II of Philo’s De Providentia is preserved in Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 8.14.386–399.

258

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

δικαιοσύνης τὸν σύμπαντα οὐρανόν τε καὶ κόσμον βραβεύει)” (Prov 2.2).178 In fact, far from being a tyrant, God is a like a father who exercises his power for the protection and correction of his children (§§3-6), but who also brings terrible requitals upon the unrighteous deeds of unrighteous men (§§22-26). It is clear from these passages that “the righteousness of God” in Philo’s Greco-Roman moralistic philosophy (which he claims is merely an exposition of the Mosaic Law) is nothing less than God’s distributive justice and has little to do with the ideas of salvation, deliverance, or covenant faithfulness. 10. Josephus 179 Josephus uses ΔΙΚ-terminology in the standard ethical and judicial senses. With regard to ethical righteousness, we have a good example in Josephus’s account of Hyrcanus, the Hasmonean king, where he uses the adjective in a straightforward ethical sense and one that is strongly tied to the keeping of the Mosaic Law. As a disciple of the Pharisees, he invited them to a feast and told them that “he wished to be righteous (βουλόμενον εἶναι δίκαιον) and in everything he did tried to please God and them” (Ant. 13.289).180 Righteousness in this context means doing that which pleases God, as defined by the Pharisaic interpretation of the Law. In the conclusion of his apologetic treatise in defense of Judaism, Josephus claims that his religion has contributed many great ideas to the world: “What greater beauty than inviolable piety? What higher justice than obedience to the laws?” (τί δὲ τοῦ πειθαρχεῖν τοῖς νόμοις δικαιότερον;) (Contra Apionem 2.293).181 Again, righteousness is equal to obedience to God’s laws, although it can also be used more loosely of upright character in general; for example, in his Life, Josephus states that his father was of noble birth but “even more esteemed for his upright character (διὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην)” (Vita 7).182 Abel, unlike his brother Cain, was concerned about δικαιοσύνη (Ant. 1.53). Noah was loved by God for his δικαιοσύνη (Ant. 1.75, 99). In addition, Josephus employs the traditional Greek distinction between righteousness toward man and piety toward God. For example, Josephus informs us that John the Baptist “had exhorted the Jews to exercise virtue (ἀρετὴν ἐπασκοῦσιν), to practice justice towards their fellows and piety towards God

178 Yonge, Works of Philo, 748. 179 Flavius Josephus was born AD 37/38 and lived to see Trajan become emperor (AD 98117). The year of his death is unknown but is usually listed as c. AD 100. Louis H. Feldman, “Josephus,” ABD 3.981-82; Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament (2nd ed.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003), 34-53. 180 Josephus (LCL; trans. Ralph Marcus; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957), 7.372-3. 181 Josephus (LCL; trans. H. St. J. Thackeray; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956), 1.410-11. 182 Ibid., 1.4-5.

C. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha. Hellenistic Jewish Writings Composed in Greek 259

(τὰ πρὸς ἀλλήλους δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εὐσεβείᾳ χρωμένοις)” (Ant. 18.117).183 And he says that Aminadab, whose house became a temporary resting place for the Ark of the Covenant, was a man “reputed for his righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) and piety (θρησκεία)” (Ant. 6.18).184 Josephus also employs the more usual pairing of δικαιοσύνη and εὐσεβεία (Ant. 8.121, 314; 9.16; 10.50; 12.56; 14.283; 15.375; 16.42). In addition to the ethical usage, Josephus also employs ΔΙΚ-words in a judicial setting, with reference both to human and divine judgment, and in some passages the human and the divine are connected by way of analogy. Many of these judicial passages are in the Jewish Antiquities, which is Josephus’s retelling of the story of the Hebrew Bible. In the retelling of the story of Joseph, before Joseph revealed his identity to his brothers, the brothers began to be full of remorse for all the evil they had done to Joseph, “for which they now judged that they were justly punished by God” (ἐφ’ οἷς δίκαιον ἔκρινον τὸν θεὸν κολαζόμενοι) (Ant. 2.108).185 This is clearly distributive justice. When describing the administration of justice in Israel (cp. Deut 16:18), Josephus uses the ΔΙΚ-root, as would be expected: “As rulers let each city have seven men long exercised in virtue and in the pursuit of justice” (οἱ καὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν καὶ τὴν περὶ τὸ δίκαιον σπουδὴν προησκηκότες) (Ant. 4.214). Additionally, he makes the comparison between the human judges (οἱ δικασταί) and God as the divine judge. No one is permitted to be abusive or insolent in the presence of the human judges, “for a respect for human dignitaries will make men too reverential to be ever contemptuous of God” (Ant. 4.215). Just as in the biblical narrative, so Josephus’s summary of the constitution (ἡ πολιτεία) of the Jews warns the judges to be impartial and not to pervert justice by taking bribes, for they must be influenced neither by lucre nor by rank in declaring judgement (φανερὰς ποιεῖσθαι τὰς κρίσεις), but must set justice (τὸ δίκαιον) above all. Else God would appear to be contemned and accounted weaker than those to whom, from fear of their strength, the judge accords his vote. For God’s strength is justice (τοῦ θεοῦ γὰρ ἰσχύς ἐστι τὸ δίκαιον); and one who gives this away out of favour to persons of rank makes them more powerful than God (Ant. 4.216-17).186

The statement that “God’s strength is justice” should not be taken to mean that “might makes right,” but just the opposite, that God’s strength does not consist 183 Josephus (LCL; trans. Louis H. Feldman; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965), 9.80-81. I have slightly modified Feldman’s translation, adopting Whiston’s more literal “to exercise virtue” (The Works of Josephus [New Updated Edition; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995], 484) instead of Feldman’s “to lead righteous lives” (ἀρετὴν ἐπασκοῦσιν), a modification necessary in order to distinguish ἀρετή from δικαιοσύνη. 184 Josephus (LCL; trans. H. St. J. Thackeray and Ralph Marcus; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1950), 5.172-3. 185 Josephus (LCL; trans. H. St. J. Thackeray; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957), 4.212-15. I take δίκαιον as an adverbial accusative modifying κολαζόμενοι. 186 Ibid., 4.578-81.

260

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

in pure exercise of power but in his exercise of just judgment. In this context, God’s just judgments are revealed (φανερὰς ποιεῖσθαι τὰς κρίσεις, Ant. 4.216) through the human judges of Israel that God has ordained, “those to whom it shall fall to administer justice” (οἱ δικάζειν λαχόντες, Ant. 4.215). The important point is that the justice of human judges is to reflect the justice of the divine judge. There is an analogy between human and divine judgment. It should also be noted that in another related context, in the previous book, Josephus states that the people of Israel came to Moses for justice. So confident were the people in Moses’ fairness as an arbitrator (διαιτητής) that “those that lost their causes thought it no harm while they thought they lost them justly (κατὰ δικαιοσύνην) and not by cupidity (οὐ κατὰ πλεονεξίαν)” (Ant. 3.67).187 Later, it is said that King Solomon’s youthfulness did not hinder him from the exercise of justice (δικαιοσύνη) (Ant. 8.21). We see something similar in a passage about King David. Josephus writes that “He was of a just nature and, when he gave judgement, considered only the truth” (ἦν δὲ καὶ δίκαιος τὴν φύσιν καὶ τὰς κρίσεις πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἀφορῶν ἐποιεῖτο) (Ant. 7.110).188 The term “just” (δίκαιος) is interpreted here in a judicial sense, that is, he was just in that he rendered verdicts (κρίσεις) by having consideration only for the truth. Later in his account of David, Josephus narrates the story of the plague that God sent upon Jerusalem after he conducted a census of the city. David put on sackcloth and entreated God to stay the plague and have mercy: “The king said to God that it was he, the shepherd, who was rightly to be punished (αὐτὸς εἴη κολασθῆναι δίκαιος ὁ ποιμήν), but the flock, which had committed no sin, should be saved” (Ant. 7.328).189 The punishment that God sent on the people was just, that is, it was in accord with God’s distributive justice, which justice was meted out on the head of the guilty shepherd-king so that the innocent sheep might be spared.190 Compare the passage where Shishak sacks the city of Jerusalem (2 Chron 12:5) and the people “acknowledge that God might justly (δικαίως) turn away from them since they had acted impiously toward Him and had violated His ordinances” (Ant. 8.256).191 We have several other instances where Josephus describes God as δίκαιος. One occurs in a passage in the Antiquities where Josephus tells us that on one occasion King Darius could not sleep, so he began talking with his three bodyguards, promising that he would give a prize to the one who gave the most 187 ET: William Whiston, The Works of Josephus, 83 (modified). Josephus (LCL; trans. H. St. J. Thackeray; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957), 4.351. 188 Josephus (LCL; trans. H. St. J. Thackeray and Ralph Marcus; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1950), 5.418-19. 189 Ibid., 5.536-7. 190 Cp. the wonder of the atonement, where divine justice punished the innocent ShepherdKing so that the guilty sheep might be spared (Zech 13:7 as quoted in Matt 26:31 || Mark 14:27). 191 Ibid., 5.710-11.

C. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha. Hellenistic Jewish Writings Composed in Greek 261

intelligent speech. He asked the first whether wine was the strongest thing; the second, whether kings were; and the third (Zerubbabel), whether women or the truth were the strongest thing of all. Zerubbabel’s encomium to truth was delivered before the satraps and governors. He argued that although women and kings are very strong, the truth is the strongest thing: Although the earth is very great and the heavens high and the sun swift, yet all these move in accordance with the will of God, and, since He is true and just (ἀληθινὸς δέ ἐστιν καὶ δίκαιος οὗτος), we must for the same reason believe truth also to be the strongest thing, against which no injustice (τὸ ἄδικον) can prevail (Ant. 11.55).192

Zerubbabel’s speech won the competition and he was given the prize. In addition, Zerubbabel reminded him of what he had vowed to do if he became king, namely, to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. The point is that the justice of God is connected with his truth, for truth is the strongest thing “against which no injustice can prevail.” Another instance is found near the end of his Jewish War, in a passage where Josephus recounts the noble end of Eleazar and his men. Eleazar assembled his bravest fighters and said to them, “Long since, my brave men, we determined neither to serve the Romans nor any other save God, for He alone is man’s true and righteous Lord (μόνος γὰρ οὗτος ἀληθής ἐστι καὶ δίκαιος ἀνθρώπων δεσπότης)” (B.J. 7.323).193 Because God is “righteous,” it would be better to die fighting bravely than to fall into the hands of the Romans and be treated unjustly as their slaves. With regard to the theme of divine justice, Josephus informs us that Herod’s defeat at the hands of King Aretus during a border dispute was attributed by the Jews to God’s punishment on Herod for his treatment of John the Baptist. “To some of the Jews the destruction of Herod’s army seemed to be divine vengeance, and certainly a just vengeance (καὶ μάλα δικαίως τινυμένου), for his treatment of John, surnamed Baptist” (Ant. 18.116).194 The above are instances of righteousness being attributed to God in a judicial setting, but there is one passage that explicitly speaks of the righteousness of God. It occurs in the retelling of the story of Esther. Josephus comes to the end of the story, where Haman’s plot is uncovered and he is hanged on the same gallows on which he had planned to have Mordecai hanged. Josephus then adds his own bit of moralizing in the first person: Wherefore I am moved to marvel at the Deity and to recognize His wisdom and justice (ὅθεν ἐπέρχεταί μοι τὸ θεῖον θαυμάζειν καὶ τὴν σοφίαν αὐτοῦ καὶ δικαιοσύνην καταμανθάνειν), 192 Josephus (LCL; trans. Ralph Marcus; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1951), 6.338-9. 193 Josephus (LCL; trans. H. St. J. Thackeray; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957), 3.594-5. 194 Josephus (LCL; trans. Louis H. Feldman; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965), 9.80-81.

262

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

for not only did He punish Haman’s wickedness but also caused the penalty which had been contrived against another to fall upon Haman himself (Ant. 11.268).195

There can be no disputing that the δικαιοσύνη of God in this passage is his distributive justice. Josephus marvels at the perfect equity of God’s justice, since he punished Haman with the same penalty that Haman had devised against Mordecai the Jew. All of this supports the notion that ΔΙΚ-terminology applied to God in Josephus has to do with distributive justice in a forensic Sitz im Leben rather than covenant faithfulness or some sort of Hebraic-relational theory. It is time to summarize our results so far. We see both continuity and discontinuity between the two corpora of Jewish literature that we have now examined, namely, the Apocrypha and OT Pseudepigrapha composed in Hebrew but now extant in another language and the Jewish literature composed in Greek. There is continuity in that the two categories of ethical and judicial righteousness continue with little change. There is also continuity in that, under the category of ethical righteousness, we also have the concept of righteousness before God: “persons who are good … are righteous before God” (T. Asher 4:1); “for you have been found righteous before God” (Par. Jer. 7:24-25). And there is also continuity in that, under the category of God’s righteousness, we found two instances of iustitia salutifera, although without the exact phrase: “until the appearing of the God of righteousness” (T. Jud. 22:1-2); “there will arise to you the Lord himself, the light of righteousness” (T. Zeb. 9:8) (see above for discussion). These seem best understood as still within the orbit of iustitia distributiva since they have to do with God’s deliverance and vindication of his people by the coming of the Messiah at the end of days. The vast majority of the time, when δικαιοσύνη is predicated of God in the Hellenistic Jewish literature composed in Greek, there is a strong emphasis on God’s distributive and even punitive justice. As we get farther from the OT period and closer to the time of Paul, there is an almost relentless focus on God’s justice, e.g., in the writings of Philo and Josephus. The discontinuity between the two corpora of Jewish literature is that the small category of correctness, which includes the covenantal usage going back to Zech 8:8 and Hos 2:19-20, is not continued in the literature composed in Greek.

195 Josephus (LCL; trans. Ralph Marcus; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1951), 6.442-3.

D. The New Testament

263

D. The New Testament In this section, we survey the usage of ΔΙΚ-terminology in the New Testament passages other than the Pauline passages dealing with justification. In general, we see the same basic pattern: most usages of δικαιοσύνη are ethical, some are judicial, a few have to do with righteousness before God, and there are three occurrences of “the righteousness of God.” 1. Overview of Δικαιοσύνη in the New Testament Setting aside the Pauline justification passages, the judicial usage of δικαιοσύνη and other ΔΙΚ-terms in the NT is a major strand of usage. The noun δικαιοσύνη is used four times in judicial settings. There is Paul’s reference in the Areopagus sermon that God “has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness (ἐν ᾗ μέλλει κρίνειν τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ) by a man whom he has appointed” (Acts 17:31 ESV). In Hebrews there are two references that both seem best understood in terms of the judicial role of the OT kings: (1) “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity” (Heb 1:8-9 quoting Ps 44:7-8LXX [45:6-7EB]); (2) the interpretation of Melchizedek as “king of righteousness” (Heb 7:2). And finally, the Apocalypse of John informs us that the exalted Lord Jesus, seated on a white horse, is “called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war (ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ κρίνει καὶ πολεμεῖ)” (Rev 19:11 ESV). In addition to the noun, the adjective δίκαιος196 and the adverb δικαίως197 are also used in a judicial sense in the NT, in some cases focusing on God’s judicial activity of meting out his just judgment upon the wicked. Finally, it should also be noted that Paul uses the NT hapax δικαιοκρισία when he speaks of “the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed” (ἡ ἡμέρα ὀργῆς καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως δικαιοκρισίας τοῦ θεοῦ) (Rom 2:5 ESV). The ethical usage of δικαιοσύνη in the NT is by far the most common and can be summarized quickly. For example, “the way of righteousness” (ἡ ὁδὸς τῆς δικαιοσύνης) is used twice (Matt 21:32; 2 Pet 2:21), and “fruit of righteousness” (καρπὸς δικαιοσύνης) is found three times (Phil 1:11; Heb 12:11; James 3:18). As in the OT, ethical righteousness is also found with verbs of doing: ποιέω + δικαιοσύνην (Matt 6:1; 1 John 2:29; 3:7, 10; Rev 22:11) and ἐργάζομαι + δικαιοσύνην (Acts 10:35; Heb 11:33). Other examples of ethical righteousness in the NT include: Paul’s statement that Elymas the magician was an “enemy of all righteousness” (Acts 13:10); the reference in Hebrews to “the word of righteousness” (Heb 5:13); the language of suffering “for righteousness’ sake” (Matt 5:10; 1 Pet 3:14); Noah as “a preacher of righteousness” (2 Pet 2:5); and

 Luke 12:57; John 5:20; 7:24; 2 Thess 1:5-6; 2 Tim 4:8; Rev 15:3; 16:5, 7; 19:2.  Luke 23:40-41; 1 Pet 2:23.

196 197

264

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

the affirmation that we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth “in which righteousness dwells” (2 Pet 3:13). 2. Δικαιοσύνη in Matthew The seven instances of δικαιοσύνη in Matthew198 have received particular attention, with commentators divided over the interpretation of this important term. Some take all seven occurrences in a purely ethical sense as the moral conduct required of disciples in the kingdom of God.199 The ethical meaning is undeniable in the statement, “For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 5:20 ESV). Others argue that δικαιοσύνη is used, at least in some of the seven instances, in the OT iustitia salutifera sense of God’s salvific activity.200 In my view, there are only two instances in Matthew where this interpretation is just barely plausible: Matt 3:15 and 5:6. Let us begin with Matt 3:15, where Jesus says to John the Baptist, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness (πληρῶσαι πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην)”(ESV). Because this statement occurs in the context of Jesus’ baptism and anointing as the Messiah who has come to save his people from their sins, it is plausible to see a salvific meaning for δικαιοσύνη here. The problem is that this is not how the iustitia salutifera language works in the OT. In the passages in the Psalms and Isaiah that we examined in Chapter  4, we saw that there is always a controversy in which the wicked are oppressing the righteous and God comes in his judicial capacity to execute his righteous judgment upon the oppressors, thereby vindicating the godly. The judicial controversy context is absent in Matt 3:15. Furthermore, in the OT it is never said that someone must do something in order to “fulfill” the righteousness of God, 198 Matt 3:15; 5:6, 10, 20; 6:1, 33; 21:32. 199 Benno Przybylski, Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought (SNTMS 41; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980). 200 Donald A. Hagner, “Righteousness in Matthew’s Theology,” in Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church: Essays in Honor of Ralph P. Martin (ed. Michael J. Wilkins and Terence Paige; JSNTSup 87; Sheffield: JSOT, 1992), 101-20; idem, Matthew 1–13 (WBC 33A; Dallas: Word Books, 1993), 56. Hagner recognizes the unavoidable ethical meaning of δικαιοσύνη in Matt 5:20 and 6:1, both of which are in reference to the conduct expected of Jesus’ disciples. He argues for an explicitly salvific interpretation in the two occurrences of δικαιοσύνη in connection with John the Baptist (Matt 3:15; 21:32) and the one occurrence in the fourth beatitude (Matt 5:6), which he interprets as the desire for eschatological salvation. In the remaining two occurrences (Matt 5:10 and 6:33), he recognizes that ethical righteousness is in view at the lexical level, but he wants to qualify this by noting the discourse concept of Matthew’s theological presupposition that “the demand is conditioned by the gift upon which it depends.” “Righteousness in Matthew’s Theology,” 115. I agree with this latter point, as long as lexical and discourse concepts are kept distinct. That means, in the end, our disagreement is only about the interpretation of δικαιοσύνη in Matt 3:15; 5:6; 21:32.

D. The New Testament

265

a locution that simply makes no sense in terms of God’s judicial activity which delivers and vindicates. It is more likely, then, that Matt 3:15 is to be understood as saying that through baptism Jesus identifies with his people in order to take up the role of Israel by identifying with its disobedience and securing its obedience. This interpretation is corroborated by the second reference to John’s baptismal ministry in Matthew, where Jesus berates those who rejected him: “John came to you in the way of righteousness (ἐν ὁδῷ δικαιοσύνης), and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him” (Matt 21:32 ESV). John’s message was a baptism of repentance in view of the coming of the day of judgment, a strongly ethical call to return to the righteousness that God requires so as to flee from the wrath to come. This is why John initially questioned the appropriateness of Jesus submitting to baptism. But it was “fitting” for Jesus to be baptized, for through his anointing he was committing himself to a life of obedience culminating in his atoning death under the eschatological wrath of God (proleptically anticipated in his baptism), thereby fulfilling all ethical righteousness. On this interpretation, the salvific implication that initially led us to consider the plausibility of the iustitia salutifera interpretation of Matt 3:15 is upheld. Yet that salvific implication arises less from the lexical concept of δικαιοσύνη itself than from the discourse concept that Jesus, as the representative of his people, is identifying with them in their situation of unrighteousness in order “to fulfill all (ethical) righteousness (on their behalf).” This interpretation also makes the best sense of the phrase “all righteousness” (πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην). The second instance of δικαιοσύνη that has plausibly been interpreted in reference to saving righteousness is in the fourth beatitude of the Sermon the Mount: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness (οἱ πεινῶντες καὶ διψῶντες τὴν δικαιοσύνην), for they shall be satisfied” (Matt 5:6 ESV). If interpreted in terms of the OT iustitia salutifera concept, the meaning is “blessed are those who hunger and thirst for the coming eschatological salvation.” It makes some sense to speak of the persecuted disciples hungering and thirsting for God’s justice, vindication, and deliverance in the coming eschatological age. However, the OT language of saving/delivering righteousness always has God’s righteousness in view (typically by adding a divine pronoun: “my, his, your”); here, we have the word “righteousness” absolutely with no indication that it is God’s vindication that is desired. Further, there are no examples of the language of hungering or thirsting after God’s saving righteousness in the OT, nor is the feeding imagery, “for they shall be satisfied/filled (χορτασθήσονται),” ever associated with God’s vindicating iustitia salutifera in the Psalms and Isaiah. “Hungering and thirsting after righteousness” seems to be the same thing as “seeking first the kingdom of God and his righteousness” (Matt 6:33). Given the emphatic theme of the ethical righteousness expected of Jesus’ disciples, it makes better sense to take all five occurrences of δικαιοσύνη in the Sermon in a consistently ethical manner. We must acknowledge that for Matthew the demand is always grounded in the gift of the saving grace brought by the coming of the

266

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

kingdom in the person of Jesus.201 But this broader discourse concept does not enter into the lexical concept of δικαιοσύνη per se. The righteousness demanded of the disciples is not the imputed righteousness of Pauline theology but actual obedience to God’s will as revealed by Jesus.202 Yet it is a righteousness that rests upon the redemptive-historical and eschatological reality of the coming of the kingdom in the person of Jesus. This is what makes it the higher righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and the Pharisees. In the words of Roland Deines, it is “Jesus-righteousness.”203 3. The Three Occurrences of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ Outside of Paul This brings us, then, to the three occurrences of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ outside of the Pauline corpus (Matt 6:33; James 1:20; 2 Pet 1:1). a. Matthew 6:33 “But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (ζητεῖτε δὲ πρῶτον τὴν βασιλείαν καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ, καὶ ταῦτα πάντα προστεθήσεται ὑμῖν) (Matt 6:33 ESV). If taken out of context, it may be tempting to read this statement in the Reformational/Pauline sense of the righteousness of God as a gift. This interpretation is supported by the 201 This is Donald Hagner’s main concern in his essay “Righteousness in Matthew’s Theology,” a concern that I share, against those who would attempt to paint a picture of a thoroughly rabbinic Matthew with an allegedly nomistic soteriology in sharp contrast with Paul’s soteriology of grace. For a helpful critique of the attempt to read Matthew’s theology as a species of Judaism, see Hagner, “Matthew: Apostate, Reformer, Revolutionary?” NTS 49 (2003): 193-209. 202 Roland Deines, in his magisterial study on this topic, argues that righteousness for Matthew “cannot be reduced to an ethical doing (whether of the commandments, the Torah, love of neighbor, etc.) … [I]t is salvation-historically and eschatologically qualified” (translation mine). Roland Deines, Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias: Mt 5,13-20 als Schlüsseltext der matthäischen Theologie (WUNT 177; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 126. Similarly, Donald Hagner: “[T]he righteousness Jesus speaks of does not come through a greater preoccupation with the minutiae of the law ... Jesus expects, as the antitheses to follow show, a new and higher kind of righteousness that rests upon the presence of the eschatological kingdom he brings.” Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 109. 203 “What is demanded is a different quality of life according to the kingdom of God that is about to appear. It is the eschatological overflowingly rich righteousness that Jesus fulfilled and made available to his disciples ... [I]t is appropriate to summarize the Matthean concept of righteousness as Jesus-righteousness. The intention of this phrase is to point out that this righteousness is not possible without Jesus. Those who obey his call to discipleship get a share of this righteousness and thus can be addressed concerning their righteousness, as in 5:20 and 6:1.” Roland Deines, “Not the Law but the Messiah: Law and Righteousness in the Gospel of Matthew – An Ongoing Debate,” in Built Upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew (eds. Daniel M. Gurtner and John Nolland; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 53-84, quotations from 80-81.

D. The New Testament

267

verb προστεθήσεται, which could be taken as implying that “all these (temporal) things” are bestowed in addition to the spiritual gift of righteousness or salvation. However, the problem with this view is that it ignores the four strongly ethical instances of δικαιοσύνη in the passage leading up to this point in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:6, 10, 20; 6:1). Jesus has urged his disciples to hunger and thirst after ethical righteousness (5:6), to be willing to suffer for the sake of the ethical righteousness set forth by Jesus (5:10), to excel in ethical righteousness beyond the external righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (5:20), and to take care that they do not practice their deeds of righteousness before other people to be seen by them (6:1). With this context in view, we come to the exhortation of Matt 6:33 to seek first God’s kingdom and righteousness. The whole thrust of the Sermon on the Mount is that it is Jesus’ teaching concerning the righteousness of the kingdom, that is, the kind of righteous life demanded of those who are identified with Jesus as those who have a share in his saving reign. This verse “is so bound up in the general thought of the Sermon on the Mount that it is out of the question to interpret dikaiosynē in the Pauline sense of God’s righteousness through which man is justified.”204 Even Hagner admits that in this instance “it is difficult to exclude altogether the possibility of a reference to ethical righteousness” and that the phrase “his righteousness” focuses on “the unique righteousness defined by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount and differentiated from that of the scribes and Pharisees (5.20).”205 b. James 1:20 The second occurrence of “the righteousness of God” in the non-Pauline portion of the NT is James 1:20, which, including the preceding verse for context, reads: “Let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; 20 for the anger of man does not produce206 the righteousness of God (ὀργὴ γὰρ ἀνδρὸς δικαιοσύνην θεοῦ οὐκ ἐργάζεται)” (James 1:19-20 ESV). Although Stuhlmacher tries to interpret δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as God’s iustitia salutifera,207 in the context “the righteousness of God” is probably not used in this OT sense, since there is no contextual frame of reference to suggest that James is thinking of God’s saving or vindicating activity.208 It is best to take δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ here in an ethical sense, i.e., as denoting the righteous behavior that God expects of his people, echoing Jesus’ own usage in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:6, 10, 20; 6:33), 204 Przybylski, Righteousness in Matthew, 90. 205 Hagner, “Righteousness in Matthew’s Theology,” 115. 206 The verb ἐργάζεται is used here transitively as a synonym of κατεργάζεται (which, as it happens, is a variant reading found in C* P 0246 and the Majority Text). BDAG ἐργάζομαι 2c, “bring about, give rise to as proceeds from work.” Cp. “Godly grief produces (ἐργάζεται) a repentance that leads to salvation without regret” (2 Cor 7:10 ESV). 207 Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes, 191-94. 208 Douglas Moo, The Letter of James (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Leicester, England: Apollos, 2000), 83-84.

268

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

with θεοῦ taken as an objective genitive.209 The meaning of the verse is brought out well by the NIV’s interpretive translation: “for man’s anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires,” or, as one commentator puts it, “the righteousness which God approves.”210 It is possible that the exhortation to be slow to anger, together with the warning that man’s anger does not bring about the righteousness desired by God, was intended as a corrective to the Jewish view that righteous anger or zeal on behalf of God’s holiness can be an engine for the promotion of righteousness.211 c. 2 Peter 1:1 If the first two instances are readily understandable in straightforward ethical terms, the third instance of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in the NT outside of Paul is a little different and probably focuses on the attribute of God. It occurs in the opening salutation of the Second Epistle of Peter: “Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours” (τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστιν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) (2 Pet 1:1 NIV). Most commentators agree that this instance of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is not to be interpreted in a Pauline sense as the gift of righteousness by faith (since this verse has the relationship the other way around, namely, that faith has been obtained by God’s righteousness), nor in the OT sense of iustitia salutifera,212 209 To the argument that the genitive θεοῦ must be subjective in keeping with the subjective genitive ἀνδρός (“the anger of man”), Martin Dibelius replies that it is possible for a rhetorical parallelism in case to carry with it a simultaneous difference in syntactical function. Martin Dibelius, James (rev. Heinrich Greeven; trans. Michael A. Williams; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 110-11 n12. He cites the datives in Rom 12:10-13 as an example. I would also point to the parallelism of διά + acc. in Rom 4:25, first with a causal meaning (“he was delivered up on account of our transgressions”), then in the parallel with a telic meaning (“raised for our justification”). 210 James Hardy Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1948), 169. So Moo, The Letter of James, 84; Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness, 135; Gottlob Schrenk, “δίκη, κτλ,” TDNT 2.200. 211 Ropes, The Epistle of St. James, 170; James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 78-79. According to Martin Dibelius, the anti-Jewish polemic interpretation of James 1:20 was advocated by Willibald Beyschlag in Kritisch-exegetisches Handbuch über den Brief des Jacobus (KEK 15; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 18976). Dibelius, however, argues that it is a generic Wisdom saying rather than anti-Jewish polemic. Dibelius, James, 110 n12. 212 Several French interpreters have taken δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in 2 Pet 1:1 as God’s saving righteousness: A.-L. Descamps, Les Justes et la Justice dans les Évangiles et le Christianisme primitif (Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain/Gembloux: J. Duculot, 1950), 58, 92; H. Cazelles, “A propos de quelques textes difficiles relatifs à la justice de Dieu dans l’Ancien Testament,” RB 58 (1951): 169-88; Ceslas Spicq, Les Épitres de Saint Pierre (SB; Paris: Gabalda, 1966), 208.

D. The New Testament

269

but in reference to God’s attribute of justice or fairness. This is indicated by the reference to ἰσότιμος πίστις (“a faith of equal standing with ours” ESV). As we saw in Chapter 3, “Righteousness in Extra-Biblical Greek,” Aristotle defined justice as “the proportionate,” and as we saw earlier in this chapter, Philo said that equality (ἰσότης) is the first principle of justice. God is viewed here as a divine patron who grants faith with perfect fairness and equality, without showing any favoritism.213 Why might it be a concern whether God grants equal faith in accord with his justice or fairness? To answer this question, it is tempting to think that the author of 2 Peter is attempting to reassure Gentile Christians that their faith is of equal value with that of Jewish believers in Jesus. But given the absence of any allusions in the letter to the Jew-Gentile question, it is more likely that the contrast is between the apostles and Christians of subsequent generations who may have worried that their faith was of lesser value than the faith of those who were eyewitnesses of the glory of Christ (cp. 2 Pet 1:16-18).214 The usage of δικαιοσύνη in the non-Pauline portions of the New Testament is consistent with the foregoing. Recall that I have brought these passages to bear here in this context as instances of Jewish writings composed in Greek in order to test the hypothesis that the word δικαιοσύνη in Jewish Greek has taken on a Hebraic saving or relational meaning due to the influence of the OT. However, this theory has not been borne out by the NT evidence. The vast majority of NT occurrences outside of Paul are in reference to either ethical or judicial righteousness. We have seen, furthermore, that the three instances of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (Matt 6:33; James 1:20; 2 Pet 1:1) are not used in an OT iustitia salutifera sense, much less in any way that might support a relational interpretation of righteousness. The closest that δικαιοσύνη comes to denoting saving righteousness in the non-Pauline portion of the NT is in the statement of Matt 3:15, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” (ESV), but it rises to that salvific meaning through the meaning “righteousness before God” (a righteousness achieved by Jesus as the messianic representative of his people) rather than by directly alluding to the OT language of God’s delivering and vindicating activity on behalf of the oppressed.

213 Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/ Leicester, England: Apollos, 2006), 162-63; Earl J. Richard, Reading 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2000), 321. 214 J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude (HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1969), 296-97.

270

Chapter 5: Righteousness in Jewish Literature

E. Conclusion Our survey of Jewish literature has been wide-ranging and nearly exhaustive. We have paid special attention to the transitions, the continuities and discontinuities, as we moved from the Dead Sea Scrolls, to the Jewish literature composed in Hebrew but extant in Greek, Latin, or Ethiopic, to the Jewish writings composed in Greek, including the New Testament. This has been a most illuminating exercise, for it has yielded a number of significant conclusions that are decisive for our thesis. First, the Qumran sectarian writings are the primary Jewish writings outside of the OT that are preserved in Hebrew and which demonstrate the highest degree of continuity with OT usage. The three usages of ethical righteousness, judicial righteousness, and righteousness in terms of correctness continue in the Dead Sea Scrolls. We also see the high concentration of God’s righteousness (“his, your righteousness” where the pronouns refer to God)215 in the DSS with a meaning that continues the salvific/delivering usage of the Psalms and Isaiah in which God vindicates his oppressed people by punishing their enemies. However, the salvific usage has been extended and spiritualized, since the enemies in the DSS are spiritual entities such as Satan, the evil inclination, and sin. Those in Israel who have repented of their sins and joined the covenant community receive forgiveness, cleansing, and a new heart, so that their (ethically transformative) “judgment” is “by the righteousness of God.” This spiritualized usage of “God’s righteousness” occurs in one or two passages in the OT (e.g., “Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, O God of my salvation, and my tongue will sing aloud of your righteousness,” Ps 51:14EB/16MT ESV), but the Qumran sect has extended and developed this train of thought and applied it to the renewal of the Mosaic covenant that they believed had occurred within their sectarian Yahad by God’s electing grace. Second, this spiritualized DSS usage of the language of God’s saving righteousness is not carried over either into the Jewish literature composed in Hebrew but extant in Greek, Latin, or Ethiopic, or into the Jewish literature composed in Greek, or into the non-Pauline portion of the New Testament considered as Jewish literature. There are a handful of salvific usages in these corpora, but they are not as developed as the DSS usage. Rather, these passages seem to be either allusions to Isaiah (Baruch 5:2, 9) or Messianic (T. Jud. 22:1-2; T. Zeb. 9:8), and thus have a strongly vindicatory sense in which Israel will be delivered from exilic oppression and restored to her former glory. The one (nonPauline) NT instance of “righteousness” that has a clearly salvific meaning, Matt 3:15, is salvific only in terms of the discourse concept of the Messianic baptismal context and in syntagmatic collocation as the object of the word “to fulfill,”



215

 “My righteousness” (in reference to God’s righteousness) does not occur in the DSS.

E. Conclusion

271

while the lexical concept of δικαιοσύνη itself in this verse is best classified as “ethical righteousness before God.” Also, it must be noted that Matt 3:15 does not use the language of the righteousness of God, so this sets it apart even further from the Sprachgebrauch of OT iustitia salutifera discourse. Third, the category of “righteousness before God” is a significant development in both the literature composed in Hebrew but extant in Greek, Latin, or Ethiopic and the literature composed in Greek. This concept of “righteousness before God” is present in the OT, but in these two corpora the notion is extended and developed in terms of strict obedience to the Mosaic Law. Fourth, the usage of “righteousness” in the sense of doing something correctly, or with integrity, or keeping one’s word, that we saw in the OT continues in a very limited fashion in the Jewish literature composed in Hebrew. It does not continue in the Jewish literature composed in Greek, including the non-Pauline portion of the NT. This is a decisive blow to the viewpoint, first articulated by Cremer and taken up by New Perspective scholars, that the Greek word δικαιοσύνη has a Hebraic, relational, and covenantal meaning in Paul. The covenantal usage was already quite limited in the OT to begin with, and it was in any case distinct from the sphere of God’s iustitia salutifera in terms of his judicial activity that results in the deliverance and vindication of his oppressed servants. Although the “correctness” language does occur in the DSS and the other Jewish literature composed in Hebrew, it does not carry over into the Jewish literature composed in Greek. The cord is broken at this point. This then leads us to the determination that δικαιοσύνη did not become a Greek word that could be used with this particular Hebrew meaning in the mental furniture of Greek-speaking and Greekwriting Judaism. Therefore, we must set aside as incorrect one of the linguistic pillars on which New Perspective scholars have attempted to build their view that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Paul is a cipher for “God’s covenant faithfulness.” Fifth, the iustitia salutifera language that is so dominant in the Psalms and Isaiah, and in the DSS in a spiritualized form, is possible in Jewish literature composed in Greek. However, it is quite limited (two times in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs) and seems to occur only in messianic contexts looking ahead to the expectation of the restoration of Israel. On the basis of our criterion, then, we cannot say that the iustitia salutifera usage of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is impossible in Paul. However, we would need to see some contextual indicators that he is using it in this precise sense – not in Cremer’s relational/covenantal sense, but in the precise sense of God’s saving activity understood as a subcategory of his iustitia distributiva, since it is his judicial activity of punishing the oppressors and vindicating the righteous, which is very different from the NPP interpretation of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as “God’s covenant faithfulness.”

Chapter 6

Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul In the preceding chapters we have observed that in all three corpora – extra-biblical Greek, the Old Testament, and Jewish literature – the term “righteousness” (sans the genitive) can be used in two primary ways: ethically and judicially (though there are fine subdivisions within these two broad categories, and also a usage in reference to “correctness” on occasion in the OT). When used judicially in the OT and in Jewish writings, “righteousness” primarily denotes distributive justice. When used ethically in the OT and Jewish writings, “righteousness” primarily denotes that behavior or conduct which is in accordance with God’s law and which is approved by God in his sight. The judicial element comes into play insofar as God, as the divine Judge, recognizes the righteousness of humans and deems it to be pleasing in his sight. This shows that ultimately the two broad categories of usage are integrated theologically, at least for the OT and Jewish thought. The righteousness of God in Jewish Greek can be used with three main meanings: (1) God’s distributive justice; (2) his punitive judicial activity which results in the deliverance of his people from their oppressors (iustitia salutifera in the proper sense); and (3) the status of divinely-approved righteousness before/ from God. This semantic range is available to Paul; the existence of this semantic range does not automatically decide the question of exactly which usage Paul is selecting in any given instance of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in his writings. In this chapter, we turn from Paul’s linguistic context – extra-biblical Greek usage, the Old Testament (Hebrew and Greek), and the Jewish literature – to Paul himself. As we do so, we must keep the results from the preceding chapters in view, since the semantic range provides the scope of possible options within which we may position and understand Paul’s usage. On the one hand, Paul’s usage is tethered to the semantic range and cannot step very far out of its boundaries, as happens with the view that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ means “God’s covenant faithfulness.” On the other hand, Paul is a creative theological thinker who took his OT-Jewish inheritance and transformed it in light of his sudden conversion through the Damascus-road Christophany.1 Therefore, we cannot a priori limit Paul’s usage to all of the meanings that went before him, but must allow for the possibility that he transformed the linguistic usage with his own theological insights. As Cranfield says:

 Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel (WUNT II/4; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981).

1

A. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “God’s Covenant Faithfulness”

273

While it is of course true that the righteousness language of the OT and of late Judaism is the background against which Paul’s expression δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ must be understood, there is no reason to assume that he must have used the language he took over just precisely as it had been used. We must allow for the possibility of his having used what he took over with freedom and originality.2

A. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “God’s Covenant Faithfulness” In the first section of this chapter, I critique the view that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Paul should be taken as a cipher for “God’s covenant faithfulness.” The main exponents of this view are Hermann Cremer, Ernst Käsemann, James D. G. Dunn, N. T. Wright, and Richard B. Hays. These scholars do not rest their case solely on OT and Jewish usage, for as important as these background texts may be, the decisive question is whether Paul himself uses δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in this covenantal sense. These scholars agree in their claim that exegesis of the Pauline texts does in fact support this covenantal interpretation. Accordingly, we will examine the main Pauline passages to which these scholars appeal, namely, Rom 3:1-8 and 3:25-26. In addition to these two passages in the third chapter of Romans, another important passage is 2 Cor 5:21, which plays a particularly significant role in the thought of N. T. Wright, and so we will also examine his interpretation of that passage. 1. Romans 3:1-8 The importance of this passage cannot be overestimated. Käsemann appealed to it because it speaks of “God’s faithfulness” (ἡ πίστις τοῦ θεοῦ) and “God’s righteousness” (θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη) in the same context, which he took as support for seeing them as interchangeable terms. This passage is filled with exegetical difficulties, many of which we will not be able to address here. In order to get our bearings, it will perhaps be useful to set forth the whole paragraph as follows: “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God (μὴ ἡ ἀπιστία αὐτῶν τὴν πίστιν τοῦ θεοῦ καταργήσει;)? 4 By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, ‘That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged.’ 5  But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God (εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀδικία ἡμῶν θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην συνίστησιν), what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) 6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world? 7 But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8  And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.” (Rom 3:1-8 ESV) 2 C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975), 1.97.

274

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

There are two main options for interpreting θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη in v 5. The first option is to take the phrase in a purely positive sense, as basically equivalent to ἡ πίστις τοῦ θεοῦ in v 3 and ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ θεοῦ in v 7. Ernst Käsemann is the chief representative of this interpretation,3 and he is followed by other commentators. 4 The second option is to take it as a neutral term that encompasses the rightness of God in judging human sin. 5 Advocates of the first option make several arguments. One of their main arguments is to show the parallels between v 3 and v 5. Verse 3 implies, by way of rhetorical question, that human faithlessness does not nullify the faithfulness of God. Verse 5, which seems to resume the thought of v 3 and restate it in an affirmative form, says that human unrighteousness merely serves to demonstrate the righteousness of God. Thus the two verses are making parallel statements, only with v 5 using terms from the ΔΙΚ-root rather than the ΠΙΣΤ-root. Richard B. Hays sets forth the parallels using the following tabular structure. 6 Table 14. Parallel Terms in Romans 3:1-8

ἄνθρωπος

Θεός

Verse 3 Verse 4 Verse 5 Verse 7

ἡ ἀπιστία αὐτῶν πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης ἡ ἀδικία ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ ψεύσματι

τὴν πίστιν τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ θεὸς ἀληθής θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ θεοῦ

This schematic of parallelisms is taken as proof that just as ἀπιστία, ἀδικία, and ψεύσμα are synonymous terms describing human covenant unfaithfulness, so God’s πίστις, δικαιοσύνη, and ἀλήθεια are “functionally equivalent terms”7 denoting his covenant faithfulness to Israel, that is, his unwavering commitment to fulfill the Abrahamic promises in spite of Israel’s unfaithfulness. 3 Käsemann writes: “Paul identifies πίστις and δικαιοσύνη τοῦ θεοῦ by making them parallel, as is possible from the OT understanding of God’s righteousness as his prevailing covenant faithfulness (durchsetzender Bundestreue).” Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 79 (= An die Römer [4th ed.; HNT 8a; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980], 74). 4 E.g., James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8 (WBC 38A; Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 134; Robert Jewett, Romans (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 247; Peter Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (trans. Scott J. Hafemann; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 53. 5 E.g., Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 190; David Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms (SNTSMS 5; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 158; Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 156-57. 6 Hays argues that θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη does not occur independently in this passage but “stands as one of a series of apparently synonymous expressions, all affirming God’s integrity as contrasted to humanity’s lack of integrity …. Clearly, these expressions function interchangeably in this passage and therefore interpret one another.” Richard B. Hays, “Psalm 143 and the Logic of Romans 3,” JBL 99 (1980): 110. 7 Hays, 110 n14.

A. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “God’s Covenant Faithfulness”

275

There is no doubt that the first half of the paragraph (Rom 3:1-3) deals with the question of God’s covenant faithfulness. This follows from a consideration of the preceding context (Rom 2:17-29), where Paul, in a diatribe with an imaginary Jewish interlocutor,8 shows that the mere possession of the Mosaic Law and the mere outward rite of circumcision will not avail to provide the Jews with the status of “righteous before God” (δίκαιοι παρὰ τῷ θεῷ) at the day of judgment (Rom 2:13). If they would be righteous before God by means of the Law, they must actually keep the Law. But they do not, resulting in God’s name being blasphemed among the Gentiles, as Paul makes clear in Rom 2:17-24. Being outwardly circumcised is not what makes one a true Jew, but circumcision of the heart (Rom 2:28-29). This then raises the interlocutor’s objection, voiced in Rom 3:1: “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?” (ESV). In response, Paul acknowledges that the Jews have been entrusted with the very oracles of God, that is, they have been given the divine revelation summarized in the Torah, including both the promises made to Abraham and the giving of the divine Law setting forth Israel’s response of grateful obedience. The fact that some Jews have been unbelieving or faithless does not nullify God’s faithfulness (Rom 3:3). It is a theological non-negotiable for Paul that God’s election of his people is irrevocable (Rom 11). That God is a covenantkeeping God is foundational to his gospel, since God’s sending the Messiah is the fulfillment of his promises (“to show God’s truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs,” Rom 15:8 ESV). But several considerations strongly suggest that the specific lexeme θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη in Rom 3:5 should not be taken as equivalent to ἡ πίστις τοῦ θεοῦ (God’s covenant faithfulness) in v 3. First, Käsemann’s reading ignores the quotation of Psalm 50:6LXX [51:6MT/4EB] intervening between v 3 and v 5. That quotation uses the verb δικαιόω, another term from the ΔΙΚ-root, thus making the transition from v 3 to v 5 less smooth. Psalm 50:6LXX says, “Against you alone did I sin, and what is evil before you I did, so that you may be justified in your words and be victorious when you go to law (ὅπως ἂν δικαιωθῇς ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου καὶ νικήσεις ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί σε)” (NETS). In other words, the language of God being “justified” or “proved right” has to do with a legal context in which there is some sort of judicial activity taking place. Of course, κρίνεσθαι in the phrase ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί σε could be interpreted as a true passive, yielding the translation “when you are judged” (ESV, NASB, BDAG)9   or as a deponent middle with an active sense, which yields, “when you

8 Stanley K. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans (SBLDS 57; Chico: Scholars Press, 1981); Thomas H. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts: The Argument of Romans (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004), 88-98. 9 Dunn, 1.133-34 (“when you are on trial”); Käsemann, 81; William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902), 72.

276

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

judge” (NIV) or “when you contend in a law suit.”10 But in either case there is a legal or judicial controversy in view in which humans and God are in a courtroom setting, in which case God must be the Judge. Thus, even in the case of the passive, “when you are judged,” God is still the Judge but he is being criticized by the unhappy object of his judgments. So when in v 5 God’s righteousness (θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη) is referred to, this must be understood as linking back to the quotation of Ps 50:6LXX in the preceding verse. God’s righteousness, then, on either interpretation of κρίνεσθαι, is his status as a δίκαιος Judge. To link v 5 back to v 3 as if θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη were merely a rephrasing of ἡ πίστις τοῦ θεοῦ is to ignore the intervening verse (v 4), which introduces a shift in perspective and language by means of the quotation of Psalm 50:6LXX with its usage of the verb δικαιόω in the passive with reference to God. Second, for Käsemann’s positive reading of θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη in Rom 3:5 to work, Paul’s quotation of Ps 50:6LXX in the preceding verse (Rom 3:4) would have to be taken in a sense diametrically opposed to its meaning in the original context. In the psalm, David is confessing his own sin and acknowledging that God is in the right to judge him: “so that you may be justified (ὅπως ἂν δικαιωθῇς) in your words” (NETS). David confesses his sin and acknowledges that it was against God alone that he sinned, so that God might be proved right in his words of judgment against him. The righteousness of God (in Ps 50:6LXX) is therefore not his saving faithfulness to keep his promises in spite of David’s sin, but his righteousness in judging David for his sin. As Thomas Schreiner argues, “In the OT context the purpose clause describes God’s judging righteousness, not his saving righteousness.”11 But while Paul sometimes applies OT passages in new ways, he never quotes them against the thrust of their original context.12 Third, building on the previous point, Käsemann’s interpretation requires one to ignore or soften the purpose clause, ὅπως + ἄν + the subjunctive. The purpose clause from the Psalm quote is linked to the unquoted first half of the verse, “Against you alone did I sin, and what is evil before you I did, so that you may be justified (ὅπως ἂν δικαιωθῇς) in your words” (NETS).13 David confesses that he has sinned against God alone “in order that” (‫למען‬ ַ ְ / ὅπως) ַ   10 Cranfield, 182 n4; Jewett, 246; Moo, 188 and n53. 11 Schreiner, Romans, 152. 12 Schreiner adds: “Paul would probably not contradict the OT meaning of the verse in citing it in Romans. He does not always abide by the intended meaning of the OT text; he extends its meaning and applies it to new situations. But he never turns the meaning of the text upside down – which would be demanded if Käsemann were correct.” Schreiner, Romans, 152; cp. John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–23 (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 127 n14. 13 “The ‘so that’ (ὅπως) of the Psalm quote shows that God’s (= ‘you’) vindication is the result of the preceding statement in the psalm … It is fair to conclude that Paul is using this Psalm quote in 3:4b to show that man’s sin vindicates God’s judgment upon it.” Piper, The Justification of God, 127.

A. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “God’s Covenant Faithfulness”

277

God might be proved to be righteous in pronouncing judicial sentence against him.14 David accuses himself in order to justify God, to demonstrate that God is righteous. Paul has substituted for David’s self-accusation his own, “Let God be true though every one were a liar,” to which he then appends the Ps 50:6LXX quote introduced by “as it is written.” But the meaning is essentially the same. David’s confession of sin is the opposite of self-justification, which would make God a liar. The purpose clause is therefore quite significant for understanding the flow of Paul’s argument and highlights the fact that the issue is no longer God’s covenant faithfulness but God’s iustitia distributiva. As John Piper points out, Käsemann’s interpretation “would seem to offer no explanation for the ὅπως,”15 or at the very least would require the ὅπως to be softened to the point of being almost a meaningless particle. Fourth, while Käsemann and his followers want to understand the meaning of θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη in v 5 by orienting it primarily in connection with the first half of the paragraph (Rom 3:1-3), which has to do with God’s faithfulness, I would argue that the meaning of θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη in v 5 is better understood by orienting it with the second half of the paragraph (Rom 3:4-8). As I have acknowledged, the first half does indeed deal with God’s covenant faithfulness, but Paul seems to drop that topic for the time being (to pick it up again in Rom 9-11), while in the second half of the paragraph, vv 4-8, he returns to the theme of God’s righteous judgment (see τὸ κρίμα τοῦ θεοῦ [2x] and ἀποκαλύψεως δικαιοκρισίας τοῦ θεοῦ in Rom 2:2, 3, 5) that is the overall thrust of his argument up to this point (Rom 1:18–2:29). It is not that the theme of God’s covenant faithfulness has been completely dropped, but that Paul is walking a tightrope as he tries to balance two theological considerations: on the one hand, God’s election of Israel, his covenant revelation to Israel (τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ, Rom 3:2); and on the other hand, the reality that God is a righteous judge and that he will not show favoritism to the Jews simply because they are the recipients of these covenant blessings. The language of θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη belongs to the second half of the balancing act, not the first. This is evident when one reads Rom 3:5-6 as a unit: But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (μὴ ἄδικος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὀργήν;) (I speak in a human way.) 6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world (ἐπεὶ πῶς κρινεῖ ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον;)? (ESV)

5

         ַ ַ ְ by understanding it of the consequence instead of the 14 “We must not weaken this ‫למען‬ intention … When sin is revealed as such to a man, he himself must say Amen to the Divine penal sentence, just as David did to that pronounced upon him by Nathan; to decide thus against one’s self, in order that God may be in the right and carry the point, is the very essence of penitence … The sinner’s accusation of himself justifies the Divine righteousness.” Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1888), 2.15657. 15 Piper, The Justification of God, 127 n14.

278

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

The references to God’s justice in inflicting wrath and judging the world make clear that Paul is now speaking of God’s impartial iustitia distributiva, not his faithfulness to Israel’s election and covenant. The question as to whether God is unjust (μὴ ἄδικος ὁ θεός) to inflict wrath on sinners, coming right on the heels of the rhetorical question about our unrighteousness serving to show God’s righteousness, is particularly telling. The logic of the diatribal back-andforth here demonstrates that θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη is the positive counterpart of the negative (and immediately rejected with μὴ γένοιτο) statement, ἄδικος ὁ θεός. Therefore, θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη is tantamount to the affirmation, δίκαιος ὁ θεός. The point of affirming God’s righteousness, then, is not to repeat the notion that God is faithful to his covenantal election of Israel, but to affirm that God is a righteous Judge who justly inflicts his wrath on sinners. Fifth, the language of “God’s truth” and “human falsehood” in this paragraph has been mistakenly interpreted as a set of code words for covenant faithfulness and covenant breaking. But James Barr pointed out long ago the linguistic fallacy of the assumption that ἀληθεία has taken on covenantal connotations because of the Hebrew words it renders in the LXX.16 It is true that “the truth of God” can be used to refer to God’s faithfulness in keeping his promises (cp. “to show God’s truthfulness [ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας θεοῦ], in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs,” Rom 15:8 ESV), since covenant-keeping is, logically, a species of truthfulness. But it is a fallacy to argue that every reference to God’s ἀληθεία must always denote the specific form of truthfulness that we call “covenant faithfulness.” In the first chapter of Romans, ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ θεοῦ (“they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator,” Rom 1:25 NASB) simply denotes “the reality consisting of God Himself and His self-revelation” in contrast with the futility of idolatry.17 Further demonstrating that it is not a technical term, in chapter two, Paul refers to God’s ἀληθεία in the context of his judgment: “But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth (τὸ κρίμα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν κατὰ ἀλήθειαν) against them which commit such things” (Rom 2:2 KJV). Furthermore, “the truth of God” in Rom 3:7 is also contrasted with “my lie” (ESV, NASB), or “my falsehood” (NIV), which sheds light on the meaning of the former phrase. It would appear from the context that “my lie/falsehood” is either (a) a general term for the human condition of sinfulness, harking back to chapter one, where human rebellion against God is characterized as “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness” (1:18), “exchanging the truth of God for a lie” (1:25),18 or (b) a more specific reference to the attempted self-justification of humans before God’s just judgment, claiming that they are not deserving of divine wrath, a reading that harks back to v 4 in 16 James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), 161-205. 17 Cranfield, Romans, 1.123. 18 Morris, Romans, 160 (“the falseness and sin of people”).

A. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “God’s Covenant Faithfulness”

279

the immediate context, “Let God be true, and every human being a liar (πᾶς δὲ ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης). As it is written: ‘So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge’” (ESV). This latter interpretation would also fit nicely with the statement later in the chapter: “Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God (ἵνα πᾶν στόμα φραγῇ καὶ ὑπόδικος γένηται πᾶς ὁ κόσμος τῷ θεῷ)” (Rom 3:19 ESV). In any case, the meaning is not, “Let God be faithful to his covenant, though every human being be a covenant-breaker,” for that would apply only to Israel’s unfaithfulness to her special covenant status and election. Thus, “the truth of God” in v 7 is probably best interpreted as his veracity, integrity, and reliability in judging human sin.19 Sixth, the transition from God’s covenant faithfulness to his distributive justice is not as harsh as it may appear at first, since, for Paul, the faithfulness of God is expressed not only when he is maintaining Israel’s election on the basis of his faithfulness to his covenant promises, but also when he is judging Israel by bringing the negative sanctions of the covenant to bear on covenant-breakers. God is faithful to the terms of his covenant even when he punishes sinners, for the Mosaic Covenant promises not only life to those who obey but also death and judgment for those who break the covenant. This fits with an important OT text, Deut 32:4: “The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice (‫     ׁפט‬ ָ ‫     ש‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬/ ָ ֱ ἀληθινά). A God of faithfulness (‫אמוּנה‬ ‫ ֵאל‬/ θεὸς πιστός) and without iniquity, ִ ַ / δίκαιος) and upright (‫שׁר‬ ָ ‫ ָי‬/ ὅσιος) is he” (ESV).20 The faithfulness just (‫צדּיק‬ of God is thus expressed not only when he upholds his people on the basis of his election but also when he judges the unfaithful within Israel for their breaking of the covenant. Thus Rom 3:1-8 does not support the thesis that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is a cipher for “God’s covenant faithfulness.” As used in this context, it simply means God’s justice in judging human sin. 2. Romans 3:21-26 In this passage, Paul makes the turning point from the foregoing passage on the wrath of God against both Jew and Gentile (1:18–3:20), to the new reality in Christ, characterized by the revelation of the righteousness of God, using terminology that takes up his thesis statement at the outset (1:16-17). The 19 Schreiner, Romans, 157. See also my discussion of “faithfulness” in the Hebrew Bible in Chapter 4 above, where I showed that it can refer to God’s integrity and reliability as a righteous Judge, e.g., “He will judge the world in righteousness, and the peoples in his faithfulness      (‫בּאמוּנתוֹ‬ ָ ֱ ֶ / ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ αὐτοῦ)” (Ps 96:13MT/95:13LXX ESV). 20 “The assertion of God’s absolute justice, even in the face of his judgment of his people, is familiar in the OT. Particularly noteworthy, because of the many linguistic parallels with [Rom] 3:1-8 and because it is followed by a recitation of the disasters brought on Israel by their unfaithfulness, is Deut 32:4.” Moo, Romans, 191 n75.

280

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

redemptive-historical transition from wrath to grace is indicated by the terms “but now” (νυνὶ δέ) and “in the present time” (ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ) in Rom 3:21 and v 26 respectively. In spite of the voluminous scholarly work and exegetical options, the thrust of the passage is clear: sinners are justified by faith, apart from the works of the law, on the basis of the atoning death of Christ, described here in cultic terms as “a means of propitiation … in his blood” (ἱλαστήριον … ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι, v 25).21 Although a wide variety of interpretations of this passage exist, following Seyoon Kim’s analysis of the scholarly lay of the land, we may say that, broadly speaking, there are two main types of interpretation of Rom 3:21-26.22 The first type of interpretation is regarded as the traditional one, and is advocated by C. E. B. Cranfield. On this view, God’s righteousness (ἡ δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ – 2x) in vv 25-26 is typically taken as the attribute of God’s justice, which is upheld or demonstrated by the atoning death of Christ. The emphasis in this interpretation of the passage falls on the necessity of the atonement, “to demonstrate God’s justice.” Although God is a God of love and mercy, he could only forgive and justify sinners in a manner consistent with his holiness and righteousness by means of the propitiatory death of Christ for our sins which satisfied the demands of God’s justice. There is thus, on this view, a kind of Anselmic theory of the necessity of the atonement. Here is Cranfield’s interpretive translation of vv 25-26: whom God purposed to be by the shedding of his blood a propitiatory sacrifice, the benefit to be appropriated by faith, in order to prove his righteousness (this was necessary on account of the overlooking of past sins 26 in God’s forbearance), in order, I say, to prove his righteousness in the present time, so that he might be righteous even in justifying the man who believes in Jesus.23

25

On this view, the phrase διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ is a parenthesis explaining why Christ’s atoning death was necessary. It was necessary because the divine forbearance in passing over past sins and letting them go unpunished had called God’s justice into question. This 21 Following Bultmann, I take the intervening words διὰ πίστεως as a phrase inserted by Paul into the pre-existing primitive Jewish-Christian confessional formula to clarify that the justifying benefit of the atoning death of Christ is appropriated by faith. Rudolf Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1948), 1.47. Most commentators, even those who do not necessarily adopt Bultmann’s thesis about Paul’s use of an early confessional formula, agree that ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι likely goes with ἱλαστήριον rather than πίστεως (so Cranfield, 1.210; Dunn, 1.172; Jewett, 287-88; Moo, 237; Schreiner, 194). The construction πίστις + ἐν + object of faith (dative) does occur in the Pauline corpus, but the object is always Christ himself (Gal 3:26; Eph 1:15; Col 1:4; 1 Tim 3:13; 2 Tim 1:13; 3:15), never his blood. Fitzmyer takes ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι with the verb προέθετο (Fitzmyer, 341, 348). 22 Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, 278-80. Kim quotes Cranfield and Käsemann as the primary representatives of these two main types of interpretation. 23 Cranfield, 1.201. Italics his, representing words added for his paraphrase.

A. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “God’s Covenant Faithfulness”

281

interpretation depends on taking πάρεσις (a word that occurs only here in the entire Greek Bible) as “passing over,” and διά + the accusative in the prepositional phrase (διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν …) as “on account of the overlooking of past sins.” In addition, the noun ἔνδειξις, which occurs in the two nearly identical purpose clauses, εἰς (changed to πρὸς τήν in v 26) ἔνδειξιν τής δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ, is taken with the meaning “proof, demonstration,” so that the two clauses would be translated, “in order to prove or demonstrate his justice.” The second type of interpretation is that put forward nearly simultaneously and (apparently) independently24 by Käsemann and Kümmel in 1951–1952, setting forth a new view that has now become the dominant one in NT scholarship.25 If the first view focuses on the Anselmic notion of the atonement as a satisfaction of divine justice, the second view shifts the meaning of the passage in a very different direction, namely, the notion of the atonement as the expression of God’s covenant faithfulness resulting in the renewal of the covenant. In his commentary, published two decades after the article, Käsemann provides his interpretive translation as follows: 25 Him God has publicly set forth as an expiation, (which is appropriated) through faith in virtue of his blood. (This took place) to show (zum Erweis) his righteousness in such a way that in divine forbearance sins were remitted; 26 to show (zum Erweis) his righteousness in the present hour of destiny, that he might be righteous and might justify him who lives by faith in Jesus.26

Kümmel’s paraphrase of the key clause in v 25b is similar: “thereby he wanted to show (erzeigen) his righteousness in remitting the sins committed during the time of his patience.”27 Whereas the first view interprets πάρεσις to mean “passing over” and the clause as a whole is taken as a parenthesis, for Käsemann and Kümmel the word πάρεσις is taken as “remission” in the fully soteric sense and therefore as synonymous with ἄφεσις. In keeping with the reinterpretation of πάρεσις, the other key word in the passage, ἔνδειξις (2x), is taken with the nuance of “display, showing,” rather than the traditional interpretation, “proof, demonstration.” It is argued that the new interpretation of ἔνδειξις comports with Paul’s concept of divine revelation, his

24 Judging by the fact that neither one cites the other in his original article on this passage. 25 Ernst Käsemann, “Zum Verständnis von Römer 3,24-26,” ZNW 43 (1950/51): 150-54 (reprint: idem, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, Erster Band [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960], 96-100); Werner Georg Kümmel, “Πάρεσις und ἔνδειξις: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der paulinischen Rechtfertigungslehre,” ZTK 49 (1952): 154-67 (ET: “Πάρεσις and ἔνδειξις: A Contribution to the Understanding of the Pauline Doctrine of Justification,” Distinctive Protestant and Catholic Themes Reconsidered (Journal for Theology and the Church, Vol. 3), ed. Robert W. Funk [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/New York: Harper & Row, 1967], 1-13). 26 Käsemann, Romans, 91 (= An die Römer [4th ed], 85). 27 Kümmel, 165 (= ET, 11).

282

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

Offenbarungsbegriff. Kümmel points out that “when Paul speaks of revelation, he does not speak of a communication of facts or of an explanation, but always of an event,”28 a point reinforced by Paul’s usage of such verbs as ἀποκαλύπτεται (1:17), πεφανέρωται (3:21), and προέθετο (3:25) in the immediate context. The eschatological event of the atoning death of Christ “shows, displays” or perhaps even “effects” God’s saving righteousness. It does not provide evidence of an already existing justice of God that has been called into question and that now requires rational proof. Indeed, any thought that God would be required to prove his justice in the face of human criticism does not seem consistent with Paul’s out-of-hand dismissal of such human judgment upon God later in the letter: “Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means … But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?” (Rom 9:14, 20 ESV).29 This shift in meaning may seem to be a rather fine distinction, but it does in fact make a significant difference, for now the clause is taken to mean that God’s righteousness is displayed by means of the forgiveness of sins through the atoning death of Christ. It must also be noted that in order for this view to work, the διά + acc. construction must be taken instrumentally (Kümmel: “through the remission of sins committed previously”), a usage that is possible but rare.30 The lexical evidence for ἔνδειξις is ambivalent and supports taking the term either as “demonstration, proof” (BDAG ἔνδειξις 2; LSJ ἔνδειξις III) or as “showing, display” (BDAG ἔνδειξις 1; LSJ ἔνδειξις II). Thus the Kümmel/ Käsemann interpretation rests chiefly on the lexicography of the other hotly contested word, πάρεσις, a word that occurs only here in the entire Greek Bible, thus forcing us to examine its usage in extra-biblical Greek to determine its semantic range. It occurs most frequently in the extra-biblical Greek literature, including Philo and Josephus, as a medical term meaning “paralysis.”31 It may be tempting to set the widespread medical usage aside as irrelevant to our text, but it is illuminating when one considers that the meaning “paralysis” is derived from the παρίημι root since paralysis is regarded as “a slackening of strength.”32 Thus the idea seems to be more along the lines of “letting go,” rather than the positive, juridical idea of “acquittal, remission.” Moving to the non-medical usages, there are five extra-biblical passages that commentators have wrangled over as more directly relevant to the interpretation of πάρεσις in our text. In the first extra-biblical passage, it has to do with 28 Kümmel, 165 (= ET, 11). 29 Ibid., 162-63 (= ET, 9). 30 Ibid., 164 (= ET, 10-11), cites five passages: John 6:57; Rom 8:10, 20; Rev 12:11; 13:14. 31 Douglas A. Campbell, The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3.21-26 (JSNTSup 65; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 46 n2. Philo, Det 168; Praem 143, 145; Josephus, Ant. 9.240; 11.236. 32 See LSJ πάρεσις II (“slackening of strength, paralysis”) and παρίημι III (“relax, weaken”) and IV (“yield, give up”). Modern medicine refers to this as “flaccid paralysis.”

A. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “God’s Covenant Faithfulness”

283

“allowing one to escape” unpunished (Plutarch, Comparatio Dionysii Bruti 2.3).33 Even Kümmel acknowledged that this supports the traditional “leaving sins unpunished” interpretation. In the second case, πάρεσις means “remission” of monetary debts (Phalaris, Epistulae 81.1),34 which would come the closest to the meaning desired by Kümmel/Käsemann, since they could argue that the remission of sins is a metaphorical extension of the concept of the remission of debts (cp. ἀφίημι, ἄφεσις). In the third, it is used to indicate that God grants “relief” to a chosen few from the adamantine chain of fate (Dio Chrysostom, Orationes 30.19).35 In the fourth passage, it means “neglect, negligence” of a treaty between the Latins and the Romans (Appian, Basilica frag. 13; quoted by Suidas).36 In my view, the third and fourth instances do not support Kümmel/ Käsemann but seem to fit better with the traditional view. Finally, in the fifth passage, which is the strongest one in support of the traditional view, πάρεσις means the “dismissal of charges” against someone who had been accused and was about to be put on trial (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates Romanae 7.37.2).37 Following J. M. Creed’s helpful analysis, I would argue that the word 33 “Therefore the Roman people felt at once a yearning for Caesar, and in consequence became harsh and implacable towards his murderers; whereas Dion, for letting Dionysius escape from Syracuse, and for not demolishing the tomb of the former tyrant, was held most culpable by his countrymen” (διὸ Καίσαρα μὲν εὐθὺς ἐπόθησεν ὁ Ῥωμαίων δῆμος, ὥστε χαλεπὸς γενέσθαι καὶ ἀπαραίτητος τοῖς ἀπεκτονόσι, Δίωνα δ’ ἡ Διονυσίου πάρεσις ἐκ Συρακουσῶν καὶ τὸ μὴ κατασκάψαι τοῦ προτέρου τυράννου τὸν τάφον ἐπαίτιον μάλιστα πρὸς τοὺς πολίτας ἐποίησεν). Translation by Bernadotte Perrin in Plutarch: Lives (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001), 6.251. 34 “Not repenting of the remission of the debts, O men of Ennaeus, have I written this epistle to you” (Οὐ μεταμελόμενος ἐπὶ τῇ παρέσει τῶν χρημάτων, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἐνναῖοι, τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ὑμῖν ταύτην ἐπέσταλκα) (translation mine). 35 “However, a very few enjoy some relief by the kindness of God; and while they are indeed bound, yet the bond is very light on account of their goodness” (τινὰς μέντοι καὶ λίαν ὀλίγους πάρεσίν τινα ἔχειν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ δεδέσθαι μέν, ἐλαφρῶς δὲ πάνυ δι’ ἐπιείκειαν). Translation by J. W. Cohoon in Dio Chrysostom: Discourses 12–30 (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001), 415. Dio’s Thirtieth Discourse, “Charidemus,” reports the last words of a young man to his father as he lay dying. Charidemus, with typical philosophic resignation in the face of death, discourses on the possible reasons for suffering. The reference to “relief” (πάρεσις) in this context means “relief from the bodily sufferings of this life.” 36 “‘The Latins, though allies of the Romans, were waging war against them.’ Suidas, see ἔνσπονδος. ‘But the Latins brought charges against the Romans, namely, their negligence toward them, being allies and kinsmen.’ Suidas, see πάρεσις” (Λατῖνοι ἔνσπονδοι Ῥωμαίοις ὄντες ἐστράτευον ἐπ’ αὐτούς. Suid. v. ἔνσπονδος. οἱ δὲ Λατῖνοι ἐγκλήματα εἰς Ῥωμαίους ἐποιοῦντο τήν τε πάρεσιν αὐτῶν τὴν ἐπὶ σφᾶς, ὄντας ἐνσπόνδους καὶ συγγενεῖς. Suid. v. πάρεσις) (translation mine). 37 “But from the tribunes, in spite of many entreaties, they were unable to obtain an absolute dismissal of the charges against Marcius, though they did get a postponement of his trial for as long a time as they asked” (παρὰ δὲ τῶν δημάρχων πολλὰ λιπαρήσαντες τὴν μὴν ὁλοσχερῆ πάρεσιν οὐχ εὕροντο, τὴν δ’ εἰς χρόνον ὅσον ἠξίουν ἀναβολὴν ἔλαβον). Translation by Earnest

284

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

clearly is not equivalent to ἄφεσις and, more often than not, seems to mean something along the lines of “letting someone or something go” with the result that the demands of strict justice are left unsatisfied.38 Kümmel claims that the meaning “remission” is certain in all cases except the Plutarch passage,39 but I would argue just the opposite – the meaning “passing over, leaving unpunished” is supported by all but the Phalaris passage. In any case, Kümmel does acknowledge that the traditional translation cannot be ruled out on the basis of extra-biblical usage, and so ultimately the context of Rom 3:25-26 is determinative. Also helpful in determining the meaning of πάρεσις is the cognate verb παρίημι, which has a variety of meanings, one of which is “pass by, pass over, pass unnoticed” (LSJ παρίημι II), “to take no note of, disregard” (Muraoka παρίημι 2). I have found three cases where this verb takes “sin(s)” as the direct object, providing a close parallel to Rom 3:25 (ἡ πάρεσις τῶν … ἁμαρτημάτων). Xenophon, in his treatise on the cavalry commander (Hipparchicus), uses it in a sense very close to the traditional interpretation of πάρεσις in Rom 3:25. The context has to do with cavalry functioning as raiders always prepared to strike a larger infantry force when they make mistakes, for example, when the infantry scatter in search of provisions or when a group marches too far ahead and allows the others to lag behind. Xenophon says that the cavalry commander, being in command of a smaller, lighter force, ought to capitalize on these mistakes by striking a quick blow to inflict damage on the infantry but then retreating soon thereafter in the manner of guerrilla warfare: So he must not let such blunders (ἁμαρτήματα) go unpunished, or the whole country will be occupied; only he must take good care to retire the moment he has struck, without giving time for the main supports to arrive on the scene.40

Another instance where παρίημι takes the direct object ἁμαρτία is found in the Jewish Antiquities of Josephus. In this passage, Josephus is discussing the relationship between King Herod and Alexandra, the mother of his wife Mariamne and also of Aristobulus III. Early in his reign, Herod had married Mariamne Cary on the basis of the version of Edward Spelman in The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1986), 4.251. 38 J. M. Creed, “ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ in Dionysius of Halicarnassus and in St. Paul,” JTS 41 (1940): 28-30. Commenting on the passage in Dionysius, Creed writes: “It is obvious that πάρεσις cannot here be used in the judicial sense of release or acquittal, for the point at issue is not whether Coriolanus shall be acquitted or condemned, but whether or not the trial itself shall be allowed to take place” (29). He goes on to point out that Dionysius uses ἄφεσις in nearby passages in a manner that is clearly distinct from πάρεσις, namely, in the stronger, judicial sense of “acquittal” or “remission of punishment” (7.34.2; 7.46.2). 39 Kümmel, 156-58 (= ET, 3-4). 40 Hipparchicus 7.10. ET: Xenophon (LCL; trans. E. C. Marchant; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000), 7.276-77. The Greek reads: τὰ οὖν τοιαῦτα ἁμαρτήματα οὐ χρὴ παριέναι ἀκόλαστα (εἰ δὲ μή, ὅλη ἡ χώρα τρατόπεδον ἔσται) ἐκεῖνο καλῶς προνοοῦντα, καὶ ποιήσαντά τι φθάσαι ἀποχωρήσαντα πρὶν τὸ πολὺ βοηθοῦν ἐπιγενέσθαι.

A. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “God’s Covenant Faithfulness”

285

(who traced her ancestry on both her maternal and paternal sides from former Hasmonean rulers) in order to give his reign legitimacy. However, this created a problem when he deposed the current high priest and installed Ananelus, an obscure priest from Babylon, in his place. Alexandra wanted her son, Aristobulus III, to be made high priest instead. In addition, Aristobulus was highly favored by the Jewish populace not only because of his Hasmonean ancestry but also because of his physical beauty. Out of fear that his wife might use this popularity to have Aristobulus installed as high priest instead of Ananelus, Herod had both him and his mother confined to the royal palace and subjected to constant surveillance. These restrictions so irked Alexandra that she hatched a scheme of smuggling herself and her son in coffins out of the country to Cleopatra in Egypt in order to take refuge under Antony’s protection. Unfortunately the scheme was discovered and Herod was informed. The king permitted things to proceed as far as the carrying out of the plan, and then caught her in the very act of fleeing. But he overlooked her offence (παρῆκεν δὲ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν) because he did not dare take any harsh measures against her, even though he would have liked to, for Cleopatra, out of hatred toward him, would not have allowed her to be accused; and so he made a show of magnanimity as if forgiving them out of kindness rather than for another reason.41

Herod would have liked to have punished Alexandra and Cleopatra, but he “made a show of magnanimity as if forgiving them out of kindness.” This passage is particularly clear in making the distinction between true forgiveness and the mere overlooking of an offence, i.e., not pursuing justice. Herod “permitted” the plan to occur, then he caught Alexandra in the very act of fleeing, but he overlooked the offence and “did not dare take any harsh measures against her, even though he would have liked to.” However, in the end, Herod got his wish: after appointing the attractive young man (Aristobulus III) to the high priesthood, soon thereafter he had him drowned while he was bathing in some fish ponds. The third instance is Sirach 23:2, which is in the context of a plea to God to set “the discipline of wisdom” over Ben Sirach in order that he may not be overcome by fleshly appetites and sins. The text, in the context of vv 1-6, reads: O Lord, Father and Master of my life, do not abandon me to their designs, and do not let me fall because of them! 2 Who will set whips over my thoughts, and the discipline of wisdom over my mind, so as not to spare me in my errors, and not overlook my42 sins (τὰ ἁμαρτήματα)? 3  Otherwise my mistakes may be multiplied, and my sins may abound, and I may fall before 1

41 Josephus, Ant. 15.48. ET: Josephus (LCL; trans. Ralph Marcus and Allen Wikgren; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004), 10.278-81. Greek: ὁ δὲ τὴν μὲν ἕως τῆς ἐγχειρήσεως ἐάσας προελθεῖν ἐπ’ αὐτοφώρῳ τοῦ δρασμοῦ συνέλαβεν, παρῆκεν δὲ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, χαλεπὸν μὲν οὐδέν, εἰ καὶ σφόδρα βουλομένῳ ἦν αὐτῷ, διαθεῖναι τολμήσας, οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἀνασχέσθαι Κλεοπάτραν αἰτίαν ἐπὶ τῷ πρὸς αὐτὸν μίσει λαβοῦσαν, ἐμφαίνων δὲ μεγαλοψυχίαν μᾶλλον ἐξ ἐπιεικείας αὐτοῖς συνεγνωκέναι. 42 NETS has “their,” which literally follows the Greek; NRSV has emended the Greek text, in light of other versional witnesses, to yield an improved sense.

286

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

my adversaries, and my enemy may rejoice over me. 4 O Lord, Father and God of my life, do not give me haughty eyes, 5 and remove evil desire from me. 6 Let neither gluttony nor lust overcome me, and do not give me over to shameless passion (NRSV).43

Ben Sirach’s prayer is not “Lord, do not forgive my sins,” but “Lord, do not overlook my sins by letting me go my own way, by failing to discipline me.” His fear is that if God does not discipline him by setting “whips over his thoughts,” then he could well be overcome by his sinful desires. Such moral failure would be a disaster because his adversaries would rejoice over him. In these three instances, the cognate verb παρίημι takes as its direct object “sin” (ἁμαρτία) (once, in the Josephus text) and “sins” (ἁμαρτήματα) (twice, in Xenophon and Sirach), and in all three cases, it is clear that the meaning is not to remit sins but to overlook them or leave them unpunished. Interestingly, in the Xenophon passage, the word “unpunished” (ἀκόλαστα) is explicitly added so that the phrase as a whole is translated, “to let blunders (lit. sins) go unpunished” (ἁμαρτήματα … παριέναι ἀκόλαστα). For Käsemann (but not for Kümmel), the phrase “transgressions previously committed” (τὰ προγεγονότα ἁμαρτημάτα) refers to the covenant-breaking of the Old Covenant people of God. Paul characterizes the redemptive-historical epoch prior to the eschatological present (νυνί, ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ) of the gospel epoch as a time in which previous generations of God’s people broke the covenant, setting the stage for a new work of God that provides atonement for those covenant transgressions, renews the covenant, and provides for a new covenant relationship (ein neues Bundesverhältnis) that has been expanded and universalized to include Gentiles also by faith in Christ.44 To put the matter succinctly, for Käsemann, the forgiveness of Israel’s covenant-breaking (ἡ πάρεσις τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων), provided through Christ’s atonement, “displays the righteousness of God, namely, his commitment to the covenant (nämlich sein Festhalten am Bunde).”45 Clearly then, for Käsemann, the decision to take πάρεσις as “remission, forgiveness,” ἔνδειξις as “effective display” rather than “rational proof,” and διά + acc. in an instrumental sense provides crucial support for his 43 Sirach 23:2-3: τίς ἐπιστήσει ἐπὶ τοῦ διανοήματός μου μάστιγας καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς καρδίας μου παιδείαν σοφίας, ἵνα ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀγνοήμασίν μου μὴ φείσωνται καὶ οὐ μὴ παρῇ τὰ ἁμαρτήματα αὐτῶν, ὅπως μὴ πληθυνθῶσιν αἱ ἄγνοιαί μου καὶ αἱ ἁμαρτίαι μου πλεονάσωσιν καὶ πεσοῦμαι ἔναντι τῶν ὑπεναντίων καὶ ἐπιχαρεῖταί μοι ὁ ἐχθρός μου; 44 Käsemann, “Zum Verständnis,” 99. 45 Ibid. “The fact that righteousness, forgiveness, and patience are connected with one another is very OT-Jewish. So can the LXX render ‫ חסד‬and ‫ רחמים‬with δικαιοσύνη, and in 4 Ezra 8:36 it is said, ‘For in this, O Lord, your righteousness and your goodness is revealed, that you are merciful to those who have no store of good works.’ Righteousness is here the attribute of covenant faithfulness (Bundestreue) and is nearly synonymous with goodness and mercy. God stands by his covenant, even if man falls and transgresses it, and proves himself to be righteous, kind and patient. Our text differs from this Jewish view only in its orientation to a unique eschatological act of God. In the death of Jesus alone has truly occurred what pious Jews hoped and prayed for” (98-99).

A. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “God’s Covenant Faithfulness”

287

covenantal reading of the passage as a whole. It is only by choosing these lexical and syntactical options that he is able to argue that the passage is set against the backdrop of Israel’s covenant failure and that Paul presents Christ’s atonement as a covenant renewal demonstrating God’s covenant faithfulness. It should also be pointed out that Käsemann’s interpretation rests on Bultmann’s position that Paul is quoting a traditional Jewish-Christian liturgical formula, which he then reinterprets within the universal framework of his own theological thought. The original Jewish-Christian formula quoted here used the terminology of God’s righteousness in a covenantally narrow sense, as referring to God’s faithfulness to his covenant people with little concern for God’s commitment to the creation as a whole. Paul, however, takes the terminology and universalizes it by adding “a correcting addition” (eines korrigierenden Zusatzes) at the end of v 26 (“so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus”).46 As Käsemann explains in his commentary: God’s righteousness reaches beyond the covenant people (Die göttliche Gerechtigkeit übergreift das Bundesvolk) and is valid for everyone who believes in Jesus the Crucified. Indirectly this says that God’s covenant faithfulness (der Bundestreue Gottes) becomes his faithfulness to his whole creation (seine Treue gegenüber seiner gesamten Schöpfung) and his right which is established in this relationship. The catchword ‘righteousness of God’ (das Stichwort der Gerechtigkeit Gottes) was most welcome to Paul as indication of the change in aeons; nevertheless, he interpreted it in terms of his own theology.47

Much more could be said by way of engaging the details of these two broadly competing interpretations, but what needs to be said at this point is that the resolution of this debate is not determinative for the meaning of God’s δικαιοσύνη in vv 25-26. For while the new lexical/syntactical approach to vv 25-26 (viz., taking πάρεσις as “remission,” ἔνδειξις as “display,” and διά + acc. instrumentally) is necessary for Käsemann’s covenantal interpretation (“to display his δικαιοσύνη or covenant faithfulness”) to get off the ground, this construction of the syntax and lexicography, in and of itself, does not require a covenantal interpretation. The proof of this is that although Käsemann and Kümmel were mutual architects of this new view (sharing the same interpretation of πάρεσις as equivalent to ἄφεσις), only Käsemann incorporates into this view Cremer’s relational theory that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ here means “God’s faithfulness to his covenant” (Gottes Treue zu seinem Bund).48 But Kümmel, in spite of his complete agreement with Käsemann on the narrow lexical and syntactical questions, interprets ἡ δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ in vv 25-26 as God’s justifying activity “in the sense of the righteousness which God has and gives” (im Sinne der Gerechtigkeit, die Gott hat und gibt).49 46 Käsemann, “Zum Verständnis,” 100. “Because he is thinking universally, and so no longer of the condition of the covenant people, he is speaking at the end of v 26 at the same time out of the category of the individual.” 47 Käsemann, Romans, 101 (= An die Römer [4th ed.], 95). 48  Käsemann, “Zum Verständnis,” 99. 49 Kümmel, 161 (= ET, 8).

288

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

Indeed, one could adopt three of the main options for δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ (with the exception of “God’s justice”) – whether the status of righteousness from God (genetivus auctoris), God’s saving activity, or God’s covenant faithfulness – and successfully integrate it into the Kümmel/Käsemann interpretation of διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν (“through the remission/forgiveness of sins”). So it is not vital for my thesis to disprove the Kümmel/Käsemann interpretation and vindicate the traditional view represented by Cranfield. On the other hand, while Kümmel’s view of πάρεσις does not require Käsemann’s covenantal reading, Käsemann’s covenantal reading depends on Kümmel’s view of πάρεσις. In other words, Kümmel’s view of πάρεσις is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of Käsemann’s covenantal reading. That Käsemann’s covenantal reading depends on Kümmel’s view of πάρεσις is evident if one attempts to consider the alternative. If the traditional interpretation of πάρεσις as “passing over, leaving unpunished” is accepted, it would make no sense for Paul to affirm that God set forth Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice in his blood “in order to effectively display his covenant faithfulness,” and this was necessary because in his forbearance God had passed over former sins. Since taking πάρεσις as equivalent to ἄφεσις is necessary to Käsemann’s covenantfaithfulness interpretation of Rom 3:25-26, consider the following arguments (in addition to the lexical arguments adduced above) against this reading. First, we must not only examine the meaning of πάρεσις isolated from its syntactical context. The word occurs as part of a prepositional phrase, διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν. In order to make their overall view work, these exegetes must adopt the extremely rare instrumental use of διά + acc., as opposed to the more common causal sense (“because of, on account of”). It appears to be a self-serving move, not too different from the sort of thing that happens when inexperienced Greek students mechanically scan the possibilities listed in the Greek grammars and choose the option that suits their preferred interpretation. Douglas Moo puts it this way: “An instrumental translation of διά followed by an accusative, while possible in Hellenistic Greek, is so rare that compelling contextual reasons must be present if it is to be adopted.”50 Those compelling reasons are lacking. There would be a compelling reason if πάρεσις could only mean “remission,” but even Kümmel acknowledges that the meaning “passing over” is possible on the basis of its semantic range in extra-biblical Greek. Ordinarily, the syntax and the semantics work together such that, for example, a rare syntactical usage is required by a common lexical meaning, or vice versa. It is possible to make sense of any prepositional phrase by adopting a rare meaning of its noun, which, due to the constraints of the interplay between syntax and semantics, requires the adoption of an even rarer usage of the prepositional construction in which that 50 Moo, 239 n96. The construction sometimes has a final or telic sense (“with a view to”), e.g., Rom 4:25 (διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν), but this usage would not make sense here on either the new interpretation (“to show his covenant faithfulness with a view to remitting sins”) or the traditional interpretation (“to show his justice with a view to passing over sins”).

A. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “God’s Covenant Faithfulness”

289

word resides. But this is not ordinary exegetical procedure. When one has gotten oneself out on a limb, it is not normally considered an improvement to move out still farther on the same limb. Second, why would Paul restrict his field of view only to the remission of sins committed prior to Christ? Even if we adopt the instrumental meaning of διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν, we would expect Paul to affirm that the atoning death of Christ shows God’s righteousness “by means of the forgiveness of sins” in general, rather than merely the covenant transgressions of Israel before Christ. Of course, Käsemann would reply that Paul is merely quoting a Jewish-Christian liturgical formula which enshrined a covenantally-narrowed perspective on the scope of Christ’s atonement, but that Paul himself does not share this narrowing and in fact seeks to universalize it by his “correcting addition” at the end of v 26 (“that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus”). But the so-called “correcting addition” does not explicitly expand the extent of the atonement to the Gentiles. Perhaps it does so by implication, insofar as the individualizing language, “the one who has faith in Jesus” (ὁ ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ), logically implies that the atonement provides justification for all who have faith in Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile. But why would Paul take such a roundabout route to make the point? Having just quoted (ex hypothesi) a Jewish-Christian formula that limits the atonement to providing forgiveness for the Jewish people only (and, at that, for Jewish sins committed in the epoch prior to Christ), it is surprising that Paul is not more explicit in rejecting that restriction and clarifying his own position on the universal validity of the atonement, a concern that is expressed elsewhere in Romans with terminology such as “to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (1:16; 2:9-10), “both Jews and Greeks” (3:9), “all the world” (3:19), “for all who believe” (3:22; 10:4), “for there is no distinction [between Jew and Greek]” (3:22; 10:12), “to all the descendants” (4:16), “not from among the Jews only but also from among the Gentiles” (9:24), and so on. Third, the passing over of sins committed beforehand is tied to the phrase, “in the forbearance of God” (ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ), and this seems to indicate the Old Covenant period before the cross. “Paul’s meaning is … that God ‘postponed’ the full penalty due sins in the Old Covenant, allowing sinners to stand before him without their having provided an adequate ‘satisfaction’ of the demands of his holy justice.”51 Paul appears to have a redemptive-historical perspective (similar to that of the author of Hebrews) on the efficacy of the Old Covenant sacrificial system relative to the ἱλαστήριον (propitiatory sacrifice) accomplished in Christ. The Old Covenant system, though sufficient for its purpose and for its time, did not satisfy the demands of God’s justice; and to the degree that it offered forgiveness, it did so only in anticipation of the greater atonement to come. Romans 3:25-26, then, does not provide Pauline support for the notion that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ means “God’s covenant faithfulness.”

 Moo, Romans, 240; cp. Schreiner, Romans, 195.

51

290

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

3. 2 Corinthians 5:21 Having examined the two passages in Romans that have been appealed to in support of the view that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Pauline usage can mean “God’s covenant faithfulness,” we now turn to 2 Cor 5:21 which speaks of “becoming the righteousness of God.” In order to engage in the exegesis of this phrase, we need to step back and take in the preceding context, which reads as follows: Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20  Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ) (ESV). 17

The traditional interpretation of 2 Cor 5:21 takes it in agreement with Paul’s other statements about the righteousness of God in Romans and Philippians. As F. F. Bruce writes: “Paul has chosen this exceptional wording in order to emphasize the ‘sweet exchange’ whereby sinners are given a righteous status before God through the righteous one who absorbed their sin (and its judgment) in himself.”52 Two inter-related exegetical questions must be addressed. First, who is the “we” (ἡμεῖς) of v 21? Many commentators insist that Paul is consistently using the first person plural throughout the passage to refer to Paul himself and his apostolic coworkers.53 Yet he uses the first person plural in vv 14-15 to refer to all believers, so it is not correct to say that Paul’s usage of the pronoun is totally consistent throughout. Moreover, it is not insignificant that vv 14-15 have the same scope as v 21 – namely, the substitutionary atoning death of Christ – and both use the preposition ὑπέρ to communicate this idea: in vv 14-15, we find ὑπὲρ πάντῶν (2x) and ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν (1x), while in v 21 we have ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν (1x), and all four occurrences are in connection with the “for us” formula of the primitive church’s confession of the atoning death of Christ (cp. Rom 5:8; 14:15; 1 Cor 15:3; Gal 1:4; 2:20; Eph 5:2, 25; 1 Tim 2:6).54 52 F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians (New Century Bible; London: Oliphants, 1971), 211. 53 “In the whole passage (2 Cor 4:7–6:13) Paul repeatedly refers to his own ministry … Almost every verse is about ‘we’ and ‘us’ in this restricted sense … We are ambassadors for the Messiah; God is appealing through us; we beseech people … The most natural way of reading verse 21 is then similarly focused on ‘we’: the apostolic ministry, exactly as in verses 18 and 19 ….” N. T. Wright, “Response to Edith Humphrey,” in Jesus, Paul and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N. T. Wright (ed. Nicholas Perrin and Richard B. Hays; Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2011), 180-1. 54 “The first person plural in v. 21 differs from that in v. 20. Together with vv. 14-15, v. 21 constitutes an inclusion of the passage.” Jan Lambrecht, Second Corinthians (SP 8; Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1999), 100.

A. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “God’s Covenant Faithfulness”

291

Second, and related to the first question, what is the meaning of the verb “become” (γενώμεθα)? If the “we” is the apostolic company, as distinct from all Christians, then v 21 is not primarily a statement about the atonement but about Paul’s ministry, and so the verse would have to be paraphrased in various ways to bring this out. For example, N. T. Wright paraphrases it, “that we might embody the covenant faithfulness of God.”55 Others adopt similar views.56 Stegman interprets the verb γενώμεθα as denoting a change of nature or an entry into a new condition. He also appeals to 2 Cor 1:19, which uses another form of the same verb: “in him the Yes has come to be (γέγονεν).”57 Stegman connects the “Yes” and “Amen” language of 2 Cor 1:19-20 with δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in 2 Cor 5:21. Thus, he interprets 2 Cor 5:21 as saying that God’s covenant faithfulness has been brought about by Jesus’ faithfulness (πίστις Χριστοῦ) and continues to be revealed through those who embody Christ’s faithfulness.58 However, Wright’s and Stegman’s emphasis on the continuation of Christ’s ministry in the present through the ongoing ministry of Paul and others like him seems to fly in the face of the two aorists used in the verse: just as God “made” (ἐποίησεν – aorist indicative) Jesus to be sin on the cross, so we “become” (γενώμεθα – aorist subjunctive) the righteousness of God in him. There is little room for the notion of process in these two verbs; the accent seems to be on two completed judicial actions, one a verdict against Christ on the cross and the other a verdict in favor of believers, which verdict becomes ours in union with Christ’s resurrection justification (cp. Rom 4:25). The two aorists therefore support the consistently forensic reading of the verse.59 It is noteworthy that for both Wright and Stegman, the full Pauline significance of ἐν αὐτῷ is diminished and does not, at least in this text, carry the theological

55 N. T. Wright, Reflecting the Glory: Meditations for Living Christ’s Life in the World (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1998), 54. Cp. idem, “On Becoming the Righteousness of God,” in Pauline Theology, Vol. 2: 1 & 2 Corinthians (ed. David M. Hay; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 200-8; idem, What Saint Paul Really Said (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997),1045; idem, Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3: The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 305-6; idem, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009), 165-66. 56 “As Christ, bearing humanity’s judgment, became sin’s representative on the cross, so ministers of the new covenant represent God’s righteousness to those they exhort. Although Paul would no doubt apply the principle to any believers who shared the gospel with others, they are ‘God’s righteousness’ not as ‘the justified’ but as agents of the message of God being reconciled with the world.” Craig S. Keener, 1–2 Corinthians (NCBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 187. 57 Thomas Stegman, The Character of Jesus: The Linchpin to Paul’s Argument in 2 Corinthians (AnBib 158; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2005), 281. 58 Stegman, The Character of Jesus, 281. 59 Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 314 n66.

292

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

freight of soteric union with Christ.60 Wright does not give much focused attention to the ἐν αὐτῷ, but in taking it with γενώμεθα, he makes Paul the “embodiment” or “incarnation” of God’s covenant faithfulness by means of his imitation of Christ in humble service to the point of death.61 He appeals to the concept of the ambassador (although Paul does not use the noun πρεσβευτής, he does use the verb πρεσβεύομεν, v 20) as one “who represents the one for whom he speaks in such a full and thorough way that he actually becomes the living embodiment of his sovereign – or perhaps … we should equally say the dying embodiment.”62 So for Wright, “in Christ” must indicate that Paul’s ministry represents, embodies, or incarnates Christ’s. Stegman, moving even further from the Pauline “in Christ” concept, takes ἐν as signifying cause or reason, diminishing the significance of ἐν Χριστῷ to that of a mere model.63 This is all the more problematic when one remembers that the concept of union with Christ is used in the full soteric sense only a few verses earlier: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation (ὥστε εἴ τις ἐν Χριστῷ, καινὴ κτίσις). The old has passed away; behold, the new has come” (v 17 ESV). A third question is the meaning of ἁμαρτία, which occurs twice in this verse: “Him who knew no sin, for our sake he made to be sin” (τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν) (trans. mine). Some scholars take the two instances of ἁμαρτία in different senses: (1) the usual meaning of transgression of God’s will; (2) as a technical term for the sin offering, following LXX usage.64 However, the full phrase typically used in the LXX is περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας (LXX Lev 5:6-13). Paul uses περὶ ἁμαρτίας in Rom 8:3 to make clear his intention of alluding to the sin offering, though this is also disputed. But the prepositional phrase is lacking in 2 Cor 5:21. If he used the propositional phrase in Rom 8:3, why did he abandon it in 2 Cor 5:21? It stretches credulity to think that with the single word ἁμαρτία Paul was able to signal an allusion to something as specific as the sin offering of Leviticus 5. This interpretation of 2 Cor 5:21 becomes 60 Murray J. Harris rightly complains that Wright’s interpretation “robs the characteristically Pauline phrase ἐν Χριστῷ of its potency.” Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 456 n207. 61 “It is the covenant faithfulness of the one true God, now active through the paradoxical Christ-shaped ministry of Paul, reaching out with the offer of reconciliation to all who hear his bold preaching.” Wright, “On Becoming the Righteousness of God,” 206. 62 Wright, “On Becoming the Righteousness of God,” 206 (emphasis his). 63 “It is because of Christ that the apostle and others can embody the former’s πίστις. That is, Jesus modeled forth obedience to God and living for the advantage of others.” Stegman, The Character of Jesus, 281 (emphasis his). 64 Murray J. Harris, 452-53; Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians (WBC 40; Waco: Word Books, 1986), 140, 157; Thomas D. Stegman, SJ, Second Corinthians (CCSS; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 143-44. This was the position adopted by Augustine, Ambrosiaster, Aquinas, and Calvin. The history of interpretation of this verse is documented in Stanislas Lyonnet and Léopold Sabourin, Sin, Redemption, and Sacrifice: A Biblical and Patristic Study (AnBib 48; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1971), 185-296.

A. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “God’s Covenant Faithfulness”

293

even more difficult when one considers that sacrificial language of any kind is lacking in the immediate context, such as is found, for example, in Rom 3:25 (ἱλαστήριον) or 1 Cor 5:7 (τὸ πάσχα ἡμῶν ἐτύθη Χριστός). Further reinforcing the interpretation of ἁμαρτία as “sin” is the fact that it would seem to be necessary to maintain the same meaning in both instances, or else the paradox is obscured. Paul is pointing out the paradox that the one who knew no sin was made sin for us, thus strongly making the point that he died as a substitute who bore the punishment for sin that we deserved. Finally, the antithetical parallelism of the text’s structure places ἁμαρτία (both times) as the antithesis of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, as the following chiasm shows:65 τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ The verse is divided into two slightly unequal parts, and with the exception of the introductory “him who knew no sin,” each half has a corresponding parallel member in the second half. Thus ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν in v 21a has its answering ἐν αὐτῷ in v 21b, both focusing on the “sweet exchange” grounded in the substitutionary/ representative work of Christ – he punished for us and we justified in him. Similarly, the verb ἐποίησεν finds its response in γενώμεθα, for just as God “made” Jesus to be sin, so we “become” the righteousness of God in him. These rather realistic verbs must be taken in a judicial and representative sense. Jesus was not literally turned into sin, but rather he suffered the penal judgment that sin deserves; in other words, he was treated by God as a sinner.66 So “in him,” we are not literally God’s own righteousness, but rather those united to Christ are regarded and treated in the eyes of divine justice as perfectly righteous.67 65 My chiastic analysis is derived from C. K. Barrett’s, but with slight differences and set forth in a different format. Barrett acknowledged that “though the parallelism is close, the chiasmus is imperfect.” Barrett, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1973), 179. 66 Compare the similar language in Gal 3:13: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us (γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα)” (ESV). Christ did not literally become a curse; he endured the curse of the law in our stead. 67 “With ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν the abstract is used for the concrete (= ἁμαρτωλόν), just as with δικαιοσύνη (= δίκαιοι), so as to make clear the principal meaning of the clause … The meaning is, just as believers are ‘just’ because God regards (‘reckons’) and treats them as such, though they are sinners, so Christ is regarded and treated by God as a sinner … though he is sinless.” Rudolf Bultmann, The Second Letter to the Corinthians (trans. Roy A. Harrisville;

294

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

And, finally, we come to the question of the meaning of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in this verse. N. T. Wright, as we would expect, is consistent with his premise and translates it “the covenant faithfulness of God,” but he is not alone in taking the phrase in this way.68 Then there are those commentators, such as Frank Matera, who follow the standard Protestant line when it comes to the first half of the verse, about Christ becoming sin for us, and who do not agree with Wright’s translation of “covenant faithfulness,” but who want to bring in the idea of moral transformation, thus blurring the line between justification and sanctification. They usually appeal to the “new creation” imagery a few verses earlier (v 17) and argue that being “in Christ” is not merely a forensic reality but a transformative one as well.69 This may indeed be true, but it is incorrect to equate δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ with καινὴ κτίσις. For although both are apprehended and realized ἐν Χριστῷ, the former is the judicial basis of the latter, that is, the status of righteousness is the ground of the renewed moral life.70 In and of itself, the lexeme δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ does not denote the renewed life any more than the ἁμαρτία that Christ became denotes his actually becoming a sinner in an intrinsic moral sense. To be sure, both spiritual realities – justification and sanctification – are involved in the totality of salvation, which Paul in this context speaks of under the metaphor of “reconciliation to God.” Yet while inseparable, justification and sanctification must be distinguished both conceptually and lexically. Additionally, the purely forensic reading of “that we might become the righteousness of God in him” is supported not only by the antithetical parallel of Jesus who was “made sin” in a purely forensic sense, but also by the earlier reference to God “not counting their trespasses against them” (μὴ λογιζόμενος αὐτοῖς τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν, v 19). Earlier in the epistle, δικαιοσύνη (“righteousness”) and κατακρίσις (“condemnation”) are paired as opposites (2 Cor 3:9). Thus “not counting their trespasses against them” and “becoming the righteousness of God in him” denote the twin forensic soteric realities of the forgiveness of sins and the reckoning of righteousness in union with Christ.71 Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985), 165. Similarly Frank Matera, II Corinthians (NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 144 (at least with regard to v 21a). 68 “Our Spirit-empowered transformation becomes the visible manifestation of the ongoing fulfillment of God’s promises (3:1-6; see Jer 31:31-33; Ezek 11:19; 36:26-27). Thus God’s covenant faithfulness – his righteousness – continues to be revealed through us in the here and now.” Stegman, Second Corinthians, 144-45 (emphasis his). However, Stegman differs from Wright in that he argues that, while admitting that ἡμεῖς refers primarily to Paul and those commissioned to be ambassadors for Christ, nevertheless “all Christians are to become the righteousness of God in some manner.” Stegman, The Character of Jesus, 275 n742 (emphasis his). 69 Matera, 145. 70 “The new creation of verse 17 and the righteousness of verse 21 are not synonymous; the latter is the ground of the former.” Barrett, 181. 71  Paul Barnett, 315.

A. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “God’s Covenant Faithfulness”

295

As we saw in our study of Rom 3:5 and 25-26 above, so too in 2 Cor 5:21 the covenantal interpretation of righteousness in Paul does not rest on a solid foundation. These are the three Pauline passages that have been repeatedly used to support the view that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Paul can mean “God’s covenant faithfulness.” We have already seen that, apart from a very limited collection of texts that are best understood in terms of correctness or integrity in one’s speech, the Hebraic/relational or covenantal interpretation of “righteousness” has little justification in the OT or in the Jewish literature. But I have taken the time to engage in the exegesis of these Pauline texts that have been used to argue for a covenantal interpretation just in case, by some semantic miracle, a relational or covenantal overtone from the Hebrew still managed to enter into Paul’s Greek usage. After all, Paul was trained at the feet of Gamaliel in Jerusalem, and was able to speak fluent Hebrew or Aramaic (Acts 22:2); so we may reasonably assume that he could read the OT in Hebrew. Yet as we have seen, the minute chance that Paul intended to convey the notion of God’s faithfulness to his covenant has not been borne out in these three Pauline texts. 4. Other Greek Words for “Faithfulness” Before moving on to the next section, I would like to round out this section with another observation that puts the matter to rest. It is indeed correct that Paul affirms the theological truth that God is utterly faithful to keep his promises. At issue here is not the reality of God’s covenant faithfulness, but what Greek terms Paul uses to refer to it. It is a fact that when Paul speaks of God’s covenant faithfulness, he does not appropriate words from the ΔΙΚ-group but instead uses terms such as πίστις, ἀλήθεια, and βεβαιόω. There is also a perfectly good word for “faithfulness” in Greek (πιστότης) that Paul could have used. Paul does not use this exact word, but he comes close. He speaks of “the faithfulness of God” (ἡ πίστις τοῦ θεοῦ) (Rom 3:3). Three times he says that “God is faithful” (πιστὸς ὁ θεός) (1 Cor 1:9; 10:13; 2 Cor 1:18), and on other occasions he uses the adjective πιστός in reference to God or Christ (1 Thess 5:24; 2 Thess 3:3; 2 Tim 2:13). In addition, Paul uses a variety of phrases and idioms to affirm that God keeps his promises, but none of them involves the use of “righteousness” terminology: “… so that the promise (ἡ ἐπαγγελία) will be guaranteed (βέβαιος) to all the seed” (Rom 4:16); “With respect to the promise (ἡ ἐπαγγελία) of God he did not waver in unbelief … being fully assured that what God had promised (ἐπήγγελται), he was able also to perform” (Rom 4:20-21); “It is not as though the word of God has failed” (Rom 9:6); “The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29); “For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of God’s truthfulness (ἀλήθεια θεοῦ) to confirm (εἰς τὸ βεβαιῶσαι = ‘in order to fulfill’ [BDAG]) the promises (αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι) given to the fathers” (Rom 15:8); “For as many as are the promises (ἐπαγγελίαι) of God, in him they are yes ... Now he who establishes (ὁ βεβαιῶν) us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God” (2 Cor 1:20-21); “the Law, which came 430 years later, does not invalidate

296

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise (ἡ ἐπαγγελία)” (Gal 3:17). Paul frequently uses the noun or verb for “promise” in the contexts where he wants to affirm the faithfulness of God. Yet the words for “promise” are strikingly absent from the contexts where Paul speaks of “the righteousness of God.” This suggests that the translation “the covenant faithfulness of God” is incorrect. Also, if δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ means “God’s covenant faithfulness,” why does Paul not use the lexeme in Romans 11, the one place where Paul explicitly addresses the question of God’s covenant faithfulness in maintaining his promises to Israel based on his divine election?

B. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “God’s Saving Activity or Power” If δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ does not mean “God’s covenant faithfulness” in Paul, is it possible that it means “God’s saving activity or power,” either without the added notion that this saving activity is in fulfillment of his covenant promises, or with that added notion only playing a secondary role? Going all the way back to Cremer, most scholars who adopt the subjective genitive interpretation of the phrase tend to combine the two meanings “God’s covenant faithfulness” and “God’s saving activity or power” (e.g., Käsemann, Dunn). They would see the two elements as connected because God exercises his saving power in fulfillment of his covenant promises. Yet as I argued in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5, there are many examples (41 in the OT; 35 in the DSS) where “God’s righteousness” (typically with the pronoun “his, your, my”) is used in the sense of God’s judicial activity that results in the punishment of Israel’s enemies, thereby delivering and vindicating his people. This delivering usage is logically distinct from the very small handful of cases where “righteousness” is used in a way that indicates correctness or integrity in speech and which can be used in covenantal contexts (Neh 9:8; Hos 2:19-20; Zech 9:9). These two views, while combined in the minds of many scholars in various ways, are technically distinct albeit (in the minds of many scholars) related concepts. Some scholars distinguish the concepts quite clearly and see only one of the aspects of meaning as activated in Paul’s lexeme. For example, N. T. Wright hones in on “covenant faithfulness” as the primary focus of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Paul, seeing “salvation” as the outworking and demonstration of God’s faithfulness.72 On the other hand, Douglas A. Campbell flips the emphasis by 72 N. T. Wright: “This is a well-known problem in relation to ‘righteousness’ and ‘salvation,’ as frequently in Isaiah 40–55. The two sit side by side so often that people have often been tempted to say that ‘righteousness’ there means ‘salvation.’ But that is misleading. Words cannot simply be telescoped into one another like that … God’s righteousness is that quality or attribute because of which he saves his people. His ‘acts of righteousness’ are thus the acts

B. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “God’s Saving Activity or Power”

297

adopting the “saving activity/power” interpretation and arguing that the “covenant faithfulness” resonances are not explicitly activated.73 Let us then critically examine the arguments for the view that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is to be interpreted as God’s saving activity/power, with the “covenant faithfulness” dimension placed in a secondary role or possibly even dismissed. 1. Δύναμις Θεοῦ and Ὀργὴ Θεοῦ as Subjective Genitives Perhaps the most common argument is that θεοῦ in δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ should be taken as a subjective genitive denoting God’s saving activity/power because that is how θεοῦ functions in the two genitival phrases in the verses immediately preceding and following Rom 1:17: δύναμις θεοῦ (v 16) and ὀργὴ θεοῦ (v 18). Some scholars also point to two phrases that occur a few chapters later (ἡ πίστις τοῦ θεοῦ [Rom 3:3] and ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ θεοῦ [Rom 3:7]). In all four cases, the genitive qualifier θεοῦ makes the noun a divine attribute or activity: it is God’s own “power,” “wrath,” “faithfulness,” and “truth.” In none of these cases is the genitive θεοῦ to be interpreted as indicating that “power,” “wrath,” “faithfulness,” or “truth” comes from God. Adolf Schlatter puts it this way: “After the preceding ‘power of God’ and parallel to the following phrase ‘wrath of God,’ there is no doubt about the meaning of the genitive. The righteousness is as much God’s own as the power and the wrath are his own.”74 But there is no grammatical rule that an author must be absolutely consistent in his usage of the genitive. It is well-known that the genitive is perhaps one of the most flexible cases in Greek, indicating a seemingly infinite variety of relationships with the head noun.75 Paul is not bound to use θεοῦ in the same syntactical sense in every instance. Indeed, he uses it in a variety of ways in the near context. In Romans, θεοῦ is used in a variety of ways.

that he performs as outworkings or demonstrations of his covenant faithfulness.” Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove: IVP, 2009), 71. 73 Douglas A. Campbell: “Covenantal associations are consequently possible but not necessary semantic resonances of the phrase δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, and we would need contextual information to activate them in Paul … In the immediate location of [Rom] 1:16-17, and its particular allusions to Psalm 98, I see nothing that activates such specific resonances explicitly … In sum, it seems that – on internal grounds – δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul denotes a singular, saving, liberating, life-giving, eschatological act of God in Christ.” The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 700-2. 74 Adolf Schlatter, Romans: The Righteousness of God (trans. Siegfried S. Schatzmann; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995), 20. 75 C. F. D. Moule calls the genitive an “immensely versatile and hard-worked case.” An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 37.

298

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

Possessive genitive – attribute or quality of God • τὸ χρηστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ (“the kindness of God,” Rom 2:4) • θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη (“God righteousness/justice,” Rom 3:5) • πνεῦμα θεοῦ (“the Spirit of God,” Rom 8:9) • ἀποτομία θεοῦ (“the severity of God,” Rom 11:22) • ἀλήθεια θεοῦ (“God’s truthfulness/faithfulness,” Rom 15:8) Subjective genitive • τὸ κρίμα τοῦ θεοῦ (“the judgment of God,” Rom 2:2-3) • δικαιοκρισία τοῦ θεοῦ (“the righteous judgment of God,” Rom 2:5) • ἡ ἐπαγγελία τοῦ θεοῦ (“the promise of God,” Rom 4:20) • ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ (“the love of God,” Rom 8:39) • ἡ πρόθεσις τοῦ θεοῦ (“the purpose of God,” Rom 9:11) Objective genitive • τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ (“what can be known about God,” Rom 1:19) • ζῆλος θεοῦ (“zeal for God,” Rom 10:2) Genitive of origin or source • εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ (“the gospel of God,” Rom 1:1)76 • ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ (“the grace of God,” Rom 5:15) • τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ (“the gift of God,” Rom 6:23) In each case, the significance of the genitive is quite clear from the context; or, more precisely, the lexical semantics of the nomen regens (the head noun) in relation to the meaning of the nomen rectum (the noun modifying, qualifying or restricting the head noun in the genitive case) is ultimately the decisive factor determining the precise syntactical force of the genitive. Even the same genitive phrase can be used in more than one sense. For example, “the glory of God” (ἡ δόξα τοῦ θεοῦ) is used six times in Romans with a variety of nuances: as a divine attribute or quality possessed by God alone (“the glory of the immortal God,” Rom 1:23; “my falsehood increases his glory,” Rom 3:7); as a divine standard to which humans can attain (“all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” Rom 3:23); and as an eschatological hope connected to the physical glory of the resurrection body (“we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God,” Rom 5:2; “raised from the dead through the glory of the Father,” Rom 6:4).77 The word θεοῦ in this third usage could be interpreted as a genetivus auctoris, since bodily δόξα or glorification comes from God and is given to those who are the objects of God’s powerful resurrection activity, i.e., “those whom 76 “The genitive θεοῦ indicates origin … God is the author of the message not only in that it is He who is now setting it forth, speaking through those who proclaim it, but also in that He has purposed it from all eternity, promised it in the OT scriptures (cf. v. 2), and brought it into being by the gospel events.” Cranfield, 1.55 n1; Dunn, 1.10. 77 Cp. “the glory that will be revealed in us” (Rom 8:18), and Paul’s usage of δόξα in 1 Corinthians 15 (e.g., the body “is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory,” v 43).

B. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “God’s Saving Activity or Power”

299

he justified, he also glorified (ἐδόξασεν)” (Rom 8:30), “being transformed from glory to glory (ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν)” (2 Cor 3:18). Furthermore, taking δύναμις θεοῦ and ὀργὴ θεοῦ as direct parallels of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is misleading, since such a reading glosses over the structural relationships among the three theological concepts. In order to see those relationships, it is worth quoting Rom 1:15-18 as a whole. This passage is remarkable for being structured around a series of four clauses each introduced by a post-positive γάρ, with the first three being used with the usual causal meaning providing the reason or explanation for the previous clause, and the fourth (v 18) being used in a looser sense.78 So, as far as lies with me, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. For (γάρ) I am not ashamed of the gospel, for (γάρ) it is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For (γάρ) in it [viz. the gospel] the righteousness of God is revealed by faith unto faith, as it is written, “He who is righteous by faith shall live.” 18 For (γάρ) the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of humans who suppress the truth in unrighteousness (translation mine). 15 16

The power of God and the righteousness of God are not on the same level in this passage, as if the two terms were parallel to one another on the same semantic plane. Rather, the first statement explains why Paul is not ashamed of the gospel, with γάρ functioning as a marker of the reason for the preceding clause. He is not ashamed of the gospel, “for it is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes” (δύναμις γὰρ θεοῦ ἐστιν εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι). In other words, the gospel message about God’s act in Christ is the powerful means that God uses to save all who believe, whether Jew or Greek. A helpful parallel is 1 Cor 1:18, where Paul says that “the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is power of God (τοῖς δὲ σῳζομένοις ἡμῖν δύναμις θεοῦ ἐστιν)” (ESV), a statement that is then explained in other words a few verses later: For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe (διὰ τῆς μωρίας τοῦ κηρύγματος σῶσαι τοὺς πιστεύοντας). 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God (θεοῦ δύναμιν) and the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:21-24 ESV). 21

The point is that the gospel message is “the power of God unto salvation” in the sense that it is the powerful means that God uses to save those who believe, that is, to save them from perishing in God’s wrath. The wrath of God is the judicial backdrop of the salvation that comes through the gospel. Although in



 “Marker of clarification, for, you see” (BDAG γάρ 2).

78

300

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

Rom 1:18-32 the wrath of God is a present reality revealed in the progressive handing over of sinners to greater and greater depravity, in Romans 2 it is a future, eschatological reality, “the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed” (Rom 2:5), “the day when God judges the secrets of humans” (Rom 2:16). The present revelation of God’s wrath in the sad tale of human sin is a foretaste and sign of “the wrath to come” (ἡ ὀργὴ ἡ ἐρχομένη) (1 Thess 1:10; cp. Col 3:6; Eph 5:6). The wrath of God is a presently revealed reality that points to a future, eschatological outpouring of wrath on the day of judgment. This brings us to v 17. The antithesis of eschatological wrath is eschatological salvation, and righteousness (or justification) is the middle term that provides the now-in-the-gospel-revealed means for the transition from wrath to salvation.79 Paul will make the connection of these three terms (wrath  righteousness by faith  salvation) explicit later on: “Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God” (Rom 5:9 ESV). But we see the same connection in the first chapter of Romans. Why is the gospel God’s powerful means for saving people from perishing under God’s eschatological wrath? Because in it the righteousness of God is revealed, a righteousness that is received by faith and offered to faith. For Paul, righteousness is the precondition of life (ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται, Hab 2:4/Rom 1:17; cp. δικαίωσις ζωῆς [“justification that brings life,” NIV], Rom 5:18). But “there is none righteousness, not even one” (οὐκ ἔστιν δίκαιος οὐδὲ εἷς, Rom 3:10); therefore, in the gospel message about the death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah is revealed the righteousness that comes from God as a gift (Rom 5:17) offered to all who believe, whether Jew or Gentile, and received by faith. Just as God’s eschatological wrath is coming because of human “unrighteousness” (ἀδικία – 2x in Rom 1:18), so eternal life will be given to those who are “righteous before God” (δίκαιοι παρὰ τῷ θεῷ, Rom 2:13), not by doing the righteousness required by the law, but by believing in Christ and trusting in him “for righteousness” (εἰς δικαιοσύνην, Rom 10:4, 10). So it is incorrect to place these three genitival phrases on the same level as non-hierarchical parallels. Rather, one must pay close attention to the conceptual relationships in Paul’s thought. The wrath of God is the backdrop of salvation. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation. And the righteousness of God, by faith for faith (ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν), that is, the offer of “the righteousness of faith,” is the central content of the gospel message (Rom 10:6-11) by which it becomes God’s power for delivering all who believe from God’s wrath and granting them eschatological life. 79 Peter Stuhlmacher is correct to point out that v 18 and v 17 are closely connected, but rather than locating the antithesis between “salvation” and “wrath,” he locates the antithesis between “God’s righteousness” and “God’s wrath,” thus missing the crucial and distinctive role of “righteousness by faith” as the means of salvation from wrath. Stuhlmacher, Romans, 35.

B. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “God’s Saving Activity or Power”

301

2. Intertextual Allusions to the OT Another argument for taking δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as a subjective genitive that refers to God’s “saving activity or power” is based on the claim that Paul’s use of the phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is an intertextual allusion to one or more OT passages. Since (it is assumed) these OT passages use the language of God’s righteousness to refer to God’s saving activity (and, it is sometimes added, a saving activity that is in fulfillment of God’s covenant promises), this OT meaning is transmitted into Paul’s usage by means of intertextuality. I will address two intertextuality arguments. The first one relies on Paul’s use of Psalm 143:2MT/142:2LXX (“no one living will be justified before you”) in Rom 3:20. It is argued that Paul’s use of that sentence carries with it an implied allusion to other references in the same psalm to God’s righteousness, which are then carried over into the next verse (Rom 3:21) and shed light on the meaning of Paul’s use of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ there.80 The second intertextuality argument is that the collocation of the three terms “salvation,” “righteousness,” and “revealed” in Rom 1:16-17 suggests the presence of an intertextual allusion to Psalm 98:2MT/ 97:2LXX and possibly to Isaiah 56:1 and other similar passages in Deutero-Isaiah.81 And since “the righteousness of God” in these OT passages is clearly a iustitia salutifera – YHWH’s righteousness exercised not merely as an attribute but as a saving power – that OT usage determines and defines Paul’s intended meaning when he speaks of “the righteousness of God.” Before engaging these two intertextuality arguments, it will be useful to start out by making some global remarks about the concept of intertextuality. To begin with, we must question the manner in which intertextuality argumentation is performed by its most well-known advocate, Richard B. Hays. In his hands it is performed too subjectively to provide a sound basis for exegetical and theological conclusions. Although Hays tries to create a semblance of objectivity by setting out seven criteria (or “rules of thumb”)82 for determining the presence of intertextual echoes in Paul, on closer inspection these rules do little to assure us that the method has exegetical validity. The seven criteria proposed by Hays are: (1) availability (Was the proposed source of the echo available to the author and/or original readers?), (2) volume (How distinctive or prominent is the precursor text within Scripture?), (3) recurrence (How often does Paul elsewhere 80 Richard B. Hays, “Psalm 143 and the Logic of Romans 3,” JBL 99 (1980): 107-115. 81 Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 36-38; Douglas A. Campbell, “An Echo of Scripture in Paul, and Its Implications,” in The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays (eds. J. Ross Wagner, C. Kavin Rowe, and A. Katherine Grieb; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 367-91; republished as “The Meaning of δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Romans: An Intertextual Suggestion,” in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture (eds. Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley; SBLSS 50; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 189-212. 82 Hays, Echoes, 29-32.

302

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

cite or allude to the same scriptural passage?), (4) thematic coherence (How well does the alleged echo fit into the line of argument that Paul is developing?), (5) historical plausibility (Could Paul have intended and his readers have understood the alleged meaning effect?), (6) history of interpretation (Have other readers heard the same echoes?), and (7) satisfaction (Does the proposed reading make sense and illuminate the surrounding discourse?). As Stanley Porter has pointed out, there are problems with Hays’s criteria.83 The first three criteria (availability, volume, and recurrence) are not decisive. While it is true that the text alluded to must be available to the author who is alluding to it, this is not the case for the audience. An audience may or may not have access to the text being alluded to, and yet it may be known to the author and he may still be alluding to it whether or not his audience can detect the reference. Volume and recurrence set the bar too high, since there is no necessity for the OT text cited to be prominent in the OT (and how would that be determined?), nor is there any reason why Paul must allude to a text more than once. Many unmarked OT allusions to seemingly obscure phrases and sentences (typically from the Septuagint) are found but once in Paul’s epistles.84 The fifth criterion (“historical plausibility”) is not valid because it limits the author’s ability to make an allusion to what the audience could have understood. Different members of the audience may have differing degrees of knowledge of the Scriptures. An audience can also change: an allusion that a first century audience may have missed could be recognized by a later, more educated audience (and vice versa). The seventh criterion (“history of interpretation”) is far from determinative, since there may be allusions that previous interpreters missed or simply failed to comment on. That leaves us, then, with the fourth and the seventh criteria, “thematic coherence” and “satisfaction.” With regard to the seventh criterion, although he regards it “the most important test,” Hays admits that it is “difficult to articulate precisely without falling into the affective fallacy.”85 And when he explains the criterion further, he rewords it as a question, asking, “Does it illuminate the surrounding discourse?”86 Yet this is hard to distinguish from the question he had asked in defining the fourth criterion: “How well does the alleged echo fit into 83 Stanley Porter, “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology,” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals (ed. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders; JSNTSup 148; SSEJC 5; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 83. 84 Examples noted in the margin of Nestle-Aland (editions 26–28) include Rom 9:20 (Isa 29:16LXX); Rom 9:21 (Jer 18:6 LXX); 1 Cor 4:4 (Job 27:6 LXX); 1 Cor 15:32 (Isa 22:13LXX); 2 Cor 9:10 (Isa 55:10LXX); Gal 3:17 (Exod 12:40LXX); Gal 3:19 (Lev 26:46LXX); Phil 1:19 (Job 13:16LXX); Phil 2:15 (Deut 32:5LXX); Phil 4:18 (Gen 8:21LXX; Exod 29:18 LXX; Ezek 20:41LXX); 2 Thess 1:9 (Isa 2:10, 19, 21LXX); 2 Thess 1:10 (Ps 88:8LXX; 67:36LXX). 85 Hays, Echoes, 31. 86 Ibid., 31.

B. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “God’s Saving Activity or Power”

303

the line of argument that Paul is developing?”87 These two criteria really seem, in the final analysis, to be one and the same. So the decisive criteria are “thematic coherence” and “satisfaction,” but they presuppose that one’s interpretation of “the line of the argument” and “the surrounding discourse” is correct to begin with. But in the debate over δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, this is precisely what is in question. So the Hays method of intertextuality becomes rather circular and consequently unhelpful. Ultimately, the seven criteria are negated by Hays’s own insistence that the determination of authorial intent is neither possible nor necessary.88 Now in spite of these concerns about subjectivity, we cannot totally dismiss the exegetical method of intertextual allusion. As practiced by Hays it may be too subjective to be useful. But could not the method be reformulated and redeemed? Indeed, it must be admitted that intertextuality – particularly as applied to the Gerechtigkeit Gottes discussion – has prima facie plausibility, since Paul states that “the righteousness of God” is “testified to by the law and the prophets” (μαρτυρουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν) (Rom 3:21). If the concept of “the righteousness of God” was not invented by Paul but is a reality that Paul himself confesses to have been previously attested in the OT, then this provides support for the search for intertextual OT allusions. However, that search must be conducted using the proper hermeneutical procedure. With respect to the two intertextuality arguments being examined here, Hays and Campbell utilize the misguided hermeneutical procedure of starting with what they perceive the OT Sprachgebrauch to be and then using that as the yardstick and canon to absolutely determine and define Paul’s usage, rather than vice versa. There is perhaps no one with more authority on this question of methodology than Florian Wilk, who has written an acclaimed dissertation on the significance of Isaiah for Paul.89 As Wilk has pointed out, in contrast with the methodology of Hays and his students (e.g., J. Ross Wagner), the proper procedure is not to begin with an analysis of the OT passages and then to understand Paul’s use of the passages in light of the meaning determined by the exegete of the OT passage, but rather to conduct the exegesis of Paul’s usage of the OT passage quoted, and then to observe the extent to which Paul’s appropriation of the OT passage is consistent with the context of the passage 87 Hays, Echoes, 30. 88 “To limit our interpretation of Paul’s scriptural echoes to what he intended by them is to impose a severe and arbitrary hermeneutical restriction … Later readers will rightly grasp meanings of the figures that may have been veiled from Paul himself.” Ibid., 33, cp. 156. 89 Florian Wilk, Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus (FRLANT 179; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998). 90 Florian Wilk, “Paul as User, Interpreter, and Reader of the Book of Isaiah,” in Reading the Bible Intertextually (ed. Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga; Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009), 83-99. Wilk puts it this way: “One must clarify where the appropriate starting point of such a study lies. Appealing to Richard Hays’ concept of intertextuality, Ross Wagner begins, in each case, with the analysis of the Old Testament passages … This

304

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

quoted.90 In their intertextuality arguments from Psalms 98MT/97LXX and 143MT/ 142LXX, Hays and Campbell start with what they presume to be the known meaning of “God’s righteousness” in the OT (relying on the relational theory that it means God’s saving power/activity or his covenant faithfulness or some combination of the two ideas) and then import that meaning into Paul’s usage of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. But it is hermeneutically more proper to follow Wilk’s exegetical procedure of moving from Paul to the OT. When we examine Paul’s usage of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Rom 1:17; 3:21-22; 10:3; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9 (excluding Rom 3:5, 25-26 for reasons given below), we find that for Paul it is a gift from God. With that meaning in view, we can then ask whether Paul may be alluding to any of the OT texts that speak of God’s saving righteousness. In keeping with the concern regarding methodological direction is the observation that many of the OT passages that we have examined in Chapter Four may in fact be evidence of a notion of “the righteousness of God” that approaches and prepares for Paul’s usage of “a righteousness from God.” While the precise “gift” idea is not explicit in the OT, there is the sense of a vindication or a righteousness that comes from God to his oppressed people. We saw this in our treatment of Psalm 51:14; Isaiah 45:21-25; and Micah 7:7-9 in Chapter Four. Thus, following Wilk’s methodological procedure, we can recognize “a linguistic and notional convergence”91 between such OT passages and Paul. But we can be even more specific than this. When Paul says that the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is “attested by the law and the prophets,” what passages in “the law and the prophets” does Paul have in view? We are not left to our own speculations. There are only two texts cited by Paul in support of his doctrine of “righteousness by faith” – one from the law (Gen 15:6, cited in Rom 4:3 and Gal 3:6) and one from the prophets (Hab 2:4, cited in Rom 1:17 and Gal 3:11).92 approach is, however, exceedingly questionable … It is therefore essential to proceed from the Pauline texts and to study the particular surroundings of a formulation borrowed from the book of Isaiah to see to what extent it converges with the relevant Isaianic context. Thus, one has to ascertain where that context and those surroundings are connected conceptually or with motifs in such a way that the context may be understood to be congruous with the appropriated formulation” (pp. 87-88). 91 Wilk, “Paul as User, Interpreter, and Reader of the Book of Isaiah,” 87. 92 It might also be supposed that Ps 143:2MT/142:2LXX (used in Rom 3:20 and Gal 2:16) is a third OT text included in “the law and the prophets” in Paul’s mind. But there are two reasons for not including it as a positive witness to the righteousness of God. First, it is negative only, indicating that no one can be justified in God’s sight by one’s own works, and thus does not qualify for the OT revelation of the righteousness of God. In this sense, I grant that it is an implicit witness to the righteousness of God for Paul, but it is not to be classified along with the firm twin pillars of Gen 15:6 and Hab 2:4 as explicit witnesses. And, second, while Paul twice employs the language of Ps 143:2MT/142:2LXX, he does not introduce it with a citation formula or some sort of indicator that he is quoting Scripture, e.g., καθὼς γέγραπται (Rom 1:17); τί γὰρ ἡ γραφὴ λέγει; (Rom 4:3); etc. On the other hand, Ps 143:2MT/142:2LXX is relevant to the interpretation of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ since it explicitly specifies that the question has to do

B. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “God’s Saving Activity or Power”

305

And in both Gen 15:6 and Hab 2:4, the righteousness in view is not God’s own righteousness, whether conceived of as a divine attribute or a divine activity, but is a righteousness that believers possess before God (“Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” and “he who is righteous by faith shall live”). These two passages use the noun and the adjective from the ΔΙΚgroup – δικαιοσύνη in Gen 15:6 and δίκαιος in Hab 2:4 – in a manner that clearly has to do with the status of humans as “righteous” before God. Furthermore, both passages state that this status of righteousness before God is something that comes by faith: Gen 15:6 states that Abraham “believed” (ἐπίστευσεν) God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness; and Hab 2:4 says that he who is righteous “by faith in me” (ἐκ πίστεώς μου)93 shall live. And since Paul has said that “now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God is manifested, being testified to by the law and the prophets,” with these two texts being the only ones explicitly cited by Paul, this provides further support for taking δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as a status of righteousness from God (genetivus auctoris) rather than as a divine activity (subjective genitive). It is methodologically unsound to ignore the scriptural witnesses actually cited by Paul and to appeal rather to a subjective theory of intertextuality that begins with other texts in the OT never cited by Paul, interprets them according to Cremer’s relational theory of righteousness, and then takes those OT passages as determinative of Paul’s usage. The intertextual approach might be valid if it reinforced the meaning of the OT texts that Paul does cite, but as handled by Hays and Campbell it leads to an interpretation of “the righteousness of God” that stands in tension with the meaning that arises when that phrase is read in light of the scriptural witness of Gen 15:6 and Hab 2:4. The citation of these two texts is perhaps the strongest clue enabling us to discern Paul’s authorial intent behind the phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. Or to put it another way, the phrase itself may be ambiguous due to the various meanings of both the noun δικαιοσύνη and the genitive θεοῦ, but the meaning of the noun as “a status of righteousness” and the meaning of the genitive as identifying author or source are the meanings activated by the explicit scriptural citations in the immediate context. Other semantic and syntactic possibilities are thereby deactivated, or at least pushed into the background. If the meaning of God’s righteousness in Psalms 98MT/97LXX and 143MT/142LXX is relevant to Paul’s usage as possible, unstated allusions, they must be interpreted in a manner that is congruent with the known, explicit quotations of Gen 15:6 and Hab 2:4. We can pursue this investigation on a more sure methodological footing if we begin with the scriptural texts that Paul explicitly cites (Gen 15:6; Hab 2:4) and then move with the status of righteousness before God: “no one living shall be justified before you (οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐνώπιόν σου πᾶς ζῶν)” (LXX)  “no flesh shall be justified before him (οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ)” (Rom 3:20). 93 I take the pronoun μου in the LXX of Hab 2:4 to be an objective genitive. Paul drops the μου (because he regards the object of faith as Christ), but the fundamental meaning of the statement is not altered.

306

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

out from there to search for echoes of other OT passages that are consistent with that starting point. With these initial methodological concerns in place, let us now examine two of the most important intertextuality arguments. a. Psalm 143 The first intertextuality argument is based on Paul’s use of Psalm 143:2MT/ 142:2LXX in Rom 3:20-21. The language of the Psalm in the Septuagint (ὅτι οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐνώπιόν σου πᾶς ζῶν) (Ps 142:2LXX) is quoted or paraphrased94 by Paul in Rom 3:20 (διότι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ), in spite of the changes Paul has made to it. There are four changes, two minor and two major. The two minor changes are: (1) Paul has changed the sentence from a second person to a third person (by changing σου to αὐτοῦ), and (2) he has changed the word order by moving the subject (πᾶς ζῶν/σάρξ) in front of the prepositional phrase (ἐνώπιόν σου/αὐτοῦ). The two major changes are: (1) Paul has inserted ἐξ ἔργων νόμου into the sentence, an addition that amplifies the meaning of the psalm so as to more explicitly reflect his own theological concerns,95 and (2) he has replaced the LXX’s πᾶς ζῶν with a different phrase, πᾶσα σάρξ, presumably to clarify that “no one living” means “no fleshly, i.e., sinful human being” can be deemed righteous before God.96 Nevertheless, the core of the sentence (οὐ δικαιωθήσεται) remains intact and its primary point, that no (sinful) human being can be deemed righteous in God’s sight, remains. Although it is not flagged as a Scripture citation, the statement that “by works of the law no flesh will be justified in his sight” (Rom 3:20) would appear to be a deliberate use of Psalm 143 on Paul’s part. Noticing Paul’s use of the language of Ps 143:2MT/142:2LXX in Rom 3:20, Hays has attempted to mount an argument for taking δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Paul as God’s saving power in keeping with his covenant faithfulness that appeals to Psalm 94 Since this quotation is not marked as such, it may be identified either as an “unmarked quotation” or as a “paraphrase.” On the definitions of these terms, see Stanley E. Porter, “Further Comments on the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament,” in The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practice (ed. Thomas L. Brodie, Dennis R. MacDonald, and Stanley E. Porter; NTM 16; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006), 98-110. 95 Paul’s addition of ἐξ ἔργων νόμου “clarifies the psalmist’s statement, the intention of which was not to deny altogether the possibility of justification, but only (as is suggested by v. 2a) to deny the possibility of a man’s being justified on the basis of his deserts.” Cranfield, Romans, 1.197. Cranfield is appealing to the first verse-half not quoted by Paul: “And do not enter into judgment with your servant, because no one living will be counted righteous before you” (Ps 142:2LXX NETS mod). Cranfield’s observation is seconded by Moisés Silva in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 790-1.                 96 The phrase πᾶσα σάρξ (rendering ‫)כּל־בּשׂר‬, ָ ָ ָ though not employed in Ps 143MT/142LXX, is in any case a Hebraism found elsewhere in the Septuagint (see Gen 6:12; Ps 144:21LXX; Isa 40:5-6).

B. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “God’s Saving Activity or Power”

307

143MT/142LXX rather than to alleged parallels in apocalyptic Jewish literature (as Käsemann had attempted to argue).97 He argues that Psalm 143MT/142LXX is the background for Paul’s argument in Romans 3, which he sees as following the same pattern of thought. Hays suggests that Paul is not only citing v 2 of the Psalm but is also alluding to nearby verses in the same Psalm (namely vv 1 and 11) where the psalmist calls upon God to hear him and deliver him “in your [= God’s] righteousness.” Since the righteousness of God (according to Hays) in Psalm 143MT/142LXX is God’s covenant faithfulness, it follows that this is the meaning of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Rom 3:21, the very next verse after 3:20 where the Psalm is cited. The righteousness (covenant faithfulness) of God that the psalmist had prayed for has at last appeared in Jesus Christ.98 Hays argues that Paul is employing the literary technique of “metalepsis,” which he defines as “a rhetorical and poetic device in which one text alludes to an earlier text in a way that evokes resonances of the earlier text beyond those explicitly cited.”99 In response, this first intertextuality argument rests on the assumption that “the righteousness of God” in Psalm 143MT/142LXX means “God’s saving power/ activity in keeping with his faithfulness to his covenant,” an assumption which I have contested in Chapter Four. Hays appeals to the parallelism in Psalm 142:1LXX between the two lines in the second half of the verse: “Give ear to my prayer in your truth” (ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ σου) and “Hear me in your righteousness” (ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου). But not only is it incorrect to take the parallelism as perfectly synonymous, it is even questionable that God’s “truth” (ἀληθεία) means God’s covenant faithfulness. It is more likely that it means God’s integrity as a Judge whereby he judges between the psalmist and his enemies according to the truth, rightly or correctly punishing the wicked and rewarding the righteous.100 Hays’ further argument that the parallel between God’s truth and God’s righteousness (wherein both are understood as God’s faithfulness) is repeated in Rom 3:3, 5 has been answered above. Here we see the erroneous method of starting with a preformed notion of what “God’s righteousness” means in the OT, formed without reference to Paul’s 97 Richard B. Hays, “Psalm 143 and the Logic of Romans 3,” JBL 99 (1980): 107-115. So also N. T. Wright, who states that Paul’s allusion to Psalm 143:2 in Rom 3:20-21 “massively undergirds the assumption that the underlying subject is God’s own ‘righteousness.’” Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 995. 98 Hays, “Psalm 143,” 114. 99 Richard B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 2. 100 E.g., “If a king judges the poor with truthfulness (ἐν ἀληθείᾳ κρίνοντος), his throne will be established as a testimony” (Prov 29:14LXX NETS); “He [= the servant] will bring forth judgment unto truth” (εἰς ἀληθείαν ἐξοίσει κρίσιν) (Isa 42:3LXX NETS mod.); “You have executed judgments of truth (κρίματα ἀληθείας) in all you have brought upon us and upon Ierousalem … for by truth and judgment (ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ κρίσει) you have broughtTh/doneLXX all these things because of our sins” (Prayer of Azarias at Dan 3:28LXX/Th NETS).

308

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

usage, and making that the determinant of lexical meaning in Paul. Rather than moving from the OT to Paul, we ought to move the other way around, from Paul to the OT. When we do that, taking Hays’s argument and turn it on its head, we achieve a surprising result: Paul’s allusion in Rom 3:20 to Psalm 143:2MT/ 142:2LXX in the verse just prior to his use of “the righteousness of God” (Rom 3:21) shows that he would interpret “the righteousness of God” in that Psalm (and by extension, we may speculate, in all the Psalms) as “a righteousness from God.” b. Psalm 98 The second intertextuality argument is based on the statement in Psalm 98MT/97LXX that God “has revealed his righteousness in the sight of the nations” (ἐναντίον τῶν ἐθνῶν ἀπεκάλυψεν τὴν δικσαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ). This language could be seen as intentionally alluded to or at least unintentionally echoed by Paul in Rom 1:17 (δικαιοσύνη γὰρ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ [= ἐν τῷ εὐαγγέλιῳ] ἀποκαλύπτεται ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν). The most notable similarity between the two verses is the use of the same verb, “revealed” (ἀποκαλύπτω), as well as the fact that the sentence has God’s δικαιοσύνη as the direct object of the verb. Additionally, the reference to the revelation of the righteousness of God “in the sight of the nations/Gentiles” (τὰ ἔθνη) in Ps 98MT/97LXX fits nicely with Paul’s comment that the gospel is for the Jew first and also for the Gentile (Rom 1:16 and throughout Romans). And finally, both Ps 98MT/97LXX and Rom 1:16-17 refer to “salvation” in immediate proximity to “God’s righteousness.” As I argued in Chapter Four, Psalm 98MT/97LXX is a divine kingship Psalm in which the divine King/Warrior comes to the aid of his oppressed people by granting them victory over their foes. Thus, the revelation of God’s righteousness in Psalm 98MT/97LXX is a revelation of God’s saving justice in the form of his judicial decision in favor of his people through a military victory that is on the one hand a defeat for their oppressors (“the nations”) and on the other the vindication of God’s people “in the sight of the nations.” At first, it may seem that this Israelcentric conception of salvation opens up a major conceptual distance between Psalm 98MT/97LXX and Paul’s use of “the righteousness of God.” In Romans, the nations who believe in Jesus are equal recipients of God’s saving δικαιοσύνη along with the Jews who believe in Jesus. But in Psalm 98MT/97LXX, the covenant people are the immediate recipients of God’s saving δικαιοσύνη: “He has remembered his mercy to Jacob and his truth to the house of Israel” (v 3). The nations are called upon to rejoice in the fact that God has saved his people as mere bystanders and witnesses of God’s salvation shown to Israel: “All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God” (v 3). This is not an insuperable problem, however. For Paul can take such passages in the OT that literally speak of the Gentiles only rejoicing in the salvation that God has shown to Israel and expand them beyond their original meaning as prophetic of the Gentile mission and the inclusion of the Gentiles in the people of God. This is precisely what

B. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “God’s Saving Activity or Power”

309

Paul does in his explicit quotation of Deut 32:43 and Psalm 117:1MT/116:1LXX in Rom 15:10-11. Indeed, Psalm 98MT/97LXX itself could be interpreted this way, as looking ahead prophetically to the salvation of the Gentiles, for though the OT perspective is maintained in v 3, the perspective broadens at the end: Psalm 97:7-9LXX Let the sea shake, and all that fills it, the world and those who live in it. 8 Streams will together clap their hands; the mountains will rejoice, 9 because he has come to judge the earth (ὅτι ἥκει κρῖναι τὴν γῆν). He will judge the world with righteousness (κρινεῖ τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ) and the peoples with uprightness (NETS).

7

That last phrase, “He will judge the world with righteousness and the peoples with uprightness” stands in paradoxical relationship with Psalm 142:2LXX: “Do not enter into judgment with your servant, because no one living will be counted righteous before you” (NETS modified). If it is true that “no one living will be counted righteous” before God, how can the fact that God will judge the world with righteousness be a cause of joy (“streams will together clap their hands; the mountains will rejoice, because [ὅτι] he has come to judge the earth”)? Since we are engaging in the exegetical procedure of intertextuality at the level of allusions to the OT, absolute certainty is not possible. But if Paul can revel in the paradox of God’s justification of the ungodly in Rom 4:5 (intertextually alluding to Exod 23:7; Isa 5:23 while at the same turning them upside down in the paradox of grace),101 then why not here? In other words, the paradox of rejoicing in God’s coming to judge the earth is resolved for Paul because of the fact that the righteousness of God has been revealed in the cross so that God is both “just and the justifier” of those who believe in Jesus (Rom 3:24-26). We cannot be sure that Paul is alluding to Psalm 98MT/97LXX, but at the very least we can say that if Paul were asked to provide his commentary on that Psalm, he would interpret it in accordance with his own Rechtfertigungslehre and see in it a prophetic anticipation of the eschatological revelation of God’s righteousness in Christ available to all who believe, whether they belong to the people of God or are from the nations. In conclusion, these two intertextuality arguments from the Psalms do not, on further inspection, provide independent evidence that God’s righteousness means

101 “Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked” (Exod 23:7 ESV). “Woe to those … who acquit the guilty for a bribe, and deprive the innocent of his right!” (Isa 5:22-23 ESV). It is contrary to God’s moral integrity and justice to “acquit the guilty/wicked,” yet in Rom 4:5 Paul says that God is “he who acquits/ justifies the ungodly” (ὁ δικαιῶν τὸν ἀσεβῆ). The paradox is solved by the ἱλαστήριον so that God may be both “just and the justifier” (δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα) of those who put their faith in Jesus (Rom 3:25-26).

310

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

his saving power or activity as an expression of his faithfulness to the covenant. Rather, that interpretation of the phrase in the OT has been presupposed on other grounds and then imported into Paul’s use of the phrase by way of an intertextual highway that runs in the wrong direction. Nevertheless, if the flow of traffic on the intertextual highway is reversed, in which we begin with Paul’s usage of “the righteousness of God” and use that to inform our hypothesis as to how Paul might interpret the references to God’s righteousness in the Psalms, a suggestive intertextual connection can be made on the basis of a biblical-theological unity between Paul and the OT, though admittedly it lacks certainty since Paul does not explicitly quote these passages. At first, it may appear that the alleged intertextual allusions to the OT iustitia salutifera usage do not cohere well with Paul’s use of “the righteousness of God.” There is nothing in the context of Paul’s usage of this lexeme to suggest that he is thinking in terms of this delivering/vindicatory judicial context. In the ten “righteousness of God” passages there are no enemies or oppressors in view, nor are the oppressed righteous in need of God’s delivering and vindicating activity. Rather, in three cases he uses the lexeme in a straightforward manner to refer to God’s distributive justice (Rom 3:5, 25-26) and in the other seven cases to refer to the status of righteousness that comes from God and is received/appropriated by faith (Rom 1:17; 3:21-22; 10:3 [2x]; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9). Yet on closer inspection, we can see the coherence. If Paul were asked to interpret the meaning of God’s righteousness in Psalm 98MT/97LXX and 143MT/ 142LXX, he would no doubt take them as further scriptural support for his Rechtfertigungslehre. We can presume that, following the lead of Psalm 51:14, he would spiritualize both the enemies (so that they are understood as sin itself, viewed not only as actual transgression but as a power that reigns through guilt) and God’s activity of judicially defeating the enemies (understood as atoning and forgiving sin).102 This process of spiritualizing the enemies so that sin itself is one of the enemies is incipient even in the OT itself. For example, in Ps 65:3 (“when iniquities prevail against me, you atone for our transgressions,” ESV), the suppliant’s sins are pictures as enemies that “prevail” against him, just as literal enemies can prevail using military force.103 This is then followed a few verses later with another reference to God’s saving righteousness: “By awesome deeds you answer us with righteousness, O God of our salvation” (Ps 65:5 ESV). This process of spiritualizing the enemies, incipient in the OT, is taken up and

102 See my exegsis of Psalm 51:14 in Chapter Four. 103 The same verb (‫)גּבר‬ ַ  ָ is used of both literal and metaphorical warfare in the OT, e.g., “Whenever Moses held up his hand, Israel prevailed, and whenever he lowered his hand, Amalek prevailed” (Exod 17:11 ESV); “The Lord will go forth like a warrior, He will arouse His zeal like a man of war. He will utter a shout, yes, He will raise a war cry. He will prevail against His enemies” (Isa 42:13 NASB); “my children are desolate, for the enemy has prevailed” (Lam 1:16 ESV).

C. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “Gift of Righteousness from God”

311

developed in the DSS to include not only one’s sins but the evil inclination of the flesh and even Satan.104 God’s vindicating of his oppressed people by executing judgment on their enemies in the OT would then (we may hypothesize) be interpreted by Paul typologically as God’s justification of the ungodly by pouring out his wrath upon his Son in the propitiatory sacrifice (ἱλαστήριον, Rom 3:25). On this basis, one can see ultimate theological harmony between the OT iustitia salutifera usage and the Pauline δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. But this must be understood, not as the exegesis of any Pauline text, but as a biblical-theological argument in which we have already determined on exegetical grounds that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Paul is first and foremost the gift of righteousness from God. Only after we have done that can we go back, put ourselves in Paul’s hermeneutical shoes, and imagine how he would interpret the vindication theme in the Psalms and Isaiah as a type adumbrating his own gospel message of “righteousness by faith.” It is methodologically unsound to go at it the other way around, that is, to limit Paul’s usage within the typological horizon of the iustitia salutifera theme in the Psalms and Isaiah. As Wilk has said, “One has to ascertain where that [OT] context and those surroundings are connected conceptually or with motifs in such a way that the context may be understood to be congruous with the appropriated formulation.”105 But in order to accomplish this, the meaning of “the appropriated formulation” must be determined first. It is to that task that we now turn.

C. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “Gift of Righteousness from God” Having critiqued the “God’s covenant faithfulness” and “God’s saving activity” interpretations, I now turn to make the positive case for the traditional Reformation interpretation that it means “the gift of righteousness from God.” 1. Δικαιοσύνη as Righteousness before God The debate over the meaning of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Paul involves two interconnected issues: the precise lexical force of the head noun δικαιοσύνη, and the syntactical significance of the genitive θεοῦ. In this section I am focused on the meaning of the head noun δικαιοσύνη. In the next section we will examine the genitive θεοῦ. As our lexical survey of “righteousness” in Chapters 3–5 has shown, the noun δικαιοσύνη can be used with a variety of meanings, but the two main ones are judicial righteousness and ethical righteousness. However, it is important to recognize that the two meanings are connected in the subcategory under ethical righteousness that I have labeled “righteousness before God.” When δικαιοσύνη

 See my discussion of this spiritualizing process in the DSS in Chapter Five.  Wilk, “Paul as User, Interpreter, and Reader of the Book of Isaiah,” 88.

104 105

312

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

is used in reference to “righteousness before God,” it can be either the intrinsic righteousness of humans who have kept God’s law and are therefore deemed righteous in God’s sight, or the imputed righteousness of a human who has been deemed righteous in God’s sight by faith (e.g., Gen 15:6). But in either case, there is a judicial dimension to this ethical righteousness since God has deemed someone to be righteous in his sight. It is divinely-approved righteousness. The notion that there is an implicit God-ward dimension to “righteousness” is supported by three Pauline references that explicitly speak of righteousness “before God,” although instead of the noun they use the adjective δίκαιος or the verb δικαιόω: “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God (δίκαιοι παρὰ τῷ θεῷ), but the doers of the law who will be justified” (Rom 2:13 ESV); “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight (οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ), since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20 ESV); and “Now it is evident that no one is justified before God (οὐδεὶς δικαιοῦται παρὰ τῷ θεῷ) by the law, for ‘The righteous shall live by faith’” (Gal 3:11 ESV). Since δικαιοσύνη is the state of being δίκαιος, and δικαιόω means to deem someone to be δίκαιος, it is to be expected that all three terms would have a fundamental congruence, at least in the context of Paul’s teaching on justification. And if Paul’s teaching on justification has this strong God-ward concern, it is evident that δικαιοσύνη itself is in many cases to be understood as “the status of being δίκαιος in God’s sight.” Besides, we saw evidence of this usage in the OT and in the Jewish literature. Based on our lexical study in Chapters 3 – 5, we can say with some degree of confidence that there are three main possibilities for the meaning of the head noun δικαιοσύνη in the lexeme δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ: (1) God’s attribute of righteousness or distributive justice; (2) God’s saving/delivering righteousness; or (3) the status of divinely approved righteousness that comes from God as a gift. I am arguing that option (1) is found only in Rom 3:5, 25-26 in Paul, and that the remaining seven passages fall under option (3). To be clear, I am not arguing that the genitive θεοῦ is an objective genitive as if the “divinely-approved” qualifier comes from θεοῦ.106 Rather, I am arguing that the “divinely-approved” aspect is connected with the word δικαιοσύνη itself, based on a trajectory of usage from the OT to the Jewish Literature to Paul’s own usage. We have already traced that OT/Jewish trajectory. Let us now examine Paul’s usage. In contexts having to do with his Rechtfertigungslehre, there are about two dozen occurrences of the noun δικαιοσύνη sans the genitive modifier θεοῦ where the noun means “the status of righteousness before God” or “divinelyapproved righteousness.” 106 Luther and Calvin sometimes interpreted the genitive θεοῦ as an objective genitive and sometimes as a genitive of source. It is even possible that they thought it had two meanings, so that the lexeme as a whole meant both “the righteousness that God approves or that is valid before God” (objective genitive) and “the righteousness that comes from God as its source or author” (genetivus auctoris). My view is that the genitive θεοῦ has a single univocal meaning.

C. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “Gift of Righteousness from God”

313

Table 15. Δικαιοσύνη (sans θεοῦ) in Paul Ref

Greek

Rom 4:3 Ἐπίστευσεν δὲ Ἀβραὰμ τῷ θεῷ, καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην. Rom 4:5 τῷ δὲ μὴ ἐργαζομένῳ, πιστεύοντι δὲ ἐπὶ τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ, λογίζεται ἡ πίστις αὐτοῦ εἰς δικαιοσύνην. Rom 4:6 καθάπερ καὶ Δαυὶδ λέγει τὸν μακαρισμὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ᾧ ὁ θεὸς λογίζεται δικαιοσύνην χωρὶς ἔργων Rom 4:9 λέγομεν γάρ, Ἐλογίσθη τῷ Ἀβραὰμ ἡ πίστις εἰς δικαιοσύνην. Rom 4:11a καὶ σημεῖον ἔλαβεν περιτομῆς, σφραγῖδα τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐν τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ Rom 4:11b εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πατέρα πάντων τῶν πιστευόντων δι’ ἀκροβυστίας, εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι αὐτοῖς [τὴν] δικαιοσύνην Rom 4:13 Οὐ γὰρ διὰ νόμου ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῷ Ἀβραὰμ ἢ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ, τὸ κληρονόμον αὐτὸν εἶναι κόσμου, ἀλλὰ διὰ δικαιοσύνης πίστεως· Rom 4:22 διὸ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην. Rom 5:17 πολλῷ μᾶλλον οἱ τὴν περισσείαν τῆς χάριτος καὶ τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς δικαιοσύνης λαμβάνοντες ἐν ζωῇ βασιλεύσουσιν διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Rom 5:21 ἵνα ὥσπερ ἐβασίλευσεν ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ, οὕτως καὶ ἡ χάρις βασιλεύσῃ διὰ δικαιοσύνης εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. Rom 8:10 εἰ δὲ Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, τὸ μὲν σῶμα νεκρὸν διὰ ἁμαρτίαν, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζωὴ διὰ δικαιοσύνην. Rom 9:30 Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; ὅτι ἔθνη τὰ μὴ διώκοντα δικαιοσύνην κατέλαβεν δικαιοσύνην, δικαιοσύνην δὲ τὴν ἐκ πίστεως·

English (ESV) “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.” “And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.” “… just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works …” “We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness.” “He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.” “The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well.” “For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.” “That is why his faith was ‘counted to him as righteousness.’” “… much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.” “… so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” “But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.” “What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained righteousness, that is, a righteousness that is by faith” (ESV modified).

314

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

Continuation: Table 15. Δικαιοσύνη (sans θεοῦ) in Paul Ref

Greek

English (ESV)

Rom 9:31 Ἰσραὴλ δὲ διώκων νόμον “… but that Israel who pursued a law δικαιοσύνης εἰς νόμον οὐκ ἔφθασεν. that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law.” Rom 10:4 τέλος γὰρ νόμου Χριστὸς εἰς “For Christ is the end of the law for δικαιοσύνην παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι. righteousness  to everyone who believes.” Rom 10:5 Μωϋσῆς γὰρ γράφει τὴν “For Moses writes about the righteous δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ τοῦ νόμου ness that is based on the law, that the ὅτι ὁ ποιήσας ἄνθρωπος ζήσεται person who does the commandments ἐν αὐτῇ. shall live by them.” Rom 10:6 ἡ δὲ ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοσύνη “But the righteousness based on faith οὕτως λέγει, Μὴ εἴπῃς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ says, ‘Do not say in your heart, “Who σου, Τίς ἀναβήσεται εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν; will ascend into heaven?”’ (that is, to τοῦτ’ ἔστιν Χριστὸν καταγαγεῖν· bring Christ down)” Rom 10:10 καρδίᾳ γὰρ πιστεύεται εἰς “For with the heart one believes and is δικαιοσύνην, στόματι δὲ justified, and with the mouth one ὁμολογεῖται εἰς σωτηρίαν. confesses and is saved.” 1 Cor 1:30 ἐξ αὐτοῦ δὲ ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ “He is the source of your life in Ἰησοῦ, ὃς ἐγενήθη σοφία ἡμῖν ἀπὸ Christ Jesus, whom God made our θεοῦ, δικαιοσύνη τε καὶ ἁγιασμὸς wisdom and our righteousness and καὶ ἀπολύτρωσις sanctification and redemption.” 2 Cor 3:9 εἰ γὰρ ἡ διακονία τῆς κατακρίσεως “For if there was glory in the ministry δόξα, πολλῷ μᾶλλον περισσεύει ἡ of condemnation, the ministry of διακονία τῆς δικαιοσύνης δόξῃ. righteousness must far exceed it in glory.” Gal 2:21 οὐκ ἀθετῶ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ· “I do not nullify the grace of God, for εἰ γὰρ διὰ νόμου δικαιοσύνη, ἄρα if justification were through the law, Χριστὸς δωρεὰν ἀπέθανεν. then Christ died for no purpose.” Gal 3:6 καθὼς Ἀβραὰμ ἐπίστευσεν τῷ θεῷ, “… just as Abraham ‘believed God καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην. and it was counted to him as righteousness.’” Gal 3:21 Ὁ οὖν νόμος κατὰ τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν “Is the law then contrary to the pro [τοῦ θεοῦ]; μὴ γένοιτο· εἰ γὰρ ἐδόθη mises of God? Certainly not! For if νόμος ὁ δυνάμενος ζῳοποιῆσαι, a law had been given that could give ὄντως ἐκ νόμου ἂν ἦν ἡ δικαιοσύνη. life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.” Gal 5:5 ἡμεῖς γὰρ πνεύματι ἐκ πίστεως “For through the Spirit, by faith, ἐλπίδα δικαιοσύνης ἀπεκδεχόμεθα. we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness.”

C. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “Gift of Righteousness from God”

315

Continuation: Table 15. Δικαιοσύνη (sans θεοῦ) in Paul Ref

Greek

Phil 3:9 καὶ εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ, μὴ ἔχων ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου ἀλλὰ τὴν 107 διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ, τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην108 ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει

English (ESV) “… and may be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that [righteousness] which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith”

In most cases, the term is equivalent to “the righteousness of faith” (a concept that occurs five times in Paul in various forms: Rom 4:11a, 13; 9:30; 10:6; Phil 3:9). In fact, δικαιοσύνη is rendered “justification” in the ESV twice (Rom 10:10; Gal 2:21). But there are four instances in Table 15 above where δικαιοσύνη means ordinary ethical, intrinsic righteousness. In Rom 9:30 (the first occurrence, not the other two); 9:31; 10:5; Gal 3:21, it could be argued that δικαιοσύνη is almost equivalent to “the righteousness of the law” and should not be translated as “justification.” I have included them in Table 15 because they are used in contrast to “the righteousness of faith,” and since the two kinds of righteousness are being compared and contrasted, both kinds of righteousness evidently have to do with a righteous status that someone thinks they have or desires to have or actually enjoys in the sight of God. My argument here closely follows that of Stephen Westerholm, who analyzes Paul’s “righteousness” language using the distinction between “ordinary righteousness” (the righteousness of the law or of works) and “extraordinary righteousness” (the righteousness of faith).109 Westerholm argues: In the ordinary use of the terms, “righteousness” is what one ought to do and the “righteous” are those who do it … Fittingly, then, Paul repeatedly speaks of the righteousness of faith as an emergency measure 110 introduced by God to offset human unrighteousness … The (ordinary) 107 I have highlighted the article τήν because it implies another δικαιοσύνην, even though the word itself is omitted for stylistic reasons. This is a case of the article being used anaphorically as the equivalent of a relative pronoun. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 213-15. The phrase ἀλλὰ τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ in Phil 3:9, then, qualifies as one of the five occurrences of “the righteousness of faith” in Paul. 108 I have not highlighted τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην in Phil 3:9 because Table 15 is a list of instances of absolute δικαιοσύνη sans θεοῦ used in the sense of “divinely-approved righteousness.” 109 Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 261-96; idem, “The Righteousness of the Law and the Righteousness of Faith in Romans,” Interpretation 58 (2004): 253-64. 110 Perhaps a better phrase would be “remedial measure.” I do not think Westerholm intends to say that the righteousness of faith was devised by God as a last-minute plan B to take the place of a failed plan A. His point, I prefer to take it, is that the righteousness of faith is the remedial measure, in accordance with God’s eternal plan of redeeming grace, to provide extraordinary righteousness in Christ, a righteousness that is both provided and accepted by God in place of the righteousness of the law.

316

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

righteousness that is spelled out in the law is, for Paul, the more basic righteousness, from which the “righteousness” of faith paradoxically borrows its name.111

Normally, δικαιοσύνη when predicated of humans means “ordinary ethical righteousness,” a usage that is common in both the LXX and in Jewish literature, as we saw in Chapters 4 and 5. Paul is playing off of this ordinary usage, since δικαιοσύνη is what sinful humans lack and need, and so “the demands of ordinary righteousness (as spelled out in the law), though not met in the ordinary way, are nonetheless presupposed by the Pauline gospel.”112 When the reference is to “extraordinary righteousness,” the context makes this clear (as well as added phrases like “of faith”) and, in any case, even “extraordinary righteousness” presupposes the ordinary meaning as its foil. 2. Θεοῦ as Genitive of Source or Genetivus Auctoris So we have examined the head noun δικαιοσύνη and have concluded that when used by Paul in the context of his Rechtfertigungslehre it denotes the status of righteousness before God or divinely-approved righteousness. We now turn to an analysis of the genitive θεοῦ. If I am right that δικαιοσύνη is to be taken as the status of righteousness before God, then the genitive θεοῦ could be either an objective genitive (“righteousness that God approves”) or a genitive of source or genetivus auctoris (“the righteousness that comes from God”). Since we have already argued that the “before God” element is implicit in the noun δικαιοσύνη, the first option is less likely. In addition, there are good contextual reasons for taking θεοῦ as a genetivus auctoris. There are a number of Pauline passages that explicitly speak of “justification” or some related term as a gift using the nouns δωρεά, δώρημα, and χάρισμα (which I take to be essentially synonymous), and δωρεάν (the accusative of δωρεά used adverbially).113 Rom 3:24: “being justified as a gift (δωρεάν) by His grace” (NASB). Rom 5:15: “but the free gift (τὸ χάρισμα) is not like the trespass ... much more have the grace of God (ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ) and the free gift (ἡ δωρεά) by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ abounded for many” (ESV). Rom 5:16: “the free gift (τὸ δώρημα) is not like the result of that one man’s trespass ... the free gift (τὸ χάρισμα) following many trespasses brought justification” (ESV). Rom 5:17: “much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness (οἱ τὴν περισσείαν τῆς χάριτος καὶ τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς δικαιοσύνης λαμβάνοντες) reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ” (ESV). Rom 6:23: “the free gift of God (τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ) is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (ESV).

 Westerholm, “The Righteousness of the Law,” 262-63.  Ibid.,” 263. 113  BDAG δωρεάν. 111 112

C. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “Gift of Righteousness from God”

317

Of the above passages, the most important is Rom 5:17, since it specifically speaks of “the free gift of righteousness” (ἡ δωρεὰ τῆς δικαιοσύνης). When combined with Rom 6:23, “the free gift of God” (τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ), Rom 5:17 makes clear that δικαιοσύνη is a gift of God. In addition, when combined with the ἐκ θεοῦ of Phil 3:9, it becomes clear that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is the status of divinely-approved righteousness that comes from God as a gift. All of this is consistent with a broader theological presupposition in Paul’s thought. Paul often sets these two ideas in contrast, “of God” versus “of humans.” It is a contrast that seems deeply imbedded in his theological outlook. For example, 2 Cor 4:7: “But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves” (ἔχομεν δὲ τὸν θησαυρὸν τοῦτον ἐν ὀστρακίνοις σκεῦεσιν, ἵνα ἡ ὑπερβολὴ τῆς δυνάμεως ᾖ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ μὴ ἐξ ἡμῶν) (NASB). This cross-reference suggests that the genitive θεοῦ is used by Paul to make a contrast between that which is from God and that which comes from merely human resources. Note that in the parallel phrase (μὴ ἐξ ἡμῶν) he uses the preposition ἐκ, rather than the simple genitive (cp. ἡ ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη, Phil 3:9). This shows that the genitive of source can be expressed by Paul with or without the précising preposition. The righteousness of God, then, is the righteousness that is from above, as opposed to the righteousness that comes from below, by human striving. It is a supernatural and divine righteousness. This is a major theme in Paul’s writings. He is constantly emphasizing the fact that there is a supernatural, divine activity at work in the lives of believers. Adolf Schlatter helpfully points out that one of the primary ways that Paul’s conversion impacted his theology was that he experienced firsthand the contrast between human inability and the sovereignty of divine grace. Although Schlatter takes δικιαοσύνη θεοῦ as God’s own righteousness (subjective genitive), his stress on the Pauline doctrine of grace is correct: The special nature of [Paul’s] conversion provided the negative verdict which the individual pronounces against himself at repentance with particular vigor. From it issues the sharp contrasts reflected in his train of thought: not the Law but Christ, not works but faith, not the flesh but the Spirit, not man but God …. When he was persuaded of Jesus’ messianic glory at his appearance, he saw himself compelled to a complete denial of self. His confidence in his own work and knowledge was shattered. He experienced a dying that smote him in his highest aspirations and works. What saved him was solely the grace of Christ, who presented himself to him as the giver of divine grace … Thus, Paul, through his conversion, becomes a believer. He received through it nothing but faith, because it is solely in Christ that he has everything, that is, God with his righteousness interceding for him and his life granted to him.114

For Paul, “the righteousness of faith” is “the righteousness of God,” not “of humans.” It originates in God, not in humans. It is utterly divine and heavenly, and comes to humans from the outside as a gift of sovereign grace. Note the 114 Adolf Schlatter, The Theology of the Apostles: The Development of New Testament Theology (trans. Andreas J. Köstenberger; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 298 (emphasis mine).

318

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

monergistic accent in the immediately preceding context. In 2 Cor 4:1-6, Paul has just said that, though the god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness has shined in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Thus, when Paul speaks of “the surpassing greatness of the power” in v 7, he is referring to the power of God as manifested in the salvation and conversion of the elect. This supports my reading of the soteriological contrast between τοῦ θεοῦ and ἐξ ἡμῶν. And recall that Paul said in Rom 1:16 that “the power of God unto salvation” is revealed in the gospel precisely by means of “the righteousness of God.” Francis Watson points to 2 Cor 3:5 to make a similar point: “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves (ἀφ’ ἑαυτῶν), to reckon anything as from ourselves (ἐξ ἑαυτῶν). Rather, our sufficiency is from God (ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ)” (Watson’s translation). Watson quotes Josephus’s description of the Sadducean doctrine that “all things lie within our own power (ἅπαντα ἐφ’ ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς κεῖσθαι)” (Ant. 13.173),115 and interprets Paul as refuting that claim, since 2 Cor 3:5 makes “a contrast between reliance on divine or on human agency.”116 Other passages make the same contrast. In his Epistle to the Philippians, he writes “… in no way alarmed by your opponents – which is a sign of destruction for them, but of salvation for you, and that too, from God (ἀπὸ θεοῦ)” (Phil 1:28 NASB). And although the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Ephesians is disputed, the author (whether Paul or a disciple) makes a very Pauline statement when he writes: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves (οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν), it is the gift of God (θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον)” (Eph 2:8 NASB). 3. “By Faith” and Other Näherbestimmungen We have separately analyzed the two parts of the lexeme δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, the head noun and the modifying genitive. Now we must observe how the lexeme functions as a unity. What we will see is that, as Seyoon Kim points out, “Paul usually speaks about δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ conferred upon or appropriated by faith, so that he stresses its character as a gift.”117

115 “The Sadducees do away with Fate, holding that there is no such thing and that human actions are not achieved in accordance with her decree, but that all things lie within our own power, so that we ourselves are responsible for our well-being, while we suffer misfortune through our own thoughtlessness.” Josephus: Jewish Antiquities Books XII-XIII (LCL; trans. Ralph Marcus; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998), 313. 116 Francis Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 18. See also the essays in Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment (ed. John M. G. Barclay and Simon J. Gathercole; London: T&T Clark, 2008). 117 Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, 284.

C. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “Gift of Righteousness from God”

319

Although Ulrich Wilckens ultimately rejects this argument, he admits the possibility of understanding “δικαιοσύνη as the righteousness of the homo iustificatus” because of what he calls the Näherbestimmungen added as précising phrases that qualify the lexeme δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ.118 The term Näherbestimmungen is difficult to translate, but it comes from the adjective näher (“near” in the sense of being in proximity, even juxtaposed) and the noun Bestimmungen (“definers, delimiters, constraints, or précising terms”). Since words are polysemous (that is, having multiple meanings), and even within a basic meaning can have a variety of nuances and connotations, with the result that words typically have a semantic range, only one meaning of which is selected in any given instance, the decisive consideration for deciding which meaning is in view in any given text is the context. Scholars, of course, have long recognized the importance of context in deciding the precise semantic force of any given lexeme. But Wilckens’s concept of Näherbestimmungen is even more precise and helpful in this regard. It is not uncommon for scholars to regard context much too broadly when attempting to determine the meaning of a word in any given context. They will sometimes appeal to the broader context, the immediate paragraph or even an idea found in a nearby paragraph or chapter, not to mention the tendency – as we have seen in Cremer, Käsemann, Stuhlmacher, Dunn, Wright et al. – to appeal to the much wider context of usage in the Old Testament or Second Temple Jewish literature. Such appeals to “context” are of course appropriate but they cannot come close to having the same decisiveness as the Näherbestimmungen that are immediately juxtaposed, even abutted, to the lexeme in question. Perhaps an illustration will help. The word “glasses” is polysemous in English. It may denote spectacles worn to provide correction for those who are nearsighted or shortsighted. Or it may denote two or more items of glassware used typically for drinking liquids. The two sentences, “The prescription for my reading glasses is old,” and “Don’t forget to set out the wine glasses for dinner,” contain a number of Näherbestimmungen, such as the adjectives “reading” and “wine,” the reference to an “old prescription” (not applicable to wine glasses), the verb “set out” (one does not “set out” reading glasses), and the prepositional phrase “for dinner.” The juxtaposition of these syntagmatic items with the word “glasses” immediately disambiguates the polysemy and makes abundantly clear which meaning is in view in each sentence. An exhaustive study of the word “glasses” in the corpus of English literature would not help us in these cases. Such a study can only provide us with these possible meanings of the word, and perhaps a number of additional specialized uses and connotations. The context of English literature will only enable us to establish the semantic range available to a speaker or writer, but it will not enable us to determine which segment of that semantic range is being activated in any given instance. 118 Ulrich Wilckens, Excursus on “Gerechtigkeit Gottes,” in Der Brief an die Römer, vol. 1 (EKK VI/I; Köln: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), 204-5.

320

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

Narrowing the context to the paragraph in which the term is used may be more useful insofar as it sets up certain expectations. For example, if the paragraph is about a dinner, then we might expect the term “glasses” to be used with reference to drinking glasses. However, even this surrounding context is not decisive. It is conceivable that an author could use the term with the other meaning, spectacles, even in this context, e.g., “Please hand me my reading glasses so I can read the manufacturer’s label on the bottom of these drinking glasses.” Ultimately, then, it is the Näherbestimmungen that are decisive. They are so decisive, in fact, that once juxtaposed to the lexeme “glasses” the other meaning is immediately deselected. From the point of view of linguistics, it might even be more accurate to say that the other meaning is not even entertained by the brain of the competent native English speaker as a possibility. Foreigners attempting to learn English might need to consult a dictionary and weigh the context to determine which meaning is in view, but native speakers will automatically know which meaning is intended because they know which “glasses” can be “set out,” and which “glasses” have “prescriptions.”119 This is directly relevant to our study of the ten occurrence of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Paul, for in seven of the instances, the Näherbestimmungen provide us with clarity, even certainty, as to which meaning is in view. When Paul speaks of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as something that is either offered to or received by faith, it is clear that the “gift from God” meaning is selected, whereas other possibilities, such as God’s distributive justice or his saving activity are thereby deselected or at least pushed into the background. Consider the following table showing that in all seven of the cases where “the righteousness of God” denotes a gift from God, the phrase is always accompanied with various Näherbestimmungen that signify its reception or appropriation by humans and that, conversely, in the three instances where δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is used to refer to God’s distributive justice, such appropriating Näherbestimmungen are lacking.

119 In the field of linguistics, the topic I am addressing here falls broadly under the area of syntagmatic sense relations. See Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 141-43.

321

C. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “Gift of Righteousness from God” Table 16. The Ten “Righteousness of God” Texts in Paul

Ref

Text

Interpretation

1 Rom 1:17 δικαιοσύνη γὰρ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ Gift from God ἀποκαλύπτεται ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν, καθὼς γέγραπται, Ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται 2 Rom 3:5 εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀδικία ἡμῶν θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην Distributive συνίστησιν, τί ἐροῦμεν; justice 3 Rom 3:21 Νυνὶ δὲ χωρὶς νόμου δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ Gift from God πεφανέρωται, μαρτυρουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου [Gen 15:6] καὶ τῶν προφητῶν [Hab 2:4] 4 Rom 3:22 δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Gift from God Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας … 24 δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι … 25 … διὰ πίστεως 5 Rom 3:25 εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ Distributive justice 6 Rom 3:26 πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης Distributive αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι justice αὐτὸν δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ 7 Rom 10:3a ἀγνοοῦντες γὰρ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ Gift from God δικαιοσύνην, καὶ τὴν ἰδίαν ζητοῦντες στῆσαι 8 Rom 10:3b–4 τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐχ Gift from God ὑπετάγησαν. τέλος γὰρ νόμου Χριστὸς εἰς δικαιοσύνην παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι. 9 2 Cor 5:21 τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν Gift from God ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ 10 Phil 3:9 καὶ εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ, μὴ ἔχων ἐμὴν Gift from God δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου ἀλλὰ τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ, τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει

“By faith” Yes

No Yes – cf. v 22 Yes – cf. vv 24-25 No No

Yes – cf. 9:30–10:17, esp. 10:4 Yes – cf. 9:30–10:17, esp. 10:4 Implicitly – cf. 5:17– 6:2 Yes

Let us now look at each of these ten occurrences in order. We have already engaged some of the above passages in depth exegetically (Rom 3:5 and 25-26; 2 Cor 5:21), so my comments on these three can be brief. My concern at this point is to draw attention to the appropriating Näherbestimmungen present in the seven cases where δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ means the gift of righteousness or is used in reference to the righteousness of the homo iustificatus, and the absence of such appropriating Näherbestimmungen in the three cases where δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ means God’s own attribute of righteousness or his distributive justice.

322

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

a. Romans 1:17 The verse is readily divided into two verse-halves, and we will take each in turn. In the first verse-half, we have the phrase ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν (v 17a), which belongs syntactically with δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as an appropriating Näherbestimmung. There is disagreement among commentators over how to interpret the phrase, but the best explanation is that it means “by faith to faith.” Rom 3:22 is a helpful parallel: “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ, to all who believe (δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας).” The explanation for the apparent redundancy is that Paul wants to make two points about the role of faith in appropriating this righteousness: it is received by faith, and it comes to all who believe, whether Jew or Gentile.120 The second verse-half is a Scripture quotation introduced by καθὼς γέγραπται in order to indicate the scriptural warrant for the statement made in the first versehalf. Once the connection between the two verse-halves is given due recognition, it is difficult to see how the covenantal interpretation can be made to fit the sense of the verse as a whole. Whatever it means for “the δικαιοσύνη of God” to be revealed “by faith to faith,” it must relate in some way to the quotation of Hab 2:4 concerning “the one who is δίκαιος by faith.” Clearly, Paul is relating the term δίκαιος (righteous) by faith in v 17b back to the revelation of God’s δικαιοσύνη (righteousness) by faith to faith in v 17a. The gospel reveals the righteousness of God because it reveals a way for sinners to be δίκαιος before God by faith, and, as he will explain later, to affirm that it is “by faith” is to affirm that it is “not by works.” The Hab 2:4 citation therefore indicates that by δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ Paul refers to the righteousness of faith. Francis Watson makes this point as well. Appealing to the lexical correspondence between the two halves of v 17 indicating the concept of righteousness by faith (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ … ἐκ πίστεως … Ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως), Watson argues that the Hab 2:4 citation “actually generates its antecedent” (v 17a).121 He goes on to complain of the “methodological deficiency” of commentators who fail to account for the citation of Hab 2:4 in their interpretation of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ,122 120 Using Rom 3:22 as the closest parallel to explain ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν in 1:17, Murray writes: “‘From faith’ points to the truth that only ‘by faith’ are we the beneficiaries of this righteousness … ‘To faith’ underlines the truth that every believer is the beneficiary whatever his race or culture or the degree of his faith. Faith always carries with it the justifying righteousness of God.” Murray, Romans, 1.31-32. 121 Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 4353. 122 Watson does not name names, but I would argue that Cremer, Käsemann, Stuhlmacher, Dunn, and Wright are all guilty of this methodological deficiency. In all of the learned discussions of the meaning of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Paul, they frequently quote the first versehalf and hardly ever quote the second verse-half (the Hab 2:4 citation). These scholars typically avoid discussion of the two ἐκ πίστεως prepositional phrases which bind the two verse-

C. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “Gift of Righteousness from God”

323

as if the phrase could be lifted from its context, subjected to lexical analysis in the OT and Jewish literature, and its meaning determined without paying attention to the appropriating Näherbestimmung ἐκ πίστεως, which occurs twice, first in v 17a and then again in its scriptural warrant in v 17b. b. Romans 3:5 As we saw in our treatment of this verse in the context of Rom 3:1-8, the phrase θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη here most likely means the attribute of God’s righteousness or justice. The absence of appropriating Näherbestimmungen make clear that it is not being used in a soteriological sense to refer to the righteousness that is received by faith. This conclusion is supported by the contrast between “our unrighteousness” and “God’s righteousness,” a contrast that further removes “God’s righteousness” from the realm of righteousness applied, received, or appropriated by humans. c. Romans 3:21-22 [2x] As practically all commentators agree, Rom 3:21ff is a recapitulation of the thesis statement of Rom 1:17, and so the language of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in 3:21-22 should be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with and epexegetical of its meaning in 1:17. In the explanatory passage in Rom 3:21-22, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is contextually defined (näherbestimmt) as “through faith of Jesus Christ to all who believe” (v 22). To paraphrase, this means that the status of being righteous comes from God and is received through faith in Christ. After the parenthesis of vv 22b-23, “For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολή· πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ)” (ESV), Paul resumes his train of thought with a participial phrase that connects back to δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ: “being justified as a gift by his grace” (δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι) (Rom 3:24). The use of the participle δικαιούμενοι in juxtaposition with δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ indicates that “the righteousness of God” is not a divine quality or activity but a status that applies to humans. Humans who receive the righteousness of God by faith are therefore justified or declared righteous. It is also significant that Paul says that the righteousness of God has been manifested “apart from the law” (χωρὶς νόμου), or as he will flesh this out later, “apart from the works of the law.” The righteousness of God is manifested apart from doing what the law requires and it is manifested through faith in Christ. At work here is an implied contrast between “the righteousness of the law” and “the righteousness of faith,” a contrast that Paul will spell out more clearly in halves of Rom 1:17 together, and so they do not address how the divine revelation of “the righteousness of God … by faith” (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ … ἐκ πίστεως) is related to the concept of being “righteous by faith” (ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως).

324

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

Rom 9:30–10:6. The righteousness of God is manifested apart from the law in the sense that it cannot be attained by keeping the law.123 It therefore stands in contrast to the righteousness of the law, the Jewish attempt to be righteous before God through obedience to the moral demands of the law. This suggests that the righteousness of God and the righteousness of faith are one and the same. Therefore, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is neither God’s saving activity/power, nor God’s covenant faithfulness, but the righteousness of the homo iustificatus. Note as well that the law and the prophets bear witness to the righteousness of God. In view of Paul’s reliance on Gen 15:6 (“Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him for δικαιοσύνη”) and Hab 2:4 (“he who is δίκαιος by faith shall live”) as the key scriptural warrant for his doctrine of justification, it is likely that “the law and the prophets” refer, not exclusively, but primarily to these two key proof texts, which stand as representatives for the teaching of the law and the prophets as a whole. Genesis belongs to “the law,” and Habakkuk to “the prophets.” But these two verses bear witness to a δικαιοσύνη (or a status of being δίκαιος) that is obtained by faith, not to the righteousness of God himself (however understood). The one speaks of Abraham believing God and thus being credited with the status of δικαιοσύνη before God. The other contrasts the haughtiness of the Assyrian oppressor with the humble faith of the godly who is δίκαιος before God by his faith (or of the δίκαιος who lives by faith). These two proof texts are not about God being δίκαιος or acting in a δίκαιος manner, but about humans being δίκαιος before God. Since Paul claims these two proof texts as bearing witness to “the righteousness of God” by faith, “the righteousness of God” in Paul’s mind must be something that can be anthropologically appropriated or enjoyed, whether a gift that humans receive from God or a status that humans have before God, or both. d. Romans 3:25-26 [2x] We examined these two occurrences of δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ earlier, and we concluded that the meaning was basically God’s justice. In all likelihood, Paul is continuing the earlier reference to God’s righteousness or justice in Rom 3:5. One should also note the prepositional phrase in which the word “righteousness” occurs: “for the demonstration of his righteousness” (εἰς/πρὸς [τὴν] ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ). This prepositional phrase can be worded verbally: “in 123 The statement that the righteousness of God is manifested “apart from the law” (χωρὶς νόμου) is equivalent to saying that it is manifested “apart from the works of the law,” as Paul himself spells this out later: “We hold that one is justified by faith apart from the works of the law (χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου)” (Rom 3:28 ESV); “just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works (χωρὶς ἔργων)” (Rom 4:6 ESV). “The word νόμου [in the phrase χωρὶς νόμου in Rom 3:21] is probably shorthand for ἔργα τοῦ νόμου (erga tou nomou, works of law) from verse 20. Thus Paul argues that the saving righteousness of God cannot be obtained by keeping the law.” Schreiner, Romans, 180.

C. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “Gift of Righteousness from God”

325

order to demonstrate that God is righteous.” Paul is affirming that the atoning death of Christ (the ἱλαστήριον of v 25) was necessary in order to demonstrate his justice. The atonement satisfies God’s justice so that he might justly justify sinners. “Paul’s point is that God can maintain his righteous character (‘God’s righteousness’ in vv. 25 and 26) even while he acts to justify sinful people (‘God’s righteousness’ in vv. 21 and 22) because Christ, in his propitiatory sacrifice, provides full satisfaction of the demands of God’s impartial, invariable justice.”124 Thus there is no doubt here that the righteousness of God is not an anthropologically-experienced status of righteousness before God, as it is in Rom 1:17; 3:21-22; etc. The absence of appropriating Näherbestimmungen here is not surprising. e. Romans 10:3 [2x] In this verse, the language of appropriating the righteousness of God is from a different linguistic stock than the Näherbestimmungen we have encountered thus far. Paul says that the Jews, “being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, did not submit to God’s righteousness” (ESV). Paul’s opening statement that his prayer to God and his heart’s desire is that the Jews might be saved (10:1) makes clear that he is thinking in soteriological terms. This soteriological concern is reinforced by the references later in the chapter to calling upon the Lord in order to be saved (Rom 10:10, 13). Now as we saw in Chapter 1, Käsemann argued that the language of “submitting to God’s righteousness” does not fit with the traditional view that the righteousness of God is solely a gift, and he appealed to this verse to support his thesis concerning God’s righteousness as God’s apocalyptic saving power.125 And while he did not deny the gift-character of the righteousness of God, he wanted to speak rather of “the power-character of the gift.” But Käsemann overlooked the entire surrounding context (9:30–10:13) which is focused on righteousness as a status before God received by faith, as opposed to a status achieved by doing the works of the law. Although Rom 10:3 itself does not say that δικαιοσύνη comes by πίστις, this is the unmistakable message of the entire context: “the righteousness that is by faith (δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ πίστεως)” (9:30); “because they did not pursue it [righteousness] by faith (ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως), but as if it were by works” (9:32); “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (τέλος γὰρ νόμου Χριστὸς εἰς δικαιοσύνην παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι) (10:4); “the from-faith righteousness” (ἡ ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοσύνη) (10:6); and “with the heart one believes resulting in righteousness” (καρδίᾳ πιστεύεται εἰς δικαιοσύνην) (10:10). Repeatedly, Paul says that righteousness comes by faith, not by works. 124 Moo, Romans, 242. 125 Käsemann, “Gottesgerechtigkeit bei Paulus,” in Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen (2nd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), 2.186 (= ET: “‘The Righteousness of God’ in Paul,” in New Testament Questions of Today [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979], 173).

326

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

Thus, when we read in Rom 10:3 that the Jews failed to submit to the righteousness of God, we can only take this to mean that they insisted on doing the works of the law as the means of righteousness, rather than receiving righteousness as a gift from God by faith. This is proved by the antithesis between “seeking to establish their own [righteousness]” and “submitting to God’s righteousness.” Instead of using the word πίστις or πιστεύω, Paul is describing faith here as a form of submission or obedience (cp. “the obedience of faith,” Rom 1:5; and “they have not all obeyed the gospel,” Rom 10:16). The metaphor of faith as submission was probably derived from his quotation from Isaiah a few verses earlier: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame” (Rom 9:33 ESV). In this Scripture quotation, Paul weaves the language of “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense” (Isa 8:14) into the main quotation from Isa 28:16 which, as Paul interprets it, is a prophecy of Israel’s failure to believe in Christ.126 By doing so, he implies that believing in Christ is the opposite of stumbling over Christ. Why might the Jews be offended by or stumble over the stone that God has laid in Zion? Because they are clinging to their own law-keeping as their righteousness before God. The Jews are offended at the suggestion that they cannot be righteous before God by keeping the law and must instead trust in a crucified Messiah for righteousness. They cannot accept the notion that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom 10:4), that is, that it is only in Christ that the law’s aim (viz., righteousness) is achieved (taking τέλος teleologically),127 so that anyone and everyone who believes in Christ may attain the status of righteousness before God.128 Believing in Christ for righteousness requires giving up one’s attempt to achieve righteousness by the works of the law. Faith in Christ means submitting to the righteousness of God, that is, ceasing the futile attempt to erect one’s own righteousness and 126 J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul “In Concert” in the Letter to the Romans (NovTSup 101; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 126-31. 127 Robert Badenas, Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective (JSNTSup 10; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985). 128 Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Homily XVII (NPNF1 11.472-3); Martin Luther, “Lectures on Romans: Glosses and Scholia,” in Luther’s Works, vol. 25 (ed. Hilton C. Oswald; St. Louis: Concordia, 1972), 89; Philip Melanchthon, Commentary on Romans (trans. Fred Kramer; St. Louis: Concordia: 1992), 195; Robert Haldane, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1988; originally 1853), 51012; Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (3rd ed.; Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1854), 455-7; William G. T. Shedd, A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1879), 313; C. Thomas Rhyne, Faith Establishes the Law (SBLDS 55; Chico: Scholars Press, 1981), 120; idem, “Nomos Dikaiosynēs and the Meaning of Romans 10:4,” CBQ 47 (1985): 486-99; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 584; Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 636-43.

C. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “Gift of Righteousness from God”

327

yielding to the righteousness that God has provided in Christ freely as a gift, apart from the works of the law. f. 2 Corinthians 5:21 As with Rom 10:3, the appropriating Näherbestimmungen in 2 Cor 5:21 are clothed in a novel form that departs from Paul’s more usual locutions involving πίστις or πιστεύω. Paul says that “For our sake he [= God] made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (ESV). There are two Näherbestimmungen and they must be taken together: “that we might become … in him” (γενώμεθα … ἐν αὐτῷ). The verb γίνομαι could be taken either in a transformative or in a forensic sense, but it is not necessary to decide that question here, since it is clear that the subject of the verb is “we” (ἡμεῖς) not God. Additionally, this “becoming” takes place in union with Christ, a reality signaled by the use of the Pauline ἐν αὐτῷ, which links back to the ἐν Χριστῷ of v 17. These grammatical features make clear that the righteousness of God is not a divine quality or activity, but a righteousness that believers become/ realize/enjoy in union with Christ. Although appropriating language is not present in the explicit “by faith” form that we are familiar with in Romans and Galatians, the verses immediately preceding and following 2 Cor 5:21 demonstrate the implicit presence of the notion that the righteousness of God is appropriated by humans as recipients of God’s grace. In v 20, Paul summarized the content of the word of reconciliation, the gospel message: “We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (ESV). The implication is that we must respond positively to God’s gracious offer in Christ (“God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself”) in order to be reconciled to God. Then in the verse immediately after 2 Cor 5:21, the idea of faith responding to the gospel is brought out with the use of the locution of “receiving God’s grace” (δέχομαι + χάριν): “We appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain (μὴ εἰς κενὸν τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ δέξασθαι ὑμᾶς)” (2 Cor 6:1 ESV). g. Philippians 3:9 In the tenth and final occurrence of “the righteousness of God” in Paul, we return to the familiar “by faith” appropriating Näherbestimmungen. The entire sentence reads: “Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith” (Phil 3:8-9 ESV). The language of union with Christ, “that I may gain Christ and be found in him (ἐν αὐτῷ),” indicates that the righteousness of God is not God’s own attribute or

328

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

activity but a gift appropriated and enjoyed by believers. Note that the participial phrase, “not having (μὴ ἔχων) a righteousness of my own ... but [rather having] … the righteousness from God,” is tied to the “in Christ” prepositional phrase (… ἐν αὐτῷ, μὴ ἔχων …). This is consistent with 2 Cor 5:21 which says that the righteousness of God is something that we enjoy in union with Christ. Indeed, the very language of “having” righteousness (whether one’s own or that which comes from God) makes clear that the whole orbit of thought here has to do with a righteousness that is received and enjoyed by believers. In keeping with this, the usual “by faith” appropriating language occurs twice: “not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith” (μὴ ἔχων ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου ἀλλὰ τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ, τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει). Finally, the addition of the précising preposition ἐκ makes clear that the genitive θεοῦ should be taken as a genetivus auctoris. The righteousness of God in this text is explicitly said to be “a righteousness that comes from God” (ἡ ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη). In conclusion, three occurrences of “God’s righteousness” in Paul (Rom 3:5, 25-26) lack any appropriating terminology and are best viewed as references to God’s righteousness as an attribute or his distributive justice. In the seven other passages, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is employed with reference to justification (Rom 1:17; 3:21, 22; 10:3 [2x]; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9) and has to do with the righteousness of the homo iustificatus. In these seven cases, the use of terminology having to do with human response or appropriation provides strong evidence that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is the status of righteousness that comes from God as a gift. In four of the seven, the appropriating Näherbestimmungen or précising terminology juxtaposed with δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ come in the form of Paul’s familiar “by faith” language: “in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith” (Rom 1:17); “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” (Rom 3:21-22); and “[having] that [righteousness] which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith” (Phil 3:9). In two cases of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, both of which occur in Rom 10:3, the concept of faith appropriating God’s righteousness is presented using the metaphor of “submitting to the righteousness of God.” This reading is supported by the fact that in the immediate context, “faith” is connected with “righteousness” five times (e.g., “righteousness by/from faith,” “righteousness to everyone who believes,” etc., in Rom 9:30, 32; 10:4, 6, 10). And finally, although appropriating terms like πίστις are not used in 2 Cor 5:21, the idea that the righteousness of God is the righteousness of the homo iustificatus is clearly present. Paul makes the idea clear when he speaks of the “sweet exchange” wherein Christ became sin for us on the cross, so that “in him” we might “become” the righteousness of God. He took our sin that we might possess his righteousness. And God’s righteousness is a gift received by faith. The appropriating syntagmatic limiters (Näherbestimmungen) further prove that

C. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “Gift of Righteousness from God”

329

the genitive θεοῦ is a genitive of source or origin rather than a subjective genitive, thus indicating that the phrase is best interpreted, not as God’s eschatological saving activity in keeping with his covenant faithfulness, but rather as the gift of righteousness from God. To say that “the righteousness of God” is received or appropriated by faith is to say that it is a gift of God.129 4. The Πίστις Χριστοῦ Debate Because I place so much stress on the fact that the righteousness of God is repeatedly said by Paul to be something received or appropriated “by faith,” I must deal with another interpretation of these “by faith” Näherbestimmungen that would seriously undercut my argument. I am referring to the interpretation of πίστις Χριστοῦ as “the faithfulness of Christ,” taking the genitive as a subjective genitive, an interpretation that appears to be gaining ground in Pauline scholarship.130 Relevant to the interpretive battle over δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is the fact that there is one verse where the phrase διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is immediately juxtaposed with δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ – Rom 3:22: “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” (δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). Interestingly, “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” interpretation is not adopted by all who interpret δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as “God’s covenant faithfulness” – James D. G. Dunn holds the traditional objective genitive view, “faith in Jesus Christ.”131 Nevertheless, the subjective-genitive interpretation would seem to comport best with the covenant-faithfulness interpretation of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, 129 I am not persuaded by David J. Southall’s arguments for taking δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in many of its occurrences in Paul as having a polyvalent meaning that includes not only God’s saving activity but also a personification referring to Christ himself. David J. Southall, Rediscovering Righteousness in Romans: Personified dikaiosynē within Metaphoric and Narrational Settings (WUNT II/240; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). First, I am generally not sympathetic with polyvalence unless there is clear evidence of a play on words. Second, personification as a rhetorical device does occur in Paul (e.g., “the righteousness of faith says ...,” Rom 10:6), but contextual indicators, such as the lexeme being used as the subject of verbs of speaking, are absent in the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ passages. 130 Although the view itself was first propounded by Johannes Haußleiter in 1891 and was taken up by Gerhard Kittel and a handful of other scholars in the 20th century, the contemporary heated debate was kicked off by Richard B. Hays in his dissertation, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11 (SBLDS 56; Chico: Scholars Press, 1983; 2nd expanded ed. published by Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Dearborn: Dove, 2002). The literature on this topic is large, but the best place to go for an entrée in the debate is the multi-author work The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies (ed. Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle; Milton Keynes: Paternoster/Peabody: Hendrickson, 2009), which contains essays arguing both sides. See also the extensive bibliography on pp. 309-30. 131 James D. G. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” in Pauline Theology, Volume IV: Looking Back, Pressing On (ed. E. Elizabeth Johnson and David M. Hay; SBLSymS; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997), 61-81; idem, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 379-85.

330

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

since it provides a way of avoiding the strong implication that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Rom 1:17; 3:21-22 is something offered to and received by faith. For once it is held that “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” is in view, then Rom 3:21-22 can be translated: “But now, apart from the law, God’s covenant faithfulness is manifested … even God’s covenant faithfulness by means of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” (δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ).132 The arguments for this interpretation are weighty, and cannot be dismissed as utterly without merit, but the view itself does begin to look less and less convincing when scholars allow the interpretation to spread to other passages that employ the noun πίστις without Jesus or Christ as a genitival qualifier. This is not practiced by all who hold to the “faithfulness of Jesus Christ” interpretation, but Richard B. Hays and Douglas Campbell apply it even to the ἐκ πίστεως of Rom 1:17 (both times), which requires that ὁ δίκαιος in the Hab 2:4 quotation be interpreted Christologically in the sense that “the righteous one” is Jesus.133 The arguments against the subjective genitive interpretation of πίστις Χριστοῦ are as follows, and in summarizing them here I am not claiming originality. First, if the genitive is to be taken as the subjective genitive, then following the principles of transformational grammar,134 we would expect to find examples elsewhere in Paul’s writings where the verb πιστεύω has Jesus as its subject or where the adjective πιστός is attributed to Christ with reference to his faithful obedience to God. Instead, we find that when the verb πιστεύω is used in connection with Jesus or Christ, Jesus is the object (typically with a preposition such as εἰς, ἐπί, or ἐν) rather than the subject of the verb.135 And although the adjective πιστός is applied in two instances to Christ, it is not used in the sense of his faithfulness to God, his life of obedience, or his faithfulness in submitting to death. In 2 Thess 3:3 (πιστὸς δὲ ἐστιν ὁ κύριος), the adjective πιστός denotes 132 Richard B. Hays says there is a “positive correlation” between the subjective-genitive interpretation of πίστις Χριστοῦ and the covenant-faithfulness interpretation of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ (2nd ed.), 283, 294. 133 Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ (1st ed.), 150-57; (2nd ed.), 132-41, 280-81; Douglas A. Campbell, “The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Romans 3:22,” in The Faith of Jesus Christ (ed. Bird and Sprinkle), 57-71; idem, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 613-16. 134 The ambiguous genitive construction πίστις Χριστοῦ can be “transformed” to represent two kernel sentences: (1) subjective genitive: “Christ is faithful” (or even “Christ believes”) and (2) objective genitive: “someone believes in Christ.” “While the second construction is found several times in Paul … the first one, in either form, is absent.” Moisés Silva, God, Language, and Scripture: Reading the Bible in the Light of General Linguistics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 107. 135 Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 132; Moisés Silva, “Faith Versus Works of Law in Galatians,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 2: The Paradoxes of Paul (ed. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid; WUNT II/181; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 231; idem, Philippians (2nd ed.; BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 161.

C. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “Gift of Righteousness from God”

331

the Lord’s faithfulness to guard his own against evil (or the evil one), and has nothing to do with his faithful obedience to the Father to the point of death. In the other case, the context is the eschatological judgment: “If we have died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful (εἰ ἀπιστοῦμεν, ἐκεῖνος πιστὸς μένει) – for he cannot deny himself” (2 Tim 2:13 ESV). The adjective πιστός could be interpreted as having to do with his faithfulness to uphold his own honor, so that it ends up being not very different from his faithfulness as a judge. Second, Paul himself defines πίστις Χριστοῦ for us in a key text where the phrase occurs twice – Gal 2:15-16. The two italicized phrases are the debated πίστις Χριστοῦ occurrences, while the underlined phrase reproduces the concept using the construction πιστεύω + εἰς + Christ as the object: We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified (ESV).

15

The explicit statement “so we also have believed in Christ” (καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν) spells out the objective-genitive meaning of πίστις Χριστοῦ which is used immediately before and after. In other words, as Moisés Silva points out, if the genitival construction was ambiguous, Paul immediately removes all ambiguity by using the explicit formulation with the verb ἐπιστεύσαμεν.136 Further developing this argument from the redundancy of Gal 2:16, Barry Matlock has provided the following structural analysis of the verse: 137 εἰδότες [δὲ] ὅτι A B Ia οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, B Ib καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, B A IIa ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, A IIb ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ.

Matlock points out that Ia and IIa are antitheses built around the same verb δικαιόω. Whereas Ia has the negative (“we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ”), IIa puts the same thought in a positive form (“in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law”), but with the antithetical pair “by faith in Jesus Christ” and “by 136 Silva, “Faith Versus Works,” 232-33; cp. Tobin, 132-33. 137 R. Barry Matlock, “Saving Faith: The Rhetoric and Semantics of πίστις in Paul,” in The Faith of Jesus Christ (ed. Bird and Sprinkle), 84.

332

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

works by the law” in the opposite order. Also, whereas Ia puts the “not” with the verb, IIa puts it with “by works of the law.” Then the final element of each statement is amplified in Ib and IIb, respectively. The “by faith in Jesus Christ” at the end of Ia is amplified in Ib: “so we also have believed in Christ Jesus.” And the “not by works of the law” at the end of IIa is amplified in IIb: “because by works of the law no one will be justified.” From this, Matlock draws the conclusion that this complex structure establishes the equivalence of διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ and ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, thereby selecting the objective-genitive interpretation of πίστις Χριστοῦ.138 Ironically, proponents of the subjective genitive argue against the objective genitive because of its redundancy, but Matlock’s analysis turns this argument on its head. Paul’s use of antithesis, parallelism, and repetition in Gal 2:16 actually demonstrates that πίστις Χριστοῦ means “faith in Christ.”139 138 Matlock, “Saving Faith,” 84. 139 “Fear of redundancy and tautology is utterly misplaced.” Matlock, “Saving Faith,” 85. Similarly, Silva writes: “Scholars who object to the traditional interpretation of Gal. 2:16 (also 3:22 and Rom. 3:22) on the grounds that it would be redundant operate with an unjustifiably negative understanding of the role played by redundancy in communication.” Silva, Philippians, 161 n13. Elsewhere, Silva refers to “the law of maximal redundancy” as an exegetical rule of thumb. When we are faced with an ambiguous word or phrase, the meaning that is most likely to be correct is the one which contributes the least new information or makes the least disturbance to the context. Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning, 153-56. 140 Roy A. Harrisville, III, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ: Witness of the Fathers,” NovT 36 (1994): 233-41; Mark W. Elliott, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ in the Church Fathers and Beyond,” in The Faith of Jesus Christ (ed. Bird and Sprinkle), 277-89. The opposite case is made by Ian Wallis, The Faith of Jesus Christ in Early Christian Traditions (SNTSMS 84; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 181-200, who adduces quotes from Origen, the Shepherd of Hermas, Clement of Alexandria, Polycarp, Ignatius, Tertullian, the Epistle of Barnabas, Irenaeus, and Clement of Rome. However, in all but two of these quotations, no Pauline instance of πίστις Χριστοῦ is being commented upon or interpreted. Jesus is merely presented by the writer as a paradigm of faith, that is, Jesus himself is described as a believer that we might follow his example. The two cases where Paul is quoted or alluded to simply do not state what Wallis claims that they state. The first is from Clement of Alexandria, who merely quotes Rom 3:2122, 26 without commenting on πίστις Χριστοῦ. He uses these verses only to make the point that God is just and is not concerned in this context with the issue of faith (Paedagogus 1.8; ANF 2.228). It is not possible to discern how he interpreted the genitive. The second potentially relevant text quoted by Wallis is from Clement of Rome who simply states that we are justified διὰ τῆς πίστεως without adding the genitival qualifier (1 Clement 32.3-4). While the language is clearly indebted to Paul, there is no quotation of a specific Pauline text. In any case, it is clear that Clement of Rome has in mind our own faith, not Christ’s, since he writes that we “are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom and understanding or piety or works which we have done in holiness of heart, but through faith.” In addition, in the immediately preceding paragraph, he appeals in Pauline fashion to Abraham as an example of justification by faith: “Why was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he attained righteousness and truth through faith?” (1 Clement 31.2). The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (ed. and rev. Michael W. Holmes; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 62-63.

C. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “Gift of Righteousness from God”

333

Third, as several studies have shown, the church fathers uniformly interpreted the phrase as an objective genitive.140 Origen and Chrysostom in their comments on Rom 3:22 assumed the objective genitive and did not even entertain the subjective genitive as a possibility to be set aside.141 As Matlock says, “No awareness is shown of this option … and so the objective genitive is read without polemic or apology. Silence can be very eloquent, and here it fairly sings.”142 On the other hand, awareness of this option is shown by Augustine, who sets it aside, just as he also sets aside the subjective genitive interpretation of iustitia Dei.143 Finally, one begins to wonder whether the proponents of this view actually believe that faith is the instrument by which we rest upon and receive Christ in order to be justified. Some are more circumspect and do acknowledge that Paul clearly teaches that faith is the necessary response to the gospel by which the benefits of Christ are appropriated.144 Others, however, seem to want to take things a step further. Fearing that any emphasis on faith as human response detracts from the objectivity of God’s redemptive grace in Christ, they redefine faith in corporate terms as participation in the faithfulness of Christ.145 We have taken the time to engage the πίστις Χριστοῦ debate because of its increasing importance as a serious option in Pauline interpretation and because 141 Origen: “This righteousness is disclosed through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe … And he says that now the righteousness of God, which is supported by testimonies in the law and the prophets, has also been given equally to all through faith in Jesus Christ.” Origen: Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Books 1-5 (trans. Thomas P. Scheck; The Fathers of the Church 103; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2001), 21415. Chrysostom: “Then that no one should say, How are we to be saved without contributing anything at all to the object in view? he shows that we also offer no small matter toward this, I mean our faith. Therefore after saying, ‘the righteousness of God,’ he adds straightway, ‘by faith unto all and upon all that believe.’” Chrysostom’s homilies on Romans, NPNF 1 11.377. 142 Matlock, “Saving Faith,” 87. 143 Augustine, commenting on Rom 3:22: “Accordingly [Paul] advances a step further, and adds, ‘But righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ,’ that is, by the faith wherewith one believes in Christ; for just as there is not meant the faith with which Christ Himself believes, so there is not meant the righteousness whereby God is Himself righteous.” Augustine, De spiritu et littera 9.15. NPNF 1 5.89. 144 Paul Foster claims that the debate is only over the interpretation of the phrase πίστις Χριστοῦ, and not over the importance for Paul of faith in Christ. Paul Foster, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ Terminology in Philippians and Ephesians,” in The Faith of Jesus Christ (ed. Bird and Sprinkle), 99. That is reassuring, but doubts remain about whether the subjective-genitive interpretation leaves room for faith in Christ as the means of justification, i.e., as the means of obtaining a status of righteousness and acceptance before God. 145 Richard B. Hays writes: “Because justification hinges upon this action of Jesus Christ, upon an event extra nos, it is a terrible and ironic blunder to read Paul as though his gospel made redemption contingent upon our act of deciding to dispose ourselves toward God in a particular way … ‘Faith’ is not the precondition for receiving God’s blessing; instead, it is the appropriate mode of response to a blessing already given in Christ. As such, it is also the mode of participation in the pattern definitively enacted in Jesus Christ.” Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ (2nd ed.), 211.

334

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

of its role as a potential defeater to the case for taking δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as the gift of righteousness from God. Although James D. G. Dunn is one notable proponent of the New Perspective who has not been convinced of the subjectivegenitive interpretation of πίστις Χριστοῦ as “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ,” others, such as N. T. Wright and Richard B. Hays, have been. They are therefore able to preserve the covenant-faithfulness interpretation of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ by employing the subjective-genitive interpretation of πίστις Χριστοῦ as a way of reinterpreting the Νäherbestimmungen (especially “by faith”) and thus depriving them of their anthropic, appropriating force. 5. The Parallels Between Phil 3:9 and Rom 10:3 This brings us to a powerful argument based upon the parallels between Phil 3:9 and Rom 10:3 (in the context of 9:30–10:6).146 The argument is a response to those who reject the use of ἡ ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη in Phil 3:9, with its use of the preposition ἐκ, as a parallel for interpreting the genitive θεοῦ in δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as a genetivus auctoris. For example, Stuhlmacher is bluntly dismissive of the appeal to Phil 3:9, asserting that “there is nothing more unjustifiable than to take that phrase [ἐκ θεοῦ] … and make it the interpretive norm for δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ.”147 But as Schreiner has pointed out, the numerous parallels between these two texts make it difficult to distinguish the meaning of δικαιοσύνη [ἐκ] θεοῦ in each so sharply. The following table builds upon Schreiner’s analysis:

146 “My point is that the parallel contexts indicate that righteousness in Rom. 10 cannot have a different definition from what we see in Phil. 3. In the latter text, righteousness clearly is a gift given to sinners – a declaration that those who have failed to keep the law but who have trusted in Jesus Christ stand in the right before God. The same gift character of righteousness, therefore, is in view in Rom. 10 … If such is the meaning in Rom. 10, it is highly unlikely that Paul means anything different in Rom. 1:17; 3:21-22.” Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 357-58. The reference to this as “a powerful argument” is Schreiner’s own characterization. 147 Peter Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus, 39. N. T. Wright is equally dismissive: “All too often scholars have referred to this passage [Phil 3:9] as though it could be the yardstick for uses of dikaiosune theou; but this is impossible.” Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, 104. Wright does acknowledge that Phil 3:9 is “very close to the similar formulation in Romans 10:3,” but in the end uses the ἐκ as a wedge to separate ἡ ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη (Phil 3:9) and ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη (Rom 10:3) as denoting distinct ideas. Idem, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision, 150-51; idem, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 990-91.

C. Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ as “Gift of Righteousness from God”

335

Table 17. Parallels Between Rom 10:3 and Phil 3:9

Concept

+ The righteousness of God

Rom 10:3 and context

Phil 3:9

ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη (10:3a) ἡ δικαιοσύνη τοῦ θεοῦ (10:3b)

ἡ ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη

– My or their own ἡ ἰδία δικαιοσύνη (10:3a) righteousness

ἐμὴ δικαιοσύνη ἡ ἐκ νόμοῦ

+ The righteousness of faith

δικαιοσύνη ἡ ἐκ πίστεως (9:30) ἡ ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοσύνη (10:6)

ἡ [δικαιοσύνη] διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ ... ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει

– The righteousness of the law

νόμος δικαιοσύνης (9:31) ἡ δικαιοσύνη ἡ ἐκ νόμοῦ (10:5)

ἐμὴ δικαιοσύνη ἡ ἐκ νόμοῦ

The plusses and minuses in the left-most column are intended to indicate that the first member of each parallel is a positive concept (righteousness of God/faith) and the second member of the parallel is a negative concept (righteousness of one’s own/of the law) for Paul. Not only do Rom 10:3 and Phil 3:9 share the same language in these four areas, they also share the same antithesis between the righteousness of God/faith and the righteousness of one’s own/of the Law. But what is more, there are two antithetical pairs: the righteousness of/from God is set in contrast to one’s own (whether the Jews’ or Paul’s) righteousness, and the righteousness of faith is set in contrast to the righteousness of the Law. The recognition of the double interwoven antithetical parallelisms strengthens the conceptual relationship between the two texts to the point where they are bound together by a fourfold intertwined bond that simply cannot be disentangled. In Rom 10:3, “their own righteousness” is explained as “the righteousness of the law,” and “the righteousness of God” is explained as “the righteousness of faith” (cp. Rom 10:3 with 10:5-6; 9:30). In Phil 3:9, “my righteousness” is explained as “that which is of the law,” and “the righteousness from God” is explained as “that which is by faith.” Therefore, “the righteousness of God” (θεοῦ) in Rom 10:3 is equivalent to “the righteousness from God” (ἐκ θεοῦ) in Phil 3:9. Schreiner’s argument, then, proceeds in three steps. Step one: Most commentators agree that Phil 3:9 is referring to the gift aspect, “righteousness from God,” a fact that is unavoidable given the addition of the preposition ἐκ as well as the contrast with ἐμή. Step two: The parallels between Phil 3:9 and Rom 10:3 are too strong to allow for the possibility that Rom 10:3 is using δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ with a different meaning than δικαιοσύνη ἐκ θεοῦ in Phil 3:9. Step three: If δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Rom 10:3 denotes the status of righteousness received from God, then it stretches credulity to think that Paul had a different meaning in view when the same lexeme was used in reference to justification earlier in the letter (Rom 1:17; 3:21-22). Indeed, just as Phil 3:9 and Rom 10:3 are connected by a fourfold tie, so Rom 10:3 is connected back to Rom 3:21. For just as Rom 10:3 is in the context of Paul’s contrast between “the righteousness of the law” and “the righteousness of faith,” so in Rom 3:21-22 Paul says, “But now, apart from

336

Chapter 6: Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul

the law (χωρὶς νόμου), the righteousness of God is manifested … through faith in Jesus Christ.” In other words, the righteousness of God is the righteousness of faith, for it is a righteousness that is received by faith, apart from doing what the law requires. And all commentators recognize the linkage between Rom 3:21 and 1:17, so that we have an unbroken chain from Rom 1:17 to 3:21 to 10:3 indicating that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in all three passages is to be taken in the same gift-from-God sense.148

D. Conclusion We have seen in Chapter 4 that there is no basis for taking δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as a cipher for God’s covenant faithfulness. And we saw in Chapter 5 that while it might be possible to see it as referring to his judicial activity that results in salvation (iustitia salutifera), this usage is frequent in a spiritualized sense in the DSS but it occurs only twice in the Jewish literature composed in Greek. And even in the Jewish Greek literature, it occurs in a slightly altered sense, so that it is not a clear allusion to the iustitia salutifera usage in the Psalms and Isaiah. We concluded that it was barely possible but unlikely that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Paul means “God’s delivering/saving judicial activity.” The purpose of this chapter was to examine the evidence of Paul’s own writings to see if by any chance there might be some internal evidence to support taking δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in a Hebraic sense as referring either to God’s covenant faithfulness or to his saving activity. So we examined the three Pauline texts that have been used to support this reading – Rom 3:5 and 25-26; and 2 Cor 5:21. We concluded that in the first two passages (Rom 3:5 and 25-26), δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is best understood as God’s attribute of righteousness or his distributive justice, and that in the third (2 Cor 5:21), δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is the status of righteousness that believers possess by virtue of union with Christ. Thus we did not find any internal evidence from Paul’s own epistles to support taking δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ to mean God’s covenant faithfulness or his saving power or some combination of the two. We then turned to an examination of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Paul and we argued that the word δικαιοσύνη is best taken as “divinely-approved righteousness” and that the genitive θεοῦ is a genetivus auctoris. Then, by examining the presence or absence of various Näherbestimmungen, we concluded that seven of the occurrences of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Paul use the lexeme in a soteriological sense to refer to the righteousness of God as a gift. 148 Moisés Silva rightly points to the value of ἡ ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη in Phil 3:9 for shedding light on δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Romans. He asks: “Should not the unambiguous reference in this passage provide a dominant perspective for the interpretation of the ambiguous construction in Romans?” Silva, Philippians (2nd ed.; BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 160 n9. I dissent, however, from his inclusion of Rom 3:5, 25-26 as among the Romans passages that should be interpreted in light of Phil 3:9.

Chapter 7

Synopsis and Implications In the closing chapter I would like to accomplish two things: first, to provide a synopsis of the argument as a whole, particularly the results of the lexical investigation of “righteousness” language; and second, to engage in theological reflection on Paul’s doctrine of justification in light of those lexical results, giving particular attention to the implications of this study for the New Perspective on Paul.

A. Synopsis of the Argument In Chapter 1, “History of Interpretation of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul,” I laid the foundation by establishing the traditional views of “the righteousness of God” in Paul. Absolute uniformity, of course, does not exist, but there is nevertheless a general consensus from the Greek and Latin fathers to the medieval commentators to the Protestant Reformation. The general consensus was that δικαιοσύνη was a Normbegriff; that θεοῦ was to be taken as a genitive of source or an objective genitive, but certainly not as a subjective genitive; and that taken as a whole, the phrase referred to the righteous status that believers possess by virtue of faith on the basis of Christ’s atonement. This was the consensus view across the entire church until the second half of the 19th century when a new view began to arise. Traditional views continued even after the rise of the new view, most notably in Bultmann’s 1964 article in response to Käsemann. Beginning in 1860, a new view began to form, initiated by Ritschl and his circle. They rejected the idea that “righteousness” was a Normbegriff and began searching for other, more positive interpretations. Ritschl held that it was a Zweckbegriff, an aim concept, that is, God’s righteousness is his determination to maintain his unswerving aim of love. Hermann Cremer rejected the Ritschlian interpretation but maintained the positive emphasis, leading to his famed Verhältnisbegriff interpretation that would exercise a profound influence on the 20th century discussion, primarily through Käsemann’s influential 1961 lecture, “Gottesgerechtigkeit bei Paulus.” This sets the historical context for the rise of the New Perspective, especially Dunn and Wright, and their interpretation of “the righteousness of God” as God’s covenant faithfulness. After Chapter 2 in which I described my methodological assumptions and approach, in Chapters 3–5, I surveyed the use of “righteousness” in extrabiblical Greek as early as the 6th century BC, in the Old Testament, and in Jewish

338

Chapter 7: Synopsis and Implications

literature after the Old Testament up to around the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt in AD 135. I analyzed the semantic range of the term and determined that it is generally used judicially or ethically, with a small category having to do with doing something correctly or with integrity in speech in the OT. I noted that there are some differences between the usage of δικαιοσύνη in extraָ  ָ   ְ in the OT, such as the use biblical Greek and the usage of ‫צדק‬ ֶ  ֶ and ‫צדקה‬ of the plural “righteous acts” in the OT and the frequent occurrence of God’s delivering righteousness (iustitia salutifera), but that the differences are not between an alleged “Greek” norm-concept and a “Hebrew” relational concept of righteousness. The Greek usage can also be used in reference to righteousness in the area of speech and keeping promises and covenants, just as the Hebrew usage (although we found only three instances of this in the OT – Neh 9:8; Hos 2:19-21; Zech 8:8). Conversely, the Hebrew usage can be just as judicial as, if not more than, that of extra-biblical Greek. We also saw that the Hebrew usage of “God’s righteousness” is not thoroughly positive as Diestel, Ritschl and Cremer claimed. This undercuts Cremer’s theory that “righteousness” is a relational concept in Hebrew thought. Even when used in a positive, saving sense, God’s iustitia salutifera is still understood as a highly judicially-stamped concept so that iustitia salutifera is best understood not in contrast to but as an expression of his iustitia distributiva. An implicit point of Chapter 3 was that the relational interpretation of righteousness operates with a false contrast between Greek and Hebrew thought. Chapter 4, “Righteousness in the Old Testament,” was critical because its conclusions undermine the NPP view that “the righteousness of God” in Paul refers to “God’s covenant faithfulness.” By an examination of ‫צדק‬ ָ  ָ   ְ ֶ  ֶ and ‫צדקה‬ in the Hebrew Bible and their translational equivalents in the LXX, I critically examined Cremer’s arguments for the relational interpretation of righteousness in the OT. I showed that the references to God’s righteousness in the OT can be neutral, negative, or positive. The concept of “saving righteousness” in the OT is not as far removed from extra-biblical Greek as one would think – it is a Normbegriff and has to do with iustitia distributiva. In Chapter 5, “Righteousness in Jewish Literature,” we saw that early Jewish literature continues the same trajectories of usage found in the OT and in extrabiblical Greek. “Righteousness” is not a relational concept, nor does it means “covenant faithfulness.” It remains a Normbegriff throughout Jewish literature of the Second Temple period. Indeed, there seems to be a strong emphasis on “righteousness” in the ethical sense, including the notion of “righteousness before God,” an important usage that sets the stage for Paul’s Rechtfertigungslehre. In Chapter 6, “Exegesis of Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Paul,” I answered the contextual (Pauline) arguments for taking “the righteousness of God” in Paul as a divine activity, whether “salvation” or “covenant faithfulness” or a combination of both. I answered the appeal to Romans 3:3, 5 (which speaks of “God’s faithfulness” and “God’s righteousness” in the same context). I

B. Implications for Paul’s Doctrine of Justification

339

critiqued Kümmel’s and Käsemann’s interpretation of Rom 3:25-26 as “for the demonstration of his covenant faithfulness” (rather, it means that, because of the atoning death of Christ, God is just even when he justifies the wicked). I also interacted with two intertextuality arguments, in which some scholars have argued that Paul’s intertextual allusions to Psalms 98MT/97LXX and 143MT/142LXX lead them to interpret Paul’s “righteousness of God” terminology in terms of God’s saving activity as an expression of his covenant faithfulness. In addition to dealing with these arguments, I pointed out a major flaw with this view – when Paul speaks of God’s covenant faithfulness, he does not appropriate words from the ΔΙΚ-group but instead uses terms like πίστις, ἀλήθεια, and βεβαιόω. Also, if δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ means “God’s covenant faithfulness,” it is difficult to understand why Paul failed to use the lexeme in Romans 11, the one passage where Paul is most concerned to uphold the faithfulness of God in keeping his covenant promises in spite of Israel’s unbelief. Having critiqued the “covenant faithfulness” interpretation, I made the positive case for the traditional Reformation interpretation. All of the contextual indicators (citation of Gen 15:6 and Hab 2:4; “my righteousness” vs. “God’s righteousness”; the Näherbestimmungen; etc.) fit only with “ordinary righteousness” rather than iustitia salutifera/covenant faithfulness. Paul’s “righteousness” language is largely understandable in terms of standard Greek usage, albeit with some biblical theological content drawn from the LXX (especially Gen 15:6 and Hab 2:4), but without any need for recourse to knowledge of Hebrew usage. In Rom 2:13 Paul essentially defines δικαιόω as “to declare one to be δίκαιος before God.” With Stephen Westerholm, I concluded that when one surveys Paul’s use of “righteousness” alone (not in the phrase “the righteousness of God”), one sees that he sometimes uses the term to mean “ordinary righteousness.” If he is addressing “extraordinary righteousness,” the context makes this clear (as well as added phrases like “of faith”) and, in any case, even “extraordinary righteousness” presupposes the ordinary meaning as its foil, and has little to do with an alleged Hebraic/relational meaning. Building on Westerholm, I engaged in exegesis of the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ passages in Paul, arguing that it refers to “an extraordinary righteousness from God as a gift received by faith” and is thus equivalent to “the righteousness of faith.”

B. Implications for Paul’s Doctrine of Justification Having provided a synopsis of the argument, I would now like to draw out some of the implications of this study. First, one of the significant conclusions of this study is that Cremer’s relational theory of the OT concept of righteousness has been decisively disproven. The Verhältnisbegriff approach to “righteousness” was a false turn

340

Chapter 7: Synopsis and Implications

in the history of scholarship. It cannot be sustained because it is simply not true that “righteousness” is a “thoroughly positive” term in the OT. Furthermore, if righteousness is not conformity to an external norm, and the relationship itself is the norm, then this is simply the end of the concept of God’s distributive justice, which is exactly what Ritschl was aiming at in his total reconstruction of Christian theology on the basis of the presupposition that God is pure love. Righteousness is a Normbegriff, and the norm is God’s own moral law, which is grounded in his unchanging nature as a God of perfect holiness, justice, and truth. As we saw in our exegesis of Rom 3:25-26, the distributive justice of God is upheld by justification on the basis of Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice. Second, this study has clarified the notion of God’s saving righteousness. We may speak of a legitimate iustitia salutifera concept, though what we mean by this phrase is not the same as what Cremer meant by it. For Cremer, God’s righteousness is always a positive concept, namely, saving righteousness, and the reason for this is that “righteousness” is a Verhältnisbegriff. This means that there is no norm higher than the relationship, for the relationship between two parties is the norm itself, and “righteousness” is constituted by acting consistently with the relationship. As applied to God’s righteousness, then, iustitia salutifera for Cremer is his acting to deliver his people in accordance with his covenant commitments to his people. However, if we set that Verhältnisbegriff theory to one side, we can speak of a legitimate iustitia salutifera concept in the OT and in the DSS, legitimate in the sense that it is God’s judicial activity, punishing the oppressor and vindicating the oppressed. It is judicial activity with saving results. In this legitimate understanding, God’s iustitia salutifera is not to be set in contrast to God’s iustitia distributiva (as in Diestel, Ritschl, and Cremer) but is rather to be seen as a subset of God’s iustitia distributiva. In this way, “righteousness” retains its fundamental meaning as a Normbegriff, with the norm being God’s own moral law, rooted in his unchanging nature as a God of perfect holiness, justice, and truth. Third, the righteousness of faith stands in contrast to the righteousness of the Law. It is Paul’s polemic against the nomistic theology of Judaism. This nomistic trend, I would argue, is a response to the Hellenization crisis of the 2nd century BC, which spurred the Jewish people to recommit themselves with ever greater fervor to the ancestral Law as the means of attaining righteousness before God. This is not to deny E. P. Sanders’s important critique of the older Protestant interpretation of Second Temple Judaism as a legalistic religion. Sanders was entirely correct in his protest. He demonstrated that Judaism’s pattern of religion was one of “covenantal nomism,” wherein the covenant was established beforehand by God’s electing grace, so that all obedience to the law (“nomism”) is a response to the covenant and the means of staying within the covenant in order to attain eschatological life at the end. He further demonstrated that Judaism acknowledged the centrality of repentance and renewed commitment to ethical righteousness as the primary means of atonement. But none of this changes the

B. Implications for Paul’s Doctrine of Justification

341

fact that the Judaism of this period was nomistic, and not merely in the sense of teaching that Law-keeping is a response to God’s grace, but even more so in the sense of maintaining with particular rigor that one’s righteousness before God comes by means of this Law-keeping. The literature of Second Temple Judaism repeatedly demonstrates the truth of Paul’s accusation that the Jews were ignorant of God’s righteousness and were seeking to establish their own (ἀγνοοῦντες τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην, καὶ τὴν ἰδίαν ζητοῦντες στῆσαι) (Rom 10:3). It is precisely this nomistic feature of Judaism which provides the Sitz im Leben of Paul’s anti-nomistic polemic regarding righteousness/justification by faith in Christ apart from the works of the law. The Pauline antithesis between “the righteousness of the law” and “the righteousness of faith” stems from this controversy with Judaism. Fourth, although Paul’s ΔΙΚ-language when used in connection with his doctrine of justification is not fundamentally to be understood in relational categories, that does not mean that there is no relational dimension to Paul’s gospel. Having established that “the righteousness of God” is revealed in Christ and received by faith, and having examined the nature of justifying faith using Abraham as a paradigm (Rom 4:1-25), Paul then states these magisterial words: “Since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Δικαιωθέντες οὖν ἐκ πίστεως εἰρήνην ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ)” (Rom 5:1) (ESV). As a result of justification, believers have “peace with God,” a concept that is not primarily in reference to the subjective peace of conscience, though that is no doubt included, but to the objective reality of being reconciled to God, as Paul will explain in vv 10-11.1 But it is important to take note of the precise relationship between justification and having peace or a restored relationship with God. Justification has causal priority to and functions as the basis of our restored relationship with God. This is evident by his use of the aorist participle followed by the inferential particle: δικαιωθέντες οὖν. Justification has priority over reconciliation because it is the legal basis and cause of our restored relationship. Justification is a once-for-all judicial verdict of “righteousness” based upon the ἱλαστήριον or propitiatory sacrifice of Christ. God pronounces us righteous in Christ. Because we are reckoned as righteous in Christ and on the ground of his propitiatory sacrifice, we have peace with God. It is not that we are restored to a right relationship with God and then justified. Rather, Paul says, “since we have been justified by faith, we have peace (or let us be at peace)2 with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 395. 2 My argument would remain were one to take the alternate reading ἔχωμεν (hortatory subjunctive), which enjoys superior manuscript support over ἔχομεν (present indicative). The subjunctive reading is generally regarded as secondary by most textual critics and exegetes, on the ground that it arose as a result of a scribal confusion between the omicron and the omega, which sounded similar at this time. However, recently ἔχωμεν seems to be making something

342

Chapter 7: Synopsis and Implications

Having established that we are justified, then reconciled, Paul goes on to show how the retoration to a right relationship with God inevitably leads to a changed life, as he explains in Rom 6-8. “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?” (Rom 6:1-2) (ESV). This reading of the relationship between justification and reconciliation in Rom 5:1-11 is supported by the parallel in 2 Cor 5:19-21 which also skillfully intertwines the twin themes of justification and reconciliation. The means by which God reconciles the world to himself is the Judge’s act of not counting our sins against us, i.e., justification: “In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, by not counting their trespasses against them (μὴ λογιζόμενος αὐτοῖς τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν)” (v 19) (ESV mod.; taking λογιζόμενος as a participle of means). This happens “in Christ” (v 19). Then, picking up on “in Christ,” Paul twice uses the phrase “for the sake of Christ” (ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ) in v 20 as an adverbial prepositional phrase modifying verbs of preaching (πρεσβεύομεν and δεόμεθα). This phrase, used twice for emphasis in the same verse, looks forward to and is explained by the next verse: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (v 21) (ESV). The significance of ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, then, is that the ambassador implores us to “be reconciled to God (καταλλάγητε τῷ θεῷ)” (v 20) based upon or because of (ὑπέρ) the forensic reality of what God did in Christ when, on the cross, he made him sin for us that in him we might become “the righteousness of God.” As in Romans, being reconciled to God on the ground of justification inevitably leads to a transformation of life, for in the very next verse, Paul goes on to say, “we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain” (2 Cor 6:1) (ESV). Fifth, Paul’s doctrine of justification is not primarily about God’s faithfulness to Israel, or about being identified as a member of the covenant people of God. Rather, justification is a matter of how sinful humans can be righteous before the divine tribunal. Paul’s righteousness terminology is set within an eschatological framework of being righteous before God in order to obtain eternal life. Paul’s thinking with regard to justification proceeds in the following steps:

of a comeback. The following argue for the subjunctive: Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 495 n66; Arland J. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 200; Robert Jewett, Romans (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 344, 348; Stanley E. Porter, “The Argument of Romans 5: Can a Rhetorical Question Make a Difference?” JBL 110.4 (1991): 655-77; idem, “Not Only That (οὐ μόνον), But It Has Been Said Before: A Response to Verlyn Verbrugge, or Why Reading Previous Scholarship Can Avoid Scholarly Misunderstandings,” JETS 56.3 (2013): 577-83. Even if we opt for the ἔχωμεν reading, “Since we are justified by faith, let us be at peace with God” (Hultgren’s translation), the point is essentially the same: justification has causal priority; we are exhorted to enjoy peace, or a right relationship, with God as an effect or result of justification.

B. Implications for Paul’s Doctrine of Justification

343

(a) It is a presupposition of Paul’s theology that God requires humans to be righteous in his sight. What that righteousness looks like is set forth in his law. “It is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified” (Rom 2:13 ESV). “If a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law” (Gal 3:21 ESV). (b) That is the standard. However, it does not mean that sinners can be accepted before God by their own obedience and righteousness. Paul takes great pains to show that, in fact, “none is righteous, no not one” (Rom 3:10 ESV). Because of the reign of sin, “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” (Rom 1:18 ESV). Because of Adam’s sin (Rom 5:12-21), “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23 ESV). The conclusion from the preceding point is not that sinners can be accepted before God’s tribunal by keeping the law but, in light of the reign of sin, the correct conclusion is that “by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight” (Rom 3:20 ESV, using the language of Psalm 143:2MT/142:2LXX). (c) But this is not the end of the story. Were it the end, we would have no hope. “But now a righteousness from God has been manifested apart from the law, to which the Law and the Prophets bear witness, even the righteousness from God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe” (Rom 3:21-22 translation mine).

Appendix

All Occurrences of “Righteousness” in the Old Testament Section 1. ‫צדק‬ ֶ ֶ (masc.) in the OT n I. Legal righteousness 49 With verbs of judging or ruling 15 Justice 19 Righteousness of God (“my, his, your”) 7 Vindication 5 Clothed with righteousness 3 Rights -

% 41

II. Ethical righteousness 41 General 12 With verbs of doing 3 Righteous laws/word 10 Gates, paths, cities, etc. of righteousness 7 Righteousness before God 9 Honesty -

34

III. Correctness 21 Speaking righteousness, telling the truth 6 Just balances, weights 10 Doing something correctly 5

18

IV. Difficult cases Total

8

7

119

100

(n = number of occurrences) I. LEGAL RIGHTEOUSNESS (49) I.A. With verbs of judging or ruling (15) I.A.1 Human judges or kings (including Messiah) as subject (10) 1) Lev 19:15 “You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge (‫תּשׁפּט‬ ‫בּצדק‬ ֹ  ְ ִ     ֶ  ֶ ְ / ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ κρινεῖς) your neighbor” (ESV).

Appendix

345

2) Deut 1:16 16 “And I [Moses] charged your judges at that time, ‘Hear the cases between your brothers, and judge righteously (‫צדק‬ ‫שׁפטתּם‬ ֶ  ֶ ֶ ְ   ַ ְ / κρίνατε δικαίως) between a man and his brother or the alien who is with him. 17 You shall not be partial in judgment’” (ESV). 3) Deut 16:18 “And you shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns … and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment (‫משׁפּט־צדק‬ ‫את־העם‬ ‫ושׁפטוּ‬ ֶ  ֶ       ַ ְ   ִ   ָ ָ ֶ   ְ   ָ   ְ / καὶ κρινοῦσιν τὸν λαὸν κρίσιν δικαίαν)” (ESV). 4) Ps 58:1 [58:2MT/57:2LXX] ֵ  ַ ְ      ֶ   ֶ “Do you indeed decree what is right (‫תּדבּרוּן‬ ‫צדק‬ / δικαιοσύνην λαλεῖτε), you gods? Do you judge the children of man uprightly (‫תּשׁפּטוּ‬ ‫מישׁרים‬ ְ ְ ִ    ִ ָ     ֵ / εὐθεῖα κρίνετε)?” (ESV). 5) Ps 72:2 [71:2LXX] ֶ   ָ    ‫ ִמ    ְש‬/ τὸ κρίμα σου), O God, and your righteousness 1 “Give the king your justice (‫ׁפּטי‬ (‫וצדקת‬ ְ   ָ     ְ  ִ     ְ / τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου) to the royal son! 2 May he judge your people with ֶ  ֶ ְ     ְ   ַ    ִ  ָ / κρίνειν τὸν λαόν σου ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ), and your poor with righteousness (‫בצדק‬ ‫עמ‬ ‫ידין‬    ָ    ְ    ִ   ְ / ἐν κρίσει)!” (ESV). justice (‫במשׁפּט‬ 6-7) Prov 8:15-16 15 “By me [wisdom] kings reign, and rulers decree what is just (‫צדק‬ ‫יחקקוּ‬ ֶ  ֶ       ְ  ֹ    ְ / γράφουσιν ֹ δικαιοσύνην); 16 by me princes rule, and nobles, all who govern justly (‫צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ      ‫”)כּל־שׁפטי‬     ֵ    ְ       ָ (ESV).1 8) Prov 31:9 1 “The words of King Lemuel. An oracle that his mother taught him … 9 Open your mouth, judge righteously (‫שׁפט־צדק‬ ֶ  ֶ            ָ    ְ  / κρῖνε δικαίως), defend the rights of the poor and the needy” (ESV). 9) Isa 11:4 1 “There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse … 3 He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide disputes by what his ears hear, 4 but with righteousness he shall judge the poor (‫דּלּים‬ ‫בּצדק‬ ‫ושׁפט‬ ִ  ַ    ֶ  ֶ    ְ            ַ     ָ    ְ  / ἀλλὰ κρινεῖ ταπεινῷ κρίσιν2), and decide with equity (‫בּמישׁוֹר‬ ִ   ְ   ‫והוֹכיח‬ ַ    ִ         ְ / καὶ ἐλέγξει) for the meek of the earth; and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked. 5 Righteousness ֶ   ֶ / δικαιοσύνη) shall be the belt of his waist, and faithfulness (‫האמוּנה‬ ָ    ֱ ָ / ἀληθεία) the (‫צדק‬ belt of his loins” (ESV).3 10) Isa 32:1 “Behold, a king will reign in righteousness (‫ימל־מל‬ ‫לצדק‬ ֶ  ֶ ְ / βασιλεὺς δίκαιος ֵ ֶ ֶ  ָ    ְ  ִ    ָ      ְ     ִ ְ    ִ ָ   ְ    / καὶ ἄρχοντες μετὰ βασιλεύσει4), and princes will rule in justice (‫  ָישרוּ‬ ‫למשׁפּט‬ ‫וּלשרים‬ κρίσεως ἄρξουσιν)” (ESV). ֶ  ֶ   so that the text reads “all who govern the ֶ    ָ in place of ‫צדק‬ 1 Several Hebrew MSS have ‫ארץ‬ earth.” So LXX (τύραννοι δι’ ἐμοῦ κρατοῦσι γῆς). 2 Symmachus: ἀλλὰ κρινεῖ ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ πένητας. ֶ  ֶ    ְ (“with righteousness”) and ‫בּמישֹׁור‬ 3 Note that ‫בּצדק‬ ִ ְ (“with equity” [ESV] or “with fairness” [NASB]) are parallel. ‫ ִמישׁוֹר‬normally means “level ground, plain, plateau,” but it has a metaphorical meaning here and in Ps 45:6; 67:4; Mal 2:6. 4 Aquila: ἰδοὺ εἰς δίκαιον βασιλεύσει βασιλεύς. Symmachus and Theodotion: ἰδοὺ εἰς δικαιοσύνην βασιλεύσει βασιλεύς.

346

Appendix

I.A.2 God as subject (5) 1-2) Ps 9:4, 8 [9:5, 9MT/LXX] 3 “When my enemies turn back, they stumble and perish before your presence. 4 For you ִ ִ ְ    ִ   ָ    ְ    ִ    ‫עשׂית‬ ָ ִ   ָ / ἐποίησας τὴν κρίσιν μου καὶ τὴν have maintained my just cause (‫ודיני‬ ‫משׁפּטי‬ δίκην μου); you have sat on the throne, giving righteous judgment (‫צדק‬ ‫שׁוֹפט‬ / ὁ κρίνων ֶ   ֶ    ֵ δικαιοσύνην). 5 You have rebuked the nations; you have made the wicked perish; you have blotted out their name forever and ever. 6 The enemy came to an end in everlasting ruins; their cities you rooted out; the very memory of them has perished. 7 But the Lord sits  ָ    ְ    ִ     ַ / ἐν κρίσει), 8 and he enthroned forever; he has established his throne for justice (‫למּשׁפּט‬ ֶ    ֶ    ְ / ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ); he judges the peoples with judges the world with righteousness (‫בּצדק‬ uprightness (‫בּמישׁרים‬  ִ   ָ       ֵ    ְ / ἐν εὐθύτητι)” (ESV). 3-4) Ps 96:13 [95:13LXX] “He will judge the world in righteousness (‫בּצדק‬ ֶ    ֶ    ְ / ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ), and the peoples in his faithfulness (‫בּאמוּנתוֹ‬ ָ     ֱ    ֶ / ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ αὐτοῦ)” (ESV) (= Ps 98:9 [97:9LXX] except that “in his faithfulness” is replaced by “with equity” [‫בּמישׁרים‬ ִ ָ       ֵ ְ / ἐν εὐθύτητι]). 5) Jer 11:20 19 “But I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter. I did not know it was against me they devised schemes, saying, ‘Let us destroy the tree with its fruit, let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name be remembered no more.’ 20 But, O Lord of hosts, who ֶ    ֶ ‫שׂפט‬ ֵ ֹ / κρίνων δίκαια), who tests the heart and the mind, let me see judges righteously (‫צדק‬ ְ   ָ    ְ  ִ      your vengeance (‫נקמת‬ / τὴν παρὰ σοῦ ἐκδίκησιν) upon them, for to you have I committed my cause (‫את־ריבי‬ ִ   ִ         ֶ / τὸ δικαίωμά μου)” (ESV). I.B. Justice (19) I.B.1 Human (including Messianic) justice (9) 1-2) Deut 16:20 19 “You shall not pervert justice (‫משׁפּט‬ ָ    ְ ִ / κρίσις). You shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous (‫צדּיקם‬ ‫דּברי‬ ִ   ִ  ַ        ֵ   ְ    ִ / λόγους δικαίων). 20 Justice, and only justice, you shall follow ֹ     ְ    ִ    ֶ   ֶ ֶ   ֶ / δικαίως5 τὸ δίκαιον διώξῃ), that you may live and inherit the land that (‫תּרדּף‬ ‫צדק‬ ‫צדק‬ the Lord your God is giving you” (ESV). 3) Ps 45:4 [45:5MT/44:5LXX] “In your majesty ride forth victoriously in behalf of truth, humility, and righteousness (‫וענוה־צדק‬ ‫על־דּבר־אמת‬ ֶ    ֶ    ָ  ְ ַ   ְ   ֶ   ֱ   ַ   ְ     ַ / ἕνεκεν ἀληθείας καὶ πραΰτητος καὶ δικαιοσύνης); let your right hand display awesome deeds” (NIV). 4) Ps 94:15 [93:15LXX] “Judgment will again be founded on righteousness (‫משׁפּט‬ ‫   ָישׁוּב‬ ‫עד־צדק‬  ָ ְ    ִ      ֶ   ֶ ַ / ἕως οὗ δικαιοσύνη ἐπιστρέψῃ εἰς κρίσιν), and all the upright in heart will follow it” (NIV). 5) Prov 25:5 ָ       ָ / ἀσεβεῖς) from the presence of the king, and his throne will “Take away the wicked (‫רשׁע‬ be established in righteousness (‫בּצּדק‬ ֶ    ֶ      ַ / ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ)” (ESV).



5

Some MSS have δίκαιος or δίκαια.

Appendix

347

6) Eccl 3:16 16 “Moreover, I saw under the sun that in the place of justice (‫המּשׁפּט‬ ‫ ְמקוֹם‬/ τόπον τῆς ָ ְ       ִ   ַ        κρίσεως), even there was wickedness (‫הרשׁע‬ ַ ֶ   ָ / ὁ ἀσεβής), and in the place of righteousness   ַ     ָ      ָ / ὁ ἀσεβής). 17 I (‫הצּדק‬ ‫ ְמקוֹם‬/ τόπον τοῦ δικαίου), even there was wickedness (‫הרשׁע‬ ֶ  ֶ    ַ     said in my heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked (‫האהים‬ ‫ישׁפּט‬ ‫ואת־הרשׁע‬ ִ   ֱ ָ    ֹ ְ   ִ    ָ    ָ   ָ       ֶ   ְ ‫את־הצּדּיק‬ ִ ַ    ַ ֶ / σὺν τὸν δίκαιον καὶ σὺν τὸν ἀσεβῆ κρινεῖ ὁ θεός), for there is a time for every matter and for every work” (ESV). 7) Eccl 5:8 [5:7MT/LXX] “If you see in a province the oppression of the poor and the violation of justice and righteousness (‫וצדק‬ ‫משׁפּט‬ ‫גזל‬ ֶ  ֶ    ַָ   ָ ְ ִ  ֶ  ֵ / ἁρπαγὴν κρίματος καὶ δικαιοσύνης), do not be amazed at the matter, for the high official is watched by a higher, and there are yet higher ones over them” (ESV). 8) Isa 16:5 4b “When the oppressor is no more, and destruction has ceased, and he who tramples underfoot has vanished from the land, 5 then a throne will be established in steadfast love (‫בּחסד‬ ֶ  ֱ  ֶ   / μετὰ ἀληθείας) in the tent ֶ ֶ ַ / μετ’ ἐλέους), and on it will sit in faithfulness (‫בּאמת‬ of David one who judges and seeks justice and is swift to do righteousness (‫צדק‬ ‫וּמהר‬ ֶ   ֶ   ִ ְ ‫משׁפּט‬ ‫ודרשׁ‬ ‫שׁפט‬ ָ    ְ    ִ ֵ  ֹ  ְ    ֵ   ֹ / κρίνων καὶ ἐκζητῶν κρίμα καὶ σπεύδων δικαιοσύνην6)” (ESV). 9) Jer 22:13 “Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness (‫בּא־צדק‬ ֶ    ֶ      ְ / οὐ μετὰ δικαιοσύνης), and his upper rooms by injustice (‫משׁפּט‬ ‫     ְבּא‬/ οὐκ ἐν κρίματι), who makes his neighbor      ָ     ְ    ִ      serve him for nothing and does not give him his wages” (ESV). I.B.2 Divine justice (10) 1) Job 8:3 The words of Bildad the Shuhite to Job: “Does God pervert justice (‫משׁפּט‬ ‫יעוּת‬ ָ ְ ִ ֵ  ַ   ְ / ἀδικήσει κρίνων)? Does the Almighty pervert what is right (‫צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ   / τὸ δίκαιον)?” (NIV). 2) Job 36:3: ‫אתּן־צדק‬ ‫ולפעלי‬ ִ  ֲ   ֹ   ְ   ְ / ἔργοις δέ μου δίκαια ἐρῶ ֶ   ֶ   ֵ   ֶ NASB, ESV: “I will ascribe righteousness (or ‘justice’ [NIV]) to my Maker” 3) Ps 48:10 [48:11MT/47:11LXX] “As your name, O God, so your praise reaches to the ends of the earth. Your right hand is filled with righteousness (‫צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ   / δικαιοσύνη)” (ESV). 4) Ps 65:5 [65:6MT/64:6LXX] “By awesome deeds you answer us with righteousness (‫)בּצדק‬, ֶ   ֶ    ְ O God of our salvation, the hope of all the ends of the earth and of the farthest seas” (ESV). (LXX has ἐπάκουσον ἡμῶν, ὁ θεὸς ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν = “Hearken to us, O God, our savior” [NETS]). 5-6) Ps 89:14 [89:15MT/88:15LXX] ֶ   ֶ   / δικαιοσύνη καὶ κρίμα) are the foundation7 of “Righteousness and justice (‫וּמשׁפּט‬ ָ   ְ ִ ‫צדק‬ your throne” (ESV) (= Ps 97:2 [96:2LXX] with change of pronoun, “his throne”).

6 Some MSS insert the preposition εἰς or ἐπί before δικαιοσύνην. 7 Hebrew ‫ ְמכוֹן‬in both verses. But LXX translates inconsistently: ἑτοιμασία (“preparation, provision”) in Ps 88:15LXX and κατόρθωσις (“setting straight, setting up”) in Ps 96:2LXX.

348

Appendix

7) Isa 45:8 “Shower, O heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain down righteousness (‫צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ   / δικαιοσύνην); let the earth open, that salvation and righteousness (‫וּצדקה‬ ‫ישׁע‬ ָ ָ   ְ       ַ  ֶ / ἔλεος καὶ δικαιοσύνην) may bear fruit; let the earth cause them both to sprout; I the Lord have created it” (ESV). 8) Isa 58:2 1 “Cry aloud; do not hold back; lift up your voice like a trumpet; declare to my people their transgression, to the house of Jacob their sins. 2 Yet they seek me daily and delight to know my ways, as if they were a nation that did righteousness (‫עשׂה‬ ‫צדקה‬ ָ   ָ     ָ      ָ   ְ / δικαιοσύνην πεποιηκώς) and did not forsake the judgment (‫משׁפּט‬ ַ ְ    ִ / κρίσις) of their God; they ask of me righteous judgments (‫משׁפּטי־צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ   ֵ ְ ְ ִ / κρίσιν δικαίαν); they delight to draw near to God” (ESV). 9-10) Jer 23:6 || 33:168 “In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by ‫יהוה‬ which he will be called: ‘The Lord is our righteousness’ (‫צדקנוּ‬ ֵ   ְ  ִ   ָ ְ / κύριος Ιωσεδεκ9)” (ESV). I.C. The righteousness of God (“my, his, your righteousness”) (7) 1) Ps 7:17 [7:18MT] “I will give to the Lord the thanks due to his righteousness (‫כּצדקוֹ‬   ְ  ִ   ְ / κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ), and I will sing praise to the name of the Lord, Most High” (ESV) (NIV: “I will give thanks to the Lord because of his righteousness”).10 2-3) Ps 35:24, 28 [34:24, 28LXX] 23 “Awake, and rise to my defense! (‫למשׁפּטי‬  ִ   ָ ְ ִ ְ / τῇ κρίσει μου) Contend for me, my God and Lord. ‫שׁפטני‬ 24 Vindicate me in your righteousness (‫כצדק‬ ְ  ְ  ִ ְ   ִ  ֵ ְ  ָ / κρῖνόν με κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου11), O Lord my God; do not let them gloat over me. 25 Do not let them think, ‘Aha, just what we wanted!’ or say, ‘We have swallowed him up.’ 26 May all who gloat over my distress be put to shame and confusion; may all who exalt themselves over me be clothed with shame and disgrace.

8 Jer 33 [= 40LXX] stops at v 13 in the LXX; there is no Greek text corresponding to the Hebrew text found at Jer 33:16 in the MT. 9 Punctuation given by Rahlfs. However, Joseph Ziegler (Göttingen Septuaginta) takes ἐν τοῖς προφήταις from next line with Ιωσεδεκ. So NETS (“Iosedek among the prophets”). Aquila: κύριε δικαιοσύνη ἡμῶν. Symmachus and the Syrian: κύριε δικαίωσον ἡμᾶς. 10 In the immediate context, God’s righteousness expressed in (a) the salvation of the righteous (vv 8-10) and (b) the punishment of the wicked (vv 11-16). This poses a significant problem for Ritschl and Cremer. 11 Some MSS read τὴν δικαιοσύνην μου. Others have τὴν ἐλεημοσύνην σου.

Appendix

349

May those who delight in my vindication (‫צדקי‬ ִ  ְ  ִ / τὴν δικαιοσύνην μου)12 shout for joy and gladness; may they always say, ‘The Lord be exalted, who delights in the well-being of his servant.’ 28 My tongue will speak of your righteousness (‫צדק‬ ֶ  ְ  ִ / τὴν δικαιοσύνην  σου) and of your praises all day long” (NIV). 27

4) Ps 50:6 [49:6LXX] 3 “Our God comes; he does not keep silence; before him is a devouring fire, around him a mighty tempest. 4 He calls to the heavens above and to the earth, that he may judge (‫לדין‬ / ִ ָ    διακρῖναι) his people: 5 ‘Gather to me my faithful ones, who made a covenant with me by sacrifice!’ 6   The heavens declare his righteousness (‫צדקוֹ‬ ‫שׁמים‬ ‫ויּגּידוּ‬ ְ  ִ   ִ ַ ָ        ִ ַ ַ / καὶ ἀναγγελοῦσιν οἱ οὐρανοὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ), for God himself is judge! (‫שפט הוּא‬ ‫כּי־אהים‬ ֵ ֹ ֹ   ִ      ֱ     ִ / ὅτι ὁ θεὸς κριτής ἐστιν) Selah. 7 ‘Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, I will testify against you. I am God, your God’” (ESV). 5) Ps 97:6 [96:6LXX] “The heavens proclaim his righteousness (‫צדקוֹ‬  ְ  ִ / τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ), and all the peoples see his glory” (ESV). 6) Isa 42:21  ְ  ִ ‫)למען‬, ַ ַ ְ to magnify his law “The Lord was pleased, for his righteousness’ sake (‫צדקוֹ‬ and make it glorious” (ESV) (LXX: κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἐβούλετο ἵνα δικαιωθῇ καὶ μεγαλύνῃ αἴνεσιν).13 7) Isa 51:5 4 “Give attention to me, my people, and give ear to me, my nation; for a law will go out from me, and I will set my justice (‫משׁפּטי‬ ִ   ָ    ְ ִ / ἡ κρίσις μου) for a light to the peoples. 5 My righteousness (‫צדקי‬ ִ     ְ  ִ / ἡ δικαιοσύνη μου) draws near, ִ    ְ  ִ / τὸ σωτήριόν μου) has gone out, my salvation (‫ישׁעי‬ ֹ   ְ   ִ      ִ  ַ    ‫וּזרעי‬ ַ  ֹ  ְ / -- ); and my arms will judge the peoples (‫ישׁפּטוּ‬ ‫עמּים‬ the coastlands hope for me,  ֵ   ַ  ְ ‫ואל־זרעי‬ ִ  ֹ ְ    ֶ   ְ / καὶ εἰς τὸν βραχίονά μου and for my arm they wait (‫ייחלוּן‬ ἐλπιοῦσιν). 6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look at the earth beneath; for the heavens vanish like smoke, the earth will wear out like a garment, and they who dwell in it will die in like manner; ִ   ָ   / τὸ σωτήριόν μου) will be forever, but my salvation (‫ישׁוּעתי‬ and my righteousness (‫צדקתי‬ ִ   ָ     ְ  ִ  /  ἡ δικαιοσύνη μου) will never be dismayed. 7 Listen to me, you who know righteousness (‫צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ   / κρίσις),14 the people in whose heart is my law;

12 See under “Vindication.” 13 The context has to do with judgment on Israel for disobeying God’s law: “So he poured on him the heat of his anger” (v 25). 14 Listed under “Ethical righteousness.”

350

Appendix

fear not the reproach of man, nor be dismayed at their revilings. 8 For the moth will eat them up like a garment, and the worm will eat them like wool; but my righteousness (‫צדקתי‬ ִ   ָ     ְ  ִ / ἡ δικαιοσύνη μου) will be forever, ִ   ָ   / τὸ σωτήριόν μου) to all generations” (ESV).15 and my salvation (‫ישׁוּעתי‬ I.D. Vindication (5) 1) Job 6:29 “My vindication (‫)צדקי‬ ִ  ְ  ִ is at stake” (ESV) (LXX: πάλιν τῷ δικαίῳ συνέρχεσθε = “gather again with him who is just” [NETS]). 2) Ps 4:1 [4:2MT/LXX] “Answer me when I call, O God of my righteousness (‫צדקי‬ ‫אהי‬ ִ  ְ  ִ         ֵ       ֱ / ὁ θεὸς τῆς δικαιοσύνης μου)” (ESV). 3) Ps 35:27 [34:27LXX] “May those who delight in my vindication (‫צדקי‬ ִ  ְ  ִ / τὴν δικαιοσύνην μου) shout for joy and gladness” (NIV).16 4) Ps 37:6 [36:6LXX] 5 “Commit your way to the Lord; trust in him, and he will act. 6 He will bring forth your righteousness (‫צדק‬ ֶ ָ    ְ    ִ / τὸ ֶ  ְ  ִ / τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου) as the light, and your justice (‫משׁפּט‬ κρίμα σου) as the noonday” (ESV). 5) Ps 40:9 [40:10MT/39:10LXX] 9 “I have proclaimed glad tidings of righteousness (‫צדק‬ ִ   ְ    ַָ ִ / εὐηγγελισάμην ֶ   ֶ   ‫בּשּׂרתּי‬ δικαιοσύνην17) in the great congregation; behold, I will not restrain my lips, O Lord, you know. 10 I have not hidden your righteousness (‫צדקת‬ ְִ   ָ     ְ  ִ / τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου) within my ְִ  ָ          ֱ / τὴν ἀλήθειάν σου) and your salvation heart; I have spoken of your faithfulness (‫אמוּנת‬ (‫ׁוּעתּ‬ ‫ ְתש‬/ τὸ σωτήριόν σου); I have not concealed your lovingkindness (‫חסדּ‬ ְ     ַָ   ְ  ְ    ַ / τὸ ἔλεός σου) and your truth (‫אמתּ‬ ְ ִ  ֲ / τὴν ἀλήθειάν σου) from the great congregation” (NASB).18 I.E. Clothed with righteousness (3) 1) Job 29:14 “I put on righteousness (‫צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ   / δικαιοσύνη), and it clothed me; my justice (‫ׁפּטי‬ ִ   ַָ ‫  ִמ     ְש‬/ κρίμα) was like a robe and a turban” (ESV).

15 Here, the righteousness of God is clearly saving, but it is saving because it is his powerful action (“his arm”) of condemning those who reproach and revile his people. God’s righteousness is his powerful vindicating judgment, and it even goes out like a light to the nations, causing them to hope in him as well. 16 See above for context, which twice refers to God’s righteousness (vv 24, 28). 17 Some versions based on the LXX (the Bohairic and some Latin MSS) have “your righteousness.” 18 See v 5 (“I will proclaim and tell of them,” i.e. “your wondrous deeds”) and vv 13, 17 (references to God’s deliverance). Therefore, “I will proclaim glad tidings of righteousness” means “I will proclaim the glad tidings of God’s judicial activity that resulted in his delivering me from my oppressors.”

Appendix

351

2) Ps 132:9 [131:9LXX] “Let your priests be clothed with righteousness (‫ילבּשוּ־צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ   ְ    ְ   ִ / ἐνδύσονται δικαιοσύνην), and let your saints shout for joy” (ESV). 3) Isa 11:5 “Righteousness (‫צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ   / δικαιοσύνη) shall be the belt of his waist, and faithfulness (‫האמוּנה‬ ָ     ֱ ָ   / ἀληθεία) the belt of his loins” (ESV). II. ETHICAL RIGHTEOUSNESS (41) II.A. General (12) 1) Ps 7:8 [7:9MT/LXX] “The Lord judges the peoples; judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness (‫כּצדקי‬ ִ  ְ  ִ   ְ / κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην μου19) and according to the integrity that is in me” (ESV).20 2) Ps 45:7 [45:8MT/44:8LXX] 6 “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness (‫   ִמישֹׁר‬ ‫ש ֶׁבט‬ ֵ / ῥάβδος εὐθύτητος); 7 you have loved righteousness (‫צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ   / δικαιοσύνη) and hated wickedness (‫שׁע‬ ‫   ֶר‬/ ἀνομία)” (ESV). ַ      3) Prov 1:3 1 “The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel: 2 To know wisdom and instruction, to understand words of insight, 3 to receive instruction in wise dealing, in righteousness, justice, and equity (‫ש ִׁרים‬ ‫וּמי‬ ‫וּמשׁפּט‬ ‫צדק‬ ָ      ֵ       ָ ְ ִ    ֶ   ֶ / δικαιοσύνην ἀληθῆ καὶ κρίμα)” (ESV).21 4) Prov 2:9 “Then you will understand righteousness and justice and equity (‫     ָש ִׁרים‬ ‫וּמי‬ ‫וּמ ְש ָׁפּט‬ ‫צדק‬ ֵ       ִ    ֶ   ֶ / δικαιοσύνην καὶ κρίμα), every good path” (ESV).22 5) Eccl 7:15 “In my vain life I have seen everything. There is a righteous man (‫צדּיק‬   ִ   ַ / δίκαιος) who perishes in his righteousness (‫בּצדּקוֹ‬ ‫ָר‬  ָ     ְ  ִ   ְ / ἐν δικαίῳ αὐτοῦ), and there is a wicked man (‫שׁע‬ / ἀσεβής) who prolongs his life in his evildoing (‫בּרעתוֹ‬ ָ      ָ   ְ / ἐν κακίᾳ αὐτοῦ)” (ESV). 6) Isa 1:21 “How the faithful city has become a whore, she who was full of justice (‫משׁפּט‬ ָ ְ   ִ / κρίσις)! Righteousness (‫צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ   / δικαιοσύνη) lodged in her, but now murderers” (ESV). 7-8) Isa 26:9-10 9 “When your judgments (‫משׁפּטי‬ ֶ    ַָ ְ     ִ  / τὰ προστάγματά σου) are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness (‫צדק‬ ‫ָר‬  ָ    ֶ   ֶ   / δικαιοσύνη). 10 If favor is shown to the wicked (‫שׁע‬ / ὁ ἀσεβής), he does not learn righteousness (‫צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ   / δικαιοσύνη); in the land of uprightness he deals corruptly and does not see the majesty of the Lord” (ESV). 19 Some MSS have σου. 20 See context which uses “righteousness” terms in vv 9, 11, 17. 21 The same three terms occur together in Prov 2:9. Both contexts are ambiguous: does ‫צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ   refer to justice or ethical righteousness? 22 LXX misunderstands “equity” as a verb and takes with the concluding phrase: καὶ κατορθώσεις πάντας ἄξονας ἀγαθούς = “and you will make all good courses straight” (NETS).

352

Appendix

9) Isa 51:1 “Listen to me, you who pursue righteousness (‫צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ   ‫רדפי‬ ֵ    ְ  ֹ / οἱ διώκοντες τὸ δίκαιον), you who seek the Lord: look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were dug” (ESV). 10) Isa 51:7 “Listen to me, you who know righteousness (‫צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ   ‫יּדעי‬ ֵ    ְ   / οἱ εἰδότες κρίσιν23), the people in whose heart is my law; fear not the reproach of man, nor be dismayed at their reviling” (ESV). 11) Ezek 3:20 17 “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. 18 If I say to the wicked (‫ש ׁע‬ ‫ָר‬  ָ    / ὁ ἄνομος), ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. 19 But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you   ִ   ַ / δίκαιος) turns from his will have delivered your soul. 20 Again, if a righteous person (‫צדּיק‬ righteousness (‫מצּדקוֹ‬ ‫שׂה‬  ֶ  ָ    ָ ‫וע‬ ָ   ְ /  ְ  ִ     ִ / ἀπὸ τῶν δικαιοσυνῶν24 αὐτοῦ) and commits injustice (‫עול‬ καὶ ποιήσῃ παράπτωμα), and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die. Because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous deeds that he has done (‫שׂה‬  ָ   ‫ָע‬ ‫שׁר‬ ‫צדקתו‬ ֶ ‫    ֲא‬ ָ  ֹ ְ  ִ / αἱ δικαιοσύναι αὐτοῦ, ἃς ἐποίησεν) shall not be remembered, but his blood I will require at your hand. 21 But if you warn the righteous person (‫צדּיק‬  ִ   ַ / ὁ δίκαιος) not to sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live, because he took warning, and you will have delivered your soul” (ESV).   

12) Zeph 2:3 “Seek the Lord, all you humble of the earth who have carried out his ordinances; seek ֶ   ֶ   ְ ִ / δικαιοσύνην ζητήσατε); seek humility. Perhaps you will be righteousness (‫ׁוּ־צדק‬ ‫בּקּש‬ hidden in the day of the Lord’s anger” (NASB).25 II.B. With verbs of doing (3) 1) Ps 15:2 [14:2LXX] 1 “Lord, who may dwell in your sanctuary? Who may live on your holy hill? 2 He whose ֶ   ֶ   ‫פעל‬   ֵ   ֹ / ἐργαζόμενος δικαιοσύνην), walk is blameless and who does what is righteous (‫צדק‬ who speaks the truth from his heart” (NIV). 2) Ps 119:121 [118:121LXX] “I have done what is just and right (‫וצדק‬ ‫משׁפּט‬ ‫ׂיתי‬ ֶ   ֶ  ָ      ָ ְ ִ ִ    ‫ ָע     ִש‬/ ἐποίησα κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην); do not leave me to my oppressors” (ESV). 23 Chrysostom, Hesychias, and others have δικαιοσύνην. 24 Some MSS have the singular, τῆς δικαιοσύνης. 25 Note the chiasm, suggesting that “righteousness” here has to do with carrying out God’s ordinances: A – “Seek the Lord, all you humble of the earth” B – “who have carried out his ordinances” B’ – “seek righteousness” A’ – “seek humility”

Appendix

353

3) Isa 64:5 [64:4MT] 4 “Since ancient times no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God besides you, who acts on behalf of those who wait for him. 5 You come to the help of those who gladly do right (‫צדק‬ ‫שׂה‬ ‫שׂשׂ‬ ‫ ֶאת־‬/ τοῖς ποιοῦσιν τὸ δίκαιον), who remember your ֶ   ֶ     ֵ ‫וﬠ‬ ֹ   ְ       ָ   ways” (NIV). II.C. Righteous laws, word (10) 1) Ps 119:7 [118:7LXX] “I will praise you with an upright heart, when I learn your righteous rules” (ESV). (‫צדק‬ ‫משׁפּטי‬ ֶ  ְ  ִ       ֵ ְ ְ ִ / τὰ κρίματα τῆς δικαιοσύνης σου) 2) Ps 119:62 [118:62LXX] “At midnight I rise to praise you, because of your righteous rules” (ESV). (‫צדק‬ ‫משׁפּטי‬ ֶ  ְ  ִ       ֵ ְ ְ ִ / τὰ κρίματα τῆς δικαιοσύνης σου) 3) Ps 119:75 [118:75LXX] “I know, O Lord, that your rules are righteous, (‫משׁפּטי‬ ‫כּי־צדק‬ ֶ ָ ְ ִ ֶ   ֶ   ִ / ὅτι δικαιοσύνη τὰ κρίματά σου) and that in faithfulness you have afflicted me” (ESV). 4) Ps 119:106 [119:106LXX] “I have sworn an oath and confirmed it, to keep your righteous rules” (ESV). (‫צדק‬ ‫משׁפּטי‬ ֶ  ְ  ִ       ֵ ְ ְ ִ / τὰ κρίματα τῆς δικαιοσύνης σου) 5) Ps 119:123 [118:123LXX] “My eyes long for your salvation (‫ׁוּעת‬ ‫ ִליש‬/ εἰς τὸ σωτήριόν σου) ֶ   ָ and for the fulfillment of your righteous promise” (ESV). (‫צדק‬ ‫לאמרת‬ ֶ  ְ  ִ     ַ   ְ ִ    ְ / εἰς τὸ λόγιον τῆς δικαιοσύνης σου) 6) Ps 119:138 [118:138LXX] “You have appointed your testimonies in righteousness (‫צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ   / δικαιοσύνην) and in all faithfulness (‫אמוּנה‬ ָ       ֱ / ἀλήθειαν)” (ESV). 7) Ps 119:144 [118:144LXX] ֶ   ֶ   / δικαιοσύνη) forever; “Your testimonies are righteous (‫צדק‬ give me understanding that I may live” (ESV). 8) Ps 119:160 [118:160LXX] “The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever” (ESV). (‫צדק‬ ‫כּל־משׁ   ַפּּט‬ ֶ  ְ  ִ       ְ   ִ        ָ / πάντα τὰ κρίματα τῆς δικαιοσύνης σου) 9) Ps 119:164 [118:164LXX] “Seven times a day I praise you for your righteous rules” (ESV). (‫צדק‬ ‫משׁפּטי‬ ֶ   ְ  ִ     ֵ ְ ְ ִ / τὰ κρίματα τῆς δικαιοσύνης σου)

354

Appendix

10) Ps 119:172 [188:172LXX] “My tongue will sing of your word, for all your commandments are right” (ESV). (‫צּדק‬ ‫כל־מצוֹתי‬ ֶ   ֶ        ֶ    ְ ִ    ָ / πᾶσαι αἱ ἐντολαί σου δικαιοσύνη) II.D. Gates, paths, cities, etc. of righteousness (7) 1) Ps 23:3 [22:3LXX] “He restores my soul. He leads me in paths of righteousness (‫במעגּלי־צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ      ֵ   ְ  ְ   ַ    ְ / ἐπὶ τρίβους δικαιοσύνης) for his name’s sake” (ESV). 2) Ps 118:19 [117:19LXX] 19 “Open to me the gates of righteousness (‫שׁערי־צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ      ֵ  ֲ ַ / πύλας δικαιοσύνης), that I may enter through them and give thanks to the Lord. 20 This is the gate of the Lord; the righteous (‫צדּיקים‬ ִ ִ  ַ / δίκαιοι) shall enter through it” (ESV). 3) Isa 1:26 “Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness (‫הצּדק‬ ‫ ִעיר‬/ πόλις δικαιοσύνης), ֶ   ֶ    ַ      the faithful city” (ESV). 4) Isa 41:10 God speaking to Israel, his servant: “Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand (‫צדקי‬ ‫בּימין‬ ִ   ְ  ִ ִ   ִ / τῇ δεξιᾷ τῇ δικαίᾳ μου)” (ESV). 5) Isa 61:3 “ … that they may be called oaks of righteousness (‫הצּדק‬ ֶ   ֶ    ַ    ‫אילי‬ ֵ ֵ / γενεαὶ δικαιοσύνης), the planting of the Lord, that he may be glorified” (ESV). 6) Jer 31:23 [38:23LXX] “Once more they shall use these words in the land of Judah and in its cities, when I restore their fortunes: ‘The Lord bless you, O habitation of righteousness (‫)נוה־צדק‬, ֶ   ֶ    ֵ  ְ O holy hill!’” (ESV) (LXX has ἐπὶ δίκαιον ὄρος τὸ ἅγιον αὐτοῦ). 7) Jer 50:7 [27:7LXX] 6 “My people have been lost sheep. Their shepherds have led them astray, turning them away on the mountains. From mountain to hill they have gone. They have forgotten their fold. 7 All who found them have devoured them, and their enemies have said, ‘We are not guilty, for they have sinned against the Lord, their habitation of righteousness (‫נוה־צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ    ֵ  ְ / νομὴ δικαιοσύνης26), the Lord, the hope of their fathers’” (ESV). II.E. Righteousness before God (9) 1) Job 8:6: ‫צדק‬ ‫נות‬ ‫ ְו ִש    ַׁלּם‬/ ἀποκαταστήσει δέ σοι δίαιταν δικαιοσύνης ֶ  ְ  ִ      ַ   ְ      NASB: “If you are pure and upright, surely now he would rouse himself for you and restore your righteous estate” ESV: “… and restore your rightful habitation” NIV: “… and restore you to your rightful place”

26 So Ziegler (Göttingen Septuaginta), who begins a new sentence here (... ἀνθ̓ ὧν ἥμαρτον τῷ κυρίῳ• νομὴ δικαιοσύνης τῷ συναγαγόντι τοὺς πατέρας αὐτῶν). Rahlfs has νομῇ in apposition to κυρίῳ (... ἀνθ̓ ὧν ἥμαρτον τῷ κυρίῳ νομῇ δικαιοσύνης ...).

Appendix

355

2) Job 35:2: ‫מאל‬ ‫צדקי‬ ֵ ֵ ִ ְ  ִ ‫אמרתּ‬ ָ    ְ  ַ   ָ / εἶπας Δίκαιός εἰμι ἔναντι κυρίου NASB: “Do you say, ‘My righteousness is more than God’s’?” ESV: “Do you say, ‘It is my right before God’ … ?” NIV: “You say, ‘I will be cleared by God’” 3) Ps 17:15 [16:15LXX] “As for me, I shall behold your face in righteousness (‫בּצדק‬ ֶ   ֶ     ְ / ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ27); when I 28 awake, I shall be satisfied with your likeness” (ESV). 4-5) Ps 18:20, 24 [18:21, 25MT/17:21, 25LXX] 20 “The Lord dealt with me according to my righteousness (‫כּצדקי‬ ִ   ְ    ִ ְ / κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην μου); according to the cleanness of my hands he rewarded me. 21 For I have kept the ways of the Lord, and have not wickedly departed from my God. 22 For all his rules were before me, and his statutes I did not put away from me. 23 I was blameless before him, and I kept myself from my guilt. 24 So the Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness (‫כּצדקי‬ ִ   ְ    ִ ְ / κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην μου), according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight” (ESV). 6) Isa 58:8 6 “Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? 7 Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh? 8 Then shall your light break forth like the dawn, and your healing shall spring up speedily; your righteousness (‫צדק‬ ֶ  ְ  ִ / ἡ δικαιοσύνη σου29) shall go before you; the glory of the Lord shall be your rear guard” (ESV). 7-8) Isa 62:1-2 1 “For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not be quiet, until her righteousness (‫צדקהּ‬  ֶ     ְ  ִ / ἡ δικαιοσύνη μου30) goes forth as brightness, and her salvation  ָ   ָ ‫ יש‬/ τὸ σωτήριόν μου) as a burning torch. 2 The nations shall see your righteousness (‫ׁוּעתהּ‬ (‫צדק‬ ָ  ָ   ְ / τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου31), and all the kings your glory” (ESV).32 9) Hos 10:12 “Sow for yourselves righteousness (‫צדקה‬ ָ ָ ְ / δικαιοσύνη); reap steadfast love; break up your fallow ground, for it is the time to seek the Lord, that he may come and rain righteousness (‫צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ   / δικαιοσύνης) upon you” (ESV; LXX: ἕως τοῦ ἐλθεῖν γενήματα δικαιοσύνης ὑμῖν).

27 Some versions dependent on the LXX (the Sahidic and some Latin witnesses) add σου. 28 Cp. Ps 11:7: “For the Lord is righteous (‫;)צדּיק‬  ׂ     ָ   ְ the  ִ  ַ he loves righteous deeds (‫;)צדקות‬ upright shall behold his face.” 29 The Epistle of Barnabas, Cyprian, and Irenaeus (in Latin) omit σου in their quotation of this verse. 30 Origen, Lucian, Eusebius and Jerome corrected μου to αὐτῆς (“her”) in conformity with the MT. 31 Some MSS have μου both here and in the next clause (“my glory”). 32 See immediately preceding context, Isa 61:10-11, which speaks of “the robe of righteousness.”

356

Appendix

III. CORRECTNESS (21) III.A. Speaking righteousness, telling the truth (6) 1) Ps 52:3 [52:5MT/51:5LXX] 1 “Why do you boast of evil, O mighty man? The steadfast love of God endures all the day. 2   Your tongue plots destruction, like a sharp razor, you worker of deceit. 3 You love evil more than good, and lying more than speaking what is right (‫צדק‬ ‫מדּבּר‬ ‫שׁקר‬ ֶ   ֶ      ֵ ַ    ִ       ֶ   ֶ / ἀδικίαν ὑπὲρ τὸ λαλῆσαι δικαιοσύνην)” (ESV). 2) Prov 8:8 “All the utterances of my mouth are in righteousness (‫בּצדק‬ ֶ    ֶ ְ  / μετὰ δικαιοσύνης); there is nothing crooked or perverted in them” (NASB). 3) Prov 12:17 “Whoever speaks the truth gives honest evidence (‫צדק‬ ‫יגּיד‬ ‫אמוּנה‬ ‫יפיח‬ ֶ   ֶ       ִ ַ       ָ ֱ    ַ   ִ  ָ / ἐπιδεικνυμένην πίστιν ἀπαγγέλλει δίκαιος), but a false witness utters deceit” (ESV). 4) Prov 16:13 “Righteous lips (‫ׂפתי־צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ   ֵ ְ   ‫ ִש‬/ χείλη δίκαια) are the delight of a king, and he loves him who speaks what is right (‫ש  ִ ׁרים‬   ַָ ‫דבר     ְי‬   ֵ   ֹ  / λόγους ὀρθούς)” (ESV). 5) Isa 45:19 “I did not speak in secret, in a land of darkness; I did not say to the offspring of Jacob, ‘Seek me in vain.’ I the Lord speak the truth (‫צדק‬ ‫דּבר‬ ֶ   ֶ     ֵ   ֹ / λαλῶν δικαιοσύνην); I declare what is right (‫ש ִׁרים‬ ‫         ֵמי‬ ‫מגּיד‬  ָ     ִ    ַ / ἀναγγέλλων ἀλήθειαν)” (ESV). 6) Isa 59:4 “No one enters suit justly (‫בצדק‬ ‫אין־קרא‬ ֶ   ֶ ְ   ֵ  ֹ  ֵ / οὐδεὶς λαλεῖ δίκαια); no one goes to law honestly (‫בּאמוּנה‬ ‫נשׁפּט‬ ‫ואין‬ ָ ֱ ֶ ָ ְ   ִ   ֵ   ְ / οὐδὲ ἔστιν κρίσις ἀληθινή); they rely on empty pleas, they speak lies, they conceive mischief and give birth to iniquity” (ESV) (NIV: “No one calls for justice; no one pleads his case with integrity”) (NASB: “No one sues righteously and no one pleads honestly”). III.B. Just balances, weights (10) 1-4) Lev 19:36 35 “You shall do no wrong in judgment, in measures of length or weight or quantity. 36 You ֶ   ֶ      ִ   ְ   ֶ  ֶ shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin.” (ESV). (‫צדק‬ ‫והין‬ ‫צדק‬ ‫איפת‬ ‫אבני־צדק‬ ‫צדק‬ ַ      ֵ ֶ   ֶ        ֵ   ְ   ַ ֶ  ֶ   ‫מאזני‬ ֵ  ְ   ֹ / ζυγὰ δίκαια καὶ στάθμια δίκαια καὶ χοῦς δίκαιος)   

5-6) Deut 25:15 “A full and fair weight you shall have, a full and fair measure you shall have, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you” (ESV). (‫וצדק‬ ‫ׁלמה‬ ֶ   ֶ    ָ ֵ   ‫ש‬ ְ / ἀληθινὸν καὶ δίκαιον – 2x) 7) Job 31:6 “Let me be weighed in a just balance (‫במאזני־צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ   ֵ   ְ      ֹ     ְ / ἐν ζυγῷ δικαίῳ), and let God know my integrity!” (ESV). 8-10) Ezek 45:10 “You shall have just balances, a just ephah, and a just bath” (ESV). (‫וּבת־צדק‬ ‫ואיפת־צדק‬ ‫מאזני־צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ     ַ   ֶ  ֶ  ַ   ֵ   ְ ֶ ֶ   ֵ  ְ     ֹ / ζυγὸς δίκαιος καὶ μέτρον δίκαιον καὶ χοῖνιξ δικαία)

Appendix

357

III.C. Doing something correctly (5) 1) Isa 42:6 “I am the Lord; I have called you in righteousness (‫בצדק‬ ֶ    ֶ ְ   / ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ); I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations” (ESV). 2) Isa 45:13 “‘I have stirred him [Cyrus] up in righteousness (‫בצדק‬ ֶ    ֶ ְ   / μετὰ δικαιοσύνης), and I will make all his ways level; he shall build my city and set my exiles free, not for price or reward,’ says the Lord of hosts” (ESV). 3-5) Deut 33:19; Ps 4:5 [4:6MT/LXX]; 51:19 [51:21MT/50:21LXX]: “sacrifices of righteousness” (lit.) or “right sacrifices” (ESV) (‫זבחי־צדק‬ ֶ    ֶ  ֵ ְ   ִ  / θυσία [sg.] δικαιοσύνης). IV. DIFFICULT CASES (8) 1) Ps 17:1 [16:1LXX]: ‫צדק‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫ׁמעה‬ ֶ   ֶ   ָ ְ   ָ ְ   ‫ש‬ ִ / εἰσάκουσον, κύριε, τῆς δικαιοσύνης μου NASB, ESV: “Hear a just cause, O Lord” NIV: “Hear, O Lord, my righteous plea” See suggested emendations in BHS apparatus 2-4) Ps 85:10, 11, 13 [85:11, 12, 14MT/84:11, 12, 14LXX]: ‫צדק‬ ֶ    ֶ / δικαιοσύνη – 3x ESV: 10 “Steadfast love and faithfulness meet; righteousness and peace kiss each other. 11 Faithfulness springs up from the ground, and righteousness looks down from the sky. 12 Yes, the Lord will give what is good, and our land will yield its increase. 13 Righteousness will go before him and make his footsteps a way.” 5) Ps 119:142 [118:142LXX] “Your righteousness is righteous forever (‫לעוֹלם‬ ‫צדק‬ ‫צדקת‬  ָ   ְ ֶ  ֶ ְ ָ  ְ   ִ / ἡ δικαιοσύνη σου δικαιοσύνη εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα), and your law is true” (ESV). 6) Isa 41:2: ‫לרגלוֹ‬ ‫יקראהוּ‬ ‫צדק‬ ְ ַ  ְ    ֵ  ָ   ְ  ִ   ֶ    ֶ / … δικαιοσύνην, ἐκάλεσεν αὐτὴν κατὰ πόδας αὐτοῦ ESV: “Who stirred up one from the east whom victory meets at every step?” (Gesenius) Oswalt: “… whom righteousness calls to its foot,” i.e., to its service.33 NASB: “… whom he calls in righteousness to his feet?” NIV: “… calling him in righteousness to his service?” NETS: “Who has roused righteousness from the east, called it to its feet and it will go?” 7) Dan 9:24 “Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness (‫עלמים‬ ִ   ָ   ֹ ‫צדק‬ ֶ    ֶ / δικαιοσύνην αἰώνιον34), to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place” (ESV).



33



34

John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 2.81-82. LXX and Theodotion agree here.

358

Appendix

8) Hos 2:19 [2:21MT/LXX] “And I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy (‫וּברחמים‬ ‫וּבחסד‬ ‫וּבמשׁפּט‬ ‫בצדק‬ ִ   ֲ  ַ   ְ    ֶ   ֶ  ְ          ָ ְ  ִ ְ ֶ  ֶ ְ / ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἐν κρίματι καὶ ἐν ἐλέει καὶ ἐν οἰκτιρμοῖς)” (ESV). ָ      ָ   ְ (fem.) in the OT Section 2. ‫צדקה‬ n

%

74 I. Legal righteousness 35  ָ    ָ “to execute justice” With ‫עשׂה‬ 12 Justice 19 Righteousness of God (“my, his, your”) 34 Vindication 4 Clothed with righteousness 2 Rights 3

47

II. Ethical righteousness 73 General 43 With verbs of doing 15 Righteous laws/word Gates, paths, cities, etc. of righteousness Righteousness before God 14 Honesty 1

46

III. Correctness 5 Speaking righteousness, telling the truth 4 Just balances, weights Doing something correctly 1

3

IV. Difficult cases

5

3

157

100



Total (n = number of occurrences) I. LEGAL RIGHTEOUSNESS A. With ‫שׂה‬  ָ    ‫“ ָע‬to execute justice” (12)

I.A.1 Human judges or kings (including Messiah) as subject (9) 1-2) 2 Sam 8:15 (|| 1 Chron 18:14) “So David reigned over all Israel. And David administered justice and equity (‫וּצדקה‬ ָ      ָ   ְ ‫משׁפּט‬ ָ   ְ ִ     ‫עשׁה‬ ֶ ֹ   ‫דוד‬ ִ  ָ   ‫ויהי‬ ִ  ְ ַ / καὶ ἦν Δαυιδ ποιῶν κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην) to all his people” (ESV).

35 The sub-categories under “Legal righteousness” actually add up to 74, but I reduced the total back down to 72, because Deut 33:20 and 1 Sam 12:7 are counted twice, i.e., under both “With ‫שׂה‬  ָ    ‫‘ ָע‬to execute justice’” and “The Righteousness of God.”

Appendix

359

3-4) 1 Kings 10:9 (|| 2 Chron 9:8) The queen of Sheba said to Solomon: “Blessed be the Lord your God, who has delighted in you and set you on the throne of Israel! Because the Lord loved Israel forever, he has made you king, that you may execute justice and righteousness (‫וּצדקה‬ ‫משׁפּט‬ ‫לעשׂוֹת‬ ָ      ָ   ְ    ָ ְ ִ   ֲ ַ / τοῦ ποιεῖν κρίμα ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἐν κρίμασιν αὐτῶν [3 Kgdms 10:9] || τοῦ ποιῆσαι κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην [2 Chron 9:8])” (ESV). 5) Jer 22:3 ָ      ָ   ְ     ָ ְ ִ     Addressed to the king of Judah: “Do justice and righteousness (‫וּצדקה‬ ‫משׁפּט‬ ‫ ֲעשׂוּ‬/ Ποιεῖτε κρίσιν καὶ δικαιοσύνην), and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place” (ESV). 6) Jer 22:15 15 Do you think you are a king because you compete in cedar? Did not your father eat and drink and do justice and righteousness? (‫וּצדקה‬ ‫משׁפּט‬ ‫שׂה‬ ָ      ָ   ְ       ָ ְ ִ    ָ ‫ ָע‬/ ποιεῖν κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην καλήν) Then it was well with him. 16 He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well. Is not this to know me? declares the Lord. 17 But you have eyes and heart only for your dishonest gain, for shedding innocent blood, and for practicing oppression and violence” (ESV). 7-8) Jer 23:5 || 33:15 5 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous 36 Branch (23:5-6 ‫צמח‬ ‫צדּיק‬ ‫צמח‬ ַ ֶ ִ  ַ / ἀνατολὴν δικαίαν || 33:15 ‫צדקה‬ ָ      ָ   ְ ַ ֶ / --), and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness (‫וּצדקה‬ ‫משׁפּט‬ ‫שׂה‬ ָ      ָ   ְ       ָ ְ    ִ       ָ ‫ע‬ / ָ ποιήσει κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην)37 in the land. 6 In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The Lord is our righteousness’” (ESV). 9) Ezek 45:9 (note use of ‫צדק‬ ֶ    ֶ 3x in v 10) “Thus says the Lord God: Enough, O princes of Israel! Put away violence and oppression, and execute justice and righteousness (‫  ׂוּ‬ ‫עש‬ ‫וּצדקה‬ ‫משׁפּט‬ ֲ ָ ָ ְ   ָ ְ ִ / κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην ποιήσατε). Cease your evictions of my people, declares the Lord God” (ESV).

36 See “Human (including Messianic) justice.” 37 Jer 33 [= 40LXX] stops at v 13 in the LXX; there is no Greek text corresponding to the Hebrew text found at Jer 33:15-16 in the MT. For this reason, ‫וּצדקה‬ ‫משׁפּט‬ ‫ ֲעשׂה‬is present at ָ      ָ   ְ       ָ ְ ִ   both Jer 23:6 and 33:15 in the MT, but ποιήσει κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην is found only at Jer 23:6 in the LXX.

360

Appendix

I.A.2 God as subject (3) 1) Ps 99:4 [98:4LXX] “The King38 in his might loves justice (‫משׁפּט‬ ָ    ְ    ִ / κρίσιν). You have established equity (‫מי   ָש  ִׁרים‬     ֵ / εὐθύτητας); you have executed justice and righteousness in Jacob” (‫ׂית‬ … ‫וּצדקה‬ ‫משׁפּט‬ ָ    ‫       ָע   ִש‬ ָ     ָ   ְ    ָ ְ ִ / κρίσιν καὶ δικαιοσύνην … ἐποίησας) (ESV). 2) Ps 103:6 [102:6LXX] “The Lord works righteousness and justice for all who are oppressed” (ESV) (‫ׁוּקים‬ ‫לכל־עש‬   ִ      ֲ    ָ ְ ִ    ָ ְ ִ ‫יהוה‬ ‫וּמשׁפּטים‬ ‫צדקוֹת‬ ‫עשׂה‬ / ποιῶν ἐλεημοσύνας ὁ κύριος καὶ κρίμα πᾶσι τοῖς  ָ  ְ   ָ   ְ    ֵ   ֹ ἀδικουμένοις). 3) Jer 9:24 [9:23MT/LXX] 23 “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, 24 but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and  ָ ָ ְ   ָ    ְ ִ    ֶ   ֶ ֶ ‫ ֹע‬/ ποιῶν ἔλεος καὶ κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην) in the righteousness (‫וּצדקה‬ ‫משׁפּט‬ ‫חסד‬ ‫שׂה‬ earth. For in these things I delight, declares the Lord” (ESV). B. Justice (19) I.B.1 Human (including Messianic) justice (9) 1) Ps 72:3 [71:3LXX] “Give the king your justice (‫משׁפּטי‬ ֶ     ְ     ַָ  ִ / τὸ κρίμα σου), O God, and your righteousness (‫וצדקת‬ ְ     ַָ  ְ  ִ   ְ / τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου)39 to the royal son! 2 May he judge your people with righteousness (‫בצדק‬ ֶ    ֶ ְ  / ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ), and your poor with justice (‫במשׁפּט‬ ַָ    ְ    ִ     ְ / ἐν κρίσει)! 3 Let the mountains bear prosperity (‫שׁלוֹם‬ ַָ   / εἰρήνην) for the people, and the hills, in righteousness (‫בּצדקה‬ ַָ   ָ   ְ   ִ   / ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ)! 4 May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the children of the needy, and crush the oppressor!” (ESV). 2) Prov 16:12 “It is an abomination to kings to do evil, for the throne is established by righteousness (‫בצדקה‬ ַָ   ָ   ְ   ִ   / μετὰ δικαιοσύνης)” (ESV). 3) Isa 5:7 “For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are his pleasant planting; and he looked for justice (‫משׁפּט‬ ָ    ְ    ִ   / κρίσις), but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness (‫צדקה‬ ַָ   ָ   ְ   / δικαιοσύνη), but behold, an outcry!” (ESV).

38 39

In this context, “the King” = “the Lord.” See below, “The righteousness of God.”

Appendix

361

4) Isa 9:7 [9:6MT/LXX] “Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness (‫וּבצדקה‬  ַָ    ְ    ִ     ְ / ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἐν κρίματι) from this time forth and forevermore”  ַָ    ָ   ְ   ִ    ‫בּמשׁפּט‬ (ESV). 5) Isa 60:17 17 “Instead of bronze I will bring gold, and instead of iron I will bring silver; instead of wood, bronze, instead of stones, iron. I will make your overseers peace and your taskmasters righteousness (‫צדקה‬ ָ    ָ     ְ   / ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ). 18 Violence shall no more be heard in your land, devastation or destruction within your borders; you shall call your walls Salvation, and your gates Praise” (ESV). 6) Jer 33:1540 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch (‫צדקה‬ ‫צמח‬ ָ      ָ   ְ        ַ   ֶ / --), and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness (‫וּצדקה‬ ‫ש ׂה‬ ָ      ָ   ְ ‫משׁפּט‬    ָ    ְ ִ      ַ   ‫ע‬  ֶ / --) in the land” (ESV). 7) Amos 5:7 6 “Seek the Lord and live, lest he break out like fire in the house of Joseph, and it devour, with none to quench it for Bethel, 7 O you who turn justice (‫משׁפּט‬  ָ    ְ    ִ / κρίμα) to wormwood ָ    ָ     ְִ   / δικαιοσύνη) to the earth!” (ESV).41 and cast down righteousness (‫צדקה‬ LXX: κύριος ὁ ποιῶν εἰς ὕψος κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην εἰς γῆν ἔθηκεν 8) Amos 5:24 “But let justice (‫משׁפּט‬  ָ    ְ    ִ / κρίμα) roll down like waters, and righteousness (‫צדקה‬ ָ    ָ     ְִ   / δικαιοσύνη) like an everflowing stream” (ESV). 9) Amos 6:12 “Do horses run on rocks? Does one plow there with oxen? But you have turned justice (‫משׁפּט‬  ָ    ְ    ִ / κρίμα) into poison ָ    ָ     ְ       ִ  ְ / καρπὸν δικαιοσύνης) and the fruit of righteousness (‫צדקה‬ ‫פרי‬ into wormwood” (ESV).

40 Jer 33 [= 40LXX] stops at v 13 in the LXX; there is no Greek text corresponding to the Hebrew text found at Jer 33:15 in the MT. 41 It is unclear who “you” is. It could be God (LXX, NIV) or Israel (ESV, NASB). The latter interpretation is supported by the parallel in Amos 6:12.

362

Appendix

I.B.2 Divine justice (10) 1) Job 37:23 ֶ ‫יענה‬ ‫לא‬ ‫ורב־צדקה‬ ‫ומשׁפּט‬ ‫ׂגּיא־כח‬ ‫לא־מצאנהוּ‬ ‫ש  ַׁדּי‬  ַ   ְ       ֹ ָ  ָ     ְ   ֹ     ְ    ָ ְ  ִ    ַ  ֹ       ִ  ‫ש‬ ַ    ֻ ָ ְ ֹ   ַ καὶ οὐχ εὑρίσκομεν ἄλλον ὅμοιον τῇ ἰσχύι αὐτοῦ, ὁ τὰ δίκαια κρίνων, οὐκ οἴει ἐπακούειν αὐτόν; NASB: “The Almighty—we cannot find Him; He is exalted in power and He will not do violence to justice and abundant righteousness.” ESV: “The Almighty—we cannot find him; he is great in power; justice and abundant righteousness he will not violate.” NIV: “The Almighty is beyond our reach and exalted in power; in his justice and great righteousness, he does not oppress.” 2) Ps 33:5 [32:5LXX] 4 “For the word of the Lord is upright (‫שׁר‬ ָ   ‫ ָי‬/ εὐθής), and all his work is done in faithfulness (‫בּאמוּנה‬ ָ      ֱ ֶ / ἐν πίστει). 5 He loves righteousness and justice ָ     ְ     ִ       ָ    ָ   ְ      ֵ   ֹ / ἀγαπᾷ ἐλεημοσύνην καὶ κρίσιν); (‫וּמשׁפּט‬ ‫צדקה‬ ‫אהב‬ ֶ   ֶ   / ἔλεος) of the Lord” (ESV). the earth is full of the steadfast love (‫חסד‬ 3) Isa 1:27 27 “Zion shall be redeemed by justice (‫בּמשׁפּט‬   ַָ    ְ    ִ     ְ / μετὰ κρίματος), ַָ   ָ   ְ   ִ   / μετὰ ἐλεημοσύνης).42 and those in her who repent, by righteousness (‫בּצדקה‬ 28 But rebels and sinners shall be broken together, and those who forsake the Lord shall be consumed” (ESV). 4) Isa 5:16 15 “Man is humbled, and each one is brought low, and the eyes of the haughty are brought low. 16 But the Lord of hosts is exalted in justice (‫בּמּשׁפּט‬  ַָ    ְ    ִ     ְ / ἐν κρίματι), and the Holy God shows himself holy in righteousness (‫בּצדקה‬ ‫נקדּשׁ‬ ‫הקּדוֹשׁ‬ ‫האל‬ ָ ָ ְ    ִ   ָ   ְ  ִ   ָ   ַ    ֵ ָ / ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἅγιος δοξασθήσεται ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ)” (ESV). 5) Isa 10:22 “For though your people Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will return. Destruction is decreed, overflowing with righteousness” (ESV). (‫צדקה‬ ‫ׁוֹטף‬ ‫ ָחרוּץ ש‬ ‫כּלּיוֹן‬ ָ ָ ְ      ֵ    ָ ִ / λόγον συντελῶν καὶ συντέμνων ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ) 6) Isa 28:17 “And I will make justice (‫משׁפּט‬   ַָ    ְ    ִ  / κρίσις) the line, ַָ   ָ   ְ  / ἡ ἐλεημοσύνη μου) the plumb line; and righteousness (‫צדקה‬ and hail will sweep away the refuge of lies, and waters will overwhelm the shelter” (ESV).

42 Context speaks of redemption through God’s purifying judgment. “I will turn my hand against you and smelt away your dross as with lye and remove all your alloy” (v 25), and as a result “you shall be called the city of righteousness” (v 26).

Appendix

363

7) Isa 33:5 2 “O Lord, be gracious to us; we wait for you. Be our arm every morning,   ֵ   ָ    our salvation (‫ׁוּעתנוּ‬ ‫ ְיש‬/ ἡ σωτηρία ἡμῶν) in the time of trouble. … 5 The Lord is exalted, for he dwells on high; he will fill Zion with justice and righteousness (‫וּצדקה‬ ‫משׁפּט‬ / κρίσεως καὶ δικαιοσύνης), ָ ָ ְ      ָ     ְ     ִ   6 and he will be the stability of your times, abundance of salvation, wisdom, and knowledge; the fear of the Lord is Zion’s treasure” (ESV). 8) Isa 45:8 “Shower, O heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain down righteousness (‫צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ   / δικαιοσύνην); let the earth open, that salvation and righteousness (‫וּצדקה‬ ‫ישׁע‬ ָ ָ ְ        ַ   ֶ / ἔλεος καὶ δικαιοσύνην) may bear fruit; let the earth cause them both to sprout; I the Lord have created it” (ESV). 9) Isa 54:14 “In righteousness (‫בּצדקה‬ ָ ָ   ְ   ִ / ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ) you shall be established; you shall be far from oppression (‫מעשׁק‬ ֶ ֹ   ֵ / ἀπὸ ἀδίκου), for you shall not fear; and from terror, for it shall not come near you” (ESV). 10) Dan 9:7 ָ ָ ְ   ַ      ‫אדני‬ ָ   ֹ   ְ ֲ   “To you, O Lord, belongs righteousness (‫הצּדקה‬ ‫ ְל‬/ LXX & Th: σοί, κύριε, ἡ δικαιοσύνη), but to us open shame, as at this day, to the men of Judah, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to all Israel, those who are near and those who are far away, in all the lands to which you have driven them, because of the treachery that they have committed against you” (ESV). C. The righteousness of God (“my, his, your righteousness”) (34) 1) Deut 33:21 20 “Blessed be he who enlarges Gad! Gad crouches like a lion; he tears off arm and scalp. 21    He chose the best of the land for himself, for there a commander’s portion was reserved; and he came with the heads of the people, with Israel he executed the justice of the Lord (‫שׂה‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫צדקת‬ ָ    ‫    ָע‬ ָ         ְ   ַ  ְ  ִ / δικαιοσύνην κύριος ἐποίησεν), and his judgments (‫ׁפּטיו‬ ָ ָ     ‫ ִמ    ְש‬/ κρίσιν αὐτοῦ) for Israel” (ESV). 2) Judges 5:11 “To the sound of musicians at the watering places, there they repeat the righteous triumphs ֹ      ְ   ִ   in    ָ ְ       ְ  ִ the righteous triumphs of his villagers (43‫פּרזנוֹ‬ of the Lord (‫יהוה‬ ‫)צדקוֹת‬, ‫)צדקת‬ ֹ  ְ   ִ        Israel” (ESV). See LXX-A and LXX-B.



43

See “Difficult cases.”

364

Appendix

3) 1 Sam 12:7 “And Samuel said to the people, ‘The Lord is witness, who appointed Moses and Aaron and brought your fathers up out of the land of Egypt. 7 Now therefore stand still that I may plead with you before the Lord concerning all the righteous deeds of the Lord that he performed (‫ׂה‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫כּל־צדקוֹת‬     ‫ש‬ ָ ‫ׁר־ע‬ ָ ‫ש‬ ֶ ‫  ֲא‬ ָ ְ    ְ  ִ ָ / τὴν πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην κυρίου, ἃ ἐποίησεν) for you and for your fathers. 8 When Jacob went into Egypt, and the Egyptians oppressed them, then your fathers cried out to the Lord and the Lord sent Moses and Aaron, who brought your fathers out of Egypt and made them dwell in this place’” (ESV).44 4) Ps 5:8 [5:9MT/LXX] ֶ  ָ ְ   ִ   ְ    ִ ֵ   ְ / ὁδήγησόν με ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ “Lead me, O Lord, in your righteousness (‫בצדקת‬ ‫נחני‬ σου) because of my enemies; make your way straight before me (‫דּרכּ‬ ‫לפני‬ ‫הושׁר‬ ֶ ְ    ַ    ַ  ָ ְ   ַ ְ ַ / κατεύθυνον ἐνώπιόν μου τὴν ὁδόν σου)” (ESV). 5) Ps 22:31 [22:32MT/21:32LXX] 30 “Posterity shall serve him; it shall be told of the Lord to the coming generation; 31 they shall come and proclaim his righteousness (‫צדקתוֹ‬    ָ     ְ  ִ / τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ) to a people yet unborn, that he has done it (‫שׂה‬ ‫ ִכי‬/ ὅτι ἐποίησεν ὁ κύριος)” (ESV). ָ ‫ ָע‬ 6) Ps 31:1 [31:2MT/30:2LXX] “In you, O Lord, do I take refuge; let me never be put to shame; in your righteousness deliver me! (‫בּצדקת‬ ‫פלּטני‬ ְ    ָ ְ   ִ   ְ      ִ  ֵ ְ   ַ / ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου ῥῦσαί με καὶ ἐξελοῦ με)” (ESV). 7-8) Ps 36:6, 10 [36:7, 11MT/35:7, 11LXX] “Your steadfast love (‫חסדּ‬ ֶ    ְ   ִ / τὸ ἔλεός σου), O Lord, extends to the heavens, your faithfulness (‫אמוּנת‬  ְ ָ   ֱ / ἡ ἀλήθειά σου) to the clouds. 6 Your righteousness (‫צדקת‬ ְ      ָ ְ  ִ / ἡ δικαιοσύνη σου) is like the mountains of God; your judgments (‫ּט‬  ֶ   ‫משׁ ָפּ‬ ְ ִ / τὰ κρίματά σου) are like the great deep; man and beast you save, O Lord … 10 Oh, continue your steadfast love (‫חסדּ‬ ְ  ְ    ַ / τὸ ἔλεός σου) to those who know you, and your righteousness (‫צדקת‬ ְ   ָ  ְ  ִ / τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου) to the upright of heart!” (ESV). 9) Ps 40:10 [40:11MT/39:11LXX] “I have proclaimed glad tidings of righteousness (‫צדק‬ ‫בּשּׂרתּי‬ ֶ   ֶ     ִ  ְ  ַ ִ / εὐηγγελισάμην δικαιοσύνην) in the great congregation; behold, I will not restrain my lips, O Lord, you know. 10 I have ְ     ַָ  ְ  ִ / τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου) within my heart; I have not hidden your righteousness (‫צדקת‬ ִ  ָ        ֱ / τὴν ἀλήθειάν σου) and your salvation (‫ׁוּעת‬ ְ     ַָ   spoken of your faithfulness (‫אמונת‬ ‫ ְתש‬/ τὸ σωτήριόν σου); I have not concealed your lovingkindness (‫חסדּ‬ ְ  ְ     ַ / τὸ ἔλεός σου) and your truth (‫אמתּ‬ ְ     ִ   ֲ / τὴν ἀλήθειάν σου) from the great congregation” (NASB).

44 What are “the righteous deeds of the Lord that he performed”? His mighty work of delivering his people from slavery in Egypt (v 8). And it didn’t happen just once. After God brought them into the land, they forgot the Lord, and he sold them into the hand of the Moabites. But when they cried out to the Lord and confessed their sin, he sent them judges to deliver them once more from their oppressors (vv 9-11). In both the exodus and the military victories provided through the judges, God’s act of delivering his people occurred through acts of judgment on their oppressors. Hence these divine deliverances are termed “the righteous deeds of the Lord.”

365

Appendix

10) Ps 51:14 [51:16MT/50:16LXX] “Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, O God of my salvation (‫תּשׁוּעתי‬ ‫אהי‬ ֵ   ֱ / ὁ θεὸς ִ  ָ     ְ    τῆς σωτηρίας μου), and my tongue will sing aloud of your righteousness (‫צדקת‬ ֶ   ָ  ְ    ִ / τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου)” (ESV).45   

11) Ps 69:27 [69:28MT/68:28LXX] “Add to them punishment upon punishment; may they have no acquittal from you” (ESV); lit. “ … and may they not come into your righteousness (‫בּצדקת‬ ‫ואל־יבאוּ‬ ֶ ָ  ְ  ִ ְ   ֹ ָ  ַ ְ / καὶ μὴ εἰσελθέτωσαν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ σου)” (NASB). 12) Ps 71:2 [70:2LXX] “In you, O Lord, do I take refuge; let me never be put to shame! 2 In your righteousness  ִ ֵ ְ ַ ְ   ִ  ֵ ִ   ַ ְ   ָ  ְ  ִ ְ / ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου ῥῦσαί με καὶ deliver me and rescue me (‫וּתפלּטני‬ ‫תּצּילּני‬ ‫בּצדקת‬ ἐξελοῦ με); incline your ear to me, and save me!” (ESV). 13-14) Ps 71:15, 16 [70:15, 16 LXX] 12 “O God, be not far from me; O my God, make haste to help me! 13 May my accusers be put to shame and consumed; with scorn and disgrace may they be covered who seek my hurt. 14 But I will hope continually and will praise you yet more and more. 15 My mouth will tell of your righteous acts (‫צדקת‬ ֶ    ָ  ְ  ִ / τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου), of your deeds of salvation (‫תּשוּעת‬ ֶ   ָ          ְ  / τὴν σωτηρίαν σου) all the day, for their number is past my knowledge. 16 With the mighty deeds of the Lord God I will come; I will remind them of your righteousness (‫צדקת‬ ֶ    ָ  ְ  ִ / τῆς δικαιοσύνης σου), yours alone” (ESV). 15-16) Ps 71:19, 24 [70:19, 24LXX] 19 “Your righteousness (‫צדקת‬ ֶ    ָ  ְ  ִ / --), O God, reaches the high heavens. You who have done great things, O God, who is like you? … 23 My lips will shout for joy, when I sing praises to you; my soul also, which you have redeemed. 24 And my tongue will talk of your righteous help (‫צדקת‬ ֶ    ָ  ְ  ִ / τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου) all the day long, for they have been put to shame and disappointed who sought to do me hurt” (ESV). 17) Ps 72:1 [71:1LXX] “Give the king your justice (‫משׁפּטי‬ ֶ    ָ      ְ    ִ / τὸ κρίμα σου), O God, and your righteousness (‫וצדקת‬ ְ     ָ    ְ  ִ   ְ / τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου) to the royal son! 2 May he judge your people with righteousness (‫בצדק‬ ֶ   ֶ   ְ / ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ), and your poor with justice (‫במשׁפּט‬  ַָ      ְ    ִ     ְ / ἐν κρίσει)!



45

Cp. Ps 143:1, 11; Dan 9:16.

366

Appendix

ָ   / εἰρήνην) for the people, Let the mountains bear prosperity (‫שׁלוֹם‬ and the hills, in righteousness (‫בּצדקה‬ ָ      ָ   ְ   ִ / ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ)! 4 May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the children of the needy, and crush the oppressor!” (ESV). 3

18) Ps 88:12 [88:13MT/87:13LXX] “Is your steadfast love declared in the grave, or your faithfulness in Abaddon? 12 Are your wonders known in the darkness, or your righteousness (‫צדקת‬ ְ     ָ  ְ  ִ / ἡ δικαιοσύνη σου) in the land of forgetfulness?” (ESV). 19) Ps 89:16 [89:17MT/88:17LXX] “Righteousness and justice (‫וּמשׁפּט‬ ‫צדק‬ ָ ְ ִ ֶ  ֶ / δικαιοσύνη καὶ κρίμα) are the foundation of your throne; steadfast love and faithfulness (‫ואמת‬ ‫חסד‬ ֶ  ֱ   ֶ   ֶ ֶ / ἔλεος καὶ ἀλήθεια) go before you. 15 Blessed are the people who know the festal shout, who walk, O Lord, in the light of your face, 16 who exult in your name all the day and in your righteousness are exalted (‫ ָירוּמוּ‬ ‫וּבצדקת‬ ְ   ָ  ְ  ִ   ְ / καὶ ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου ὑψωθήσονται)” (ESV). 20) Ps 98:2 [97:2LXX] “Oh sing to the Lord a new song, for he has done marvelous things! His right hand and his holy arm have worked salvation for him (‫ׁיעה־לּוֹ‬ ‫ ָע ָשׂה הוֹ‬/ ἔσωσεν αὐτῷ).   ָ ‫   ִש‬   ָ 2 The Lord has made known his salvation (‫ׁוּעתוֹ‬ ‫ ְיש‬/ τὸ σωτήριον αὐτοῦ); he has revealed his righteousness (‫צדקתוֹ‬ ‫גּלּה‬  ַָ  ְ  ִ ָ  ִ / ἀπεκάλυψεν τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ) in the sight of the nations. 3 He has remembered his steadfast love and faithfulness (‫ואמוּנתוֹ‬ ‫חסדּוֹ‬ ָ ֱ ֶ   ְ   ַ / τοῦ ἐλέους αὐτοῦ … καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας αὐτοῦ) to the house of Israel. All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God   ֵ   ֱ ַ    (‫אהינוּ‬ ‫ׁוּעת‬ ‫ ְיש‬ ‫ ֵאת‬/ τὸ σωτήριον τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν)” (ESV). 21) Ps 103:17 [102:17LXX] 17 “But the steadfast love (‫חסד‬ ֶ   ֶ   / τὸ ἔλεος) of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him, and his righteousness (‫צדקתוֹ‬ ָ   ְ  ִ / ἡ δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ) to children’s children, 18 to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments” (ESV). 22) Ps 111:3 [110:3LXX] “Great are the works of the Lord, studied by all who delight in them. 3 Full of splendor and majesty is his work, and his righteousness endures forever” (ESV) (‫לעד‬ ‫עמדת‬ ‫וצדקת‬ ַ ָ   ֶ  ֶ   ֹ ָ  ְ  ִ   ְ / καὶ ἡ δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος)

Appendix

367

23) Ps 119:40 [118:40LXX] “Behold, I long for your precepts; in your righteousness give me life! (‫חיּני‬ ‫בּצדקת‬ ִ ֵ  ַ   ְ   ָ  ְ  ִ ְ / ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου ζῆσόν με)” (ESV). 24) Ps 119:142 [118:142LXX] “Your righteousness is righteous forever (‫לעוֹלם‬ ‫צדק‬ ‫צדקת‬ ָ ְ ֶ  ֶ ְ   ָ  ְ  ִ / ἡ δικαιοσύνη σου δικαιοσύνη εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα), and your law is true” (ESV). 25-26) Ps 143:1, 11 [142:1, 11LXX] 1 “Hear my prayer, O Lord; give ear to my pleas for mercy! In your faithfulness answer me, in your righteousness! (‫בּצדקת‬ ‫ענני‬ ‫בּאמנת‬ ֶ ָ  ְ  ִ ְ   ִ  ֵ  ֲ   ְ ָ  ֻ   ֱ ֶ / ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ σου, ἐπάκουσόν μου ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου) 2 Enter not into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before you. … For your name’s sake, O Lord, preserve my life! 11 In your righteousness (‫בּצדקת‬ ְ     ָ  ְ  ִ ְ / ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου) bring my soul out of trouble! 12 And in your steadfast love you will cut off my enemies, and you will destroy all the adversaries of my soul, for I am your servant” (ESV).46 27) Ps 145:7 [144:7LXX] 6 “They shall speak of the might of your awesome deeds, and I will declare your greatness. 7 They shall pour forth the fame of your abundant goodness and shall sing aloud of your righteousness (‫צדקת‬ ְ     ָ  ְ  ִ / τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου)” (ESV). 28) Isa 46:13 12 “Listen to me, you stubborn of heart, you who are far from righteousness: 47 (‫מצּדקה‬ ‫הרחוֹקים‬ ָ    ָ   ְ ִ      ִ  ְ  ָ / οἱ μακρὰν ἀπὸ τῆς δικαιοσύνης) 13 I bring near my righteousness (‫צדקתי‬ ִ   ַָ   ְ    ִ / τὴν δικαιοσύνην μου); it is not far off, and my salvation will not delay; I will put salvation in Zion, for Israel my glory” (ESV). 29-30) Isa 51:6, 8 4 “Give attention to me, my people, and give ear to me, my nation; for a law will go out from me, and I will set my justice (‫משׁפּטי‬ ִ   ַָ ְ      ִ   / ἡ κρίσις μου) for a light to the peoples. 5 My righteousness (‫צדקי‬ ִ   ְ    ִ / ἡ δικαιοσύνη μου) draws near, my salvation (‫ישׁעי‬ ִ    ָ     / τὸ σωτήριόν μου) has gone out, ֹ ְ   ִ      and my arms will judge the peoples (‫ישׁפּטוּ‬ ‫עמּים‬ ‫וּזרעי‬ ִ   ַ    ַ  ֹ    ְ / --); the coastlands hope for me,  ֵ  ַ  ְ   ִ    ֹ    ְ         ֶ   ְ / καὶ εἰς τὸν βραχίονά μου ἐλπιοῦσιν). and for my arm they wait (‫ייחלוּן‬ ‫ואל־זרעי‬



46 47

Cp. Ps 51:14; Dan 9:16. See “Ethical righteousness.”

368

Appendix

Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look at the earth beneath; for the heavens vanish like smoke, the earth will wear out like a garment, and they who dwell in it will die in like manner;  ִ    ָ     ‫ יש‬/ τὸ σωτήριόν μου) will be forever, but my salvation (‫ׁוּעתי‬ and my righteousness (‫צדקתי‬ ִ   ַָ   ְ    ִ  / ἡ δικαιοσύνη μου) will never be dismayed. 7 Listen to me, you who know righteousness (‫צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ   / κρίσις), the people in whose heart is my law; fear not the reproach of man, nor be dismayed at their revilings. 8 For the moth will eat them up like a garment, and the worm will eat them like wool; but my righteousness (‫צדקתי‬ ִ   ַָ   ְ    ִ  / ἡ δικαιοσύνη μου) will be forever, and my salvation (‫ׁוּעתי‬ ִ  ָ     ‫ יש‬/ τὸ σωτήριόν μου) to all generations” (ESV) 6

31) Isa 56:1 “Thus says the Lord, ‘Preserve justice and do righteousness 48 (‫צדקה‬ ‫ועשׂו‬ ‫משׁפּט‬ ‫ ִש   ְׁמרוּ‬/ Φυλάσσεσθε κρίσιν, ποιήσατε δικαιοσύνην), ָ    ָ   ְ     ֲ   ַ     ָ ְ ִ For My salvation (‫ישׁוּעתי‬ ִ   ַָ    ְ     / τὸ σωτήριόν μου) is about to come And My righteousness (‫צדקתי‬ ִ   ַָ   ְ    ִ  / τὸ ἔλεός μου) to be revealed’” (NASB). 32) Isa 59:16 “He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no one to intercede; then his own arm brought him salvation, and his righteousness (‫צדקתוֹ‬     ַָ   ְ    ִ  / ἐλεημοσύνη) upheld him” (ESV). 33) Dan 9:16 ֶ  ֹ ְ  ִ   ָ ְ / Th: ἐν πάσῃ ἐλεημοσύνῃ “O Lord, according to all your righteous acts (‫כּכל־צדקת‬ σου || LXX: κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου) let your anger and your wrath turn away from your city Jerusalem, your holy hill, because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and your people have become a byword among all who are around us” (ESV).49 34) Micah 6:5 4 “I brought you up out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. I sent Moses to lead you also Aaron and Miriam. 5 My people, remember what Balak king of Moab counseled and what Balaam son of Beor answered. Remember your journey from Shittim to Gilgal, that you may know the righteous acts of the Lord” (NIV). (‫יהוה‬ ‫צדקוֹת‬ ָ ְ    ְ  ִ / ἡ δικαιοσύνη τοῦ κυρίου)



48 49

See “Ethical righteousness.” Cp. Ps 51:14; 143:1, 11.

Appendix

369

I.D. Vindication (4) 1) Isa 54:17 “No weapon that is fashioned against you shall succeed, and you shall confute every tongue that rises against you in judgment. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord and their vindication from me (‫מאתּי‬ ‫צדקתם‬ ִ ִ    ֵ     ָ ָ  ְ  ִ / ὑμεῖς ἔσεσθέ μοι δίκαιοι), declares the Lord” (ESV).50 2) Jer 51:10 [28:10LXX] 8 “Suddenly Babylon has fallen and been broken; wail for her! Take balm for her pain; perhaps she may be healed. 9 We would have healed Babylon, but she was not healed. Forsake her, and let us go each to his own country, for her judgment has reached up to heaven and has been lifted up even to the skies. 10 The Lord has brought about our vindication;51 (‫את־צדקתינוּ‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫הוֹציא‬ ֵ  ֹ ְ  ִ ֶ   ָ ְ ִ / ἐξήνεγκεν κύριος τὸ κρίμα αὐτοῦ) come, let us declare in Zion the work of the Lord our God” (ESV). 3) Joel 2:23 “Be glad, O children of Zion, and rejoice in the Lord your God, for he has given the early rain for your vindication (‫לצדקה‬ ָ    ָ   ְ     ִ / εἰς δικαιοσύνην); he has poured down for you abundant rain, the early and the latter rain, as before” (ESV). 4) Micah 7:9 “I will bear the indignation of the Lord because I have sinned against him, until he pleads my cause (‫ריבי‬ ‫יריב‬ ‫אשׁר‬ ‫ ַעד‬/ ἕως τοῦ δικαιῶσαι αὐτὸν τὴν δίκην μου) ִ   ִ    ִ  ָ ֶ ֲ and executes judgment for me. ִ   ָ    ְ ִ    ָ ָ   ְ / καὶ ποιήσει τὸ κρίμα μου) (‫משׁפּטי‬ ‫ועשׂה‬ He will bring me out to the light; I shall look upon his vindication” (ESV).52 (‫בּצדקתוֹ‬ ‫אראה‬  ָ    ְ  ִ   ֶ ְ ֶ / ὄψομαι τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ)

50 This verse could go under “Righteousness before God.” But note the promise, “you shall confute every tongue that rises against you in judgment,” which suggests vindication. So although this passage is very close to “righteousness before God,” the vindicatory aspect is strong enough to warrant putting it under this sub-category. 51 Literally, “the Lord has brought about our vindications” (plural). 52 Technically this should go under “the righteousness of God” (note the suffix: “his vindication”).

370

Appendix

I.E. Clothed with righteousness (2) 1) Isa 59:17 “He put on righteousness (‫צדקה‬ ָ      ָ   ְ / δικαιοσύνη) as a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation on his head; he put on garments of vengeance for clothing, and wrapped himself in zeal as a cloak” (ESV). 2) Isa 61:10 10 “I will greatly rejoice in the Lord; my soul shall exult in my God, for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation; (‫בּגדי־ישׁע‬ ַ  ֶ        ֵ  ְ  ִ / ἱμάτιον σωτηρίου) he has covered me with the robe of righteousness ָ      ָ   ְ    ִ   ְ / χιτῶνα εὐφροσύνης), (‫צדקה‬ ‫מעיל‬ as a bridegroom decks himself like a priest with a beautiful headdress, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels. 11 For as the earth brings forth its sprouts, and as a garden causes what is sown in it to sprout up, ָ      ָ   ְ / δικαιοσύνη) and praise so the Lord God will cause righteousness (53‫צדקה‬ to sprout up before all the nations” (ESV). I.F. Right(s) (3) 1) 2 Sam 19:28 [19:29MT] Mephibosheth speaking to David: “For all my father’s house were but men doomed to death before my lord the king, but you set your servant among those who eat at your table. What further right have I, then (‫ׁ־לי עוֹד‬ ‫מה־יּש‬ ‫צדקה‬ ִ    ֶ ַ ָ ָ   ְ / τί ἐστίν μοι ἔτι δικαίωμα), to cry to the king?” (ESV). 2) Neh 2:20 Nehemiah addressing Sanballat et al: “The God of heaven will make us prosper, and we his servants will arise and build, but you have no portion or right or claim (‫וזכּרוֹן‬ ‫וּצדקה‬ ָ   ִ   ְ      ָ  ָ   ְ ‫אין־חלק‬ ֶ   ֵ  ֵ   ‫לכם‬    ֶ   ָ / ὑμῖν οὐκ ἔστιν μερὶς καὶ δικαιοσύνη καὶ μνημόσυνον) in Jerusalem” (ESV). 3) Isa 5:23 22 “Woe to those who are heroes in drinking wine And valiant men in mixing strong drink, 23 Who justify the wicked for a bribe, And take away the rights of the ones who are in the right!” (NASB). (‫ממּנּוּ‬ ‫יסירוּ‬ ‫צדּיקים‬ ‫צדקת‬ ֶ ִ ִ ָ    ִ    ִ  ַ ַ  ְ  ִ / τὸ δίκαιον τοῦ δικαίου αἴροντες)”



53

See “Difficult cases.”

Appendix

371

II. ETHICAL RIGHTEOUSNESS II.A. General (43) 1-3) Deut 9:4-6 “Do not say in your heart, after the Lord your God has thrust them out before you, ‘It is because of my righteousness (‫בּצדקתי‬ ִ   ָ     ְ  ִ ְ / διὰ τὰς δικαιοσύνας μου) that the Lord has brought me in to possess this land,’ whereas it is because of the wickedness (‫   ְש ַׁעת‬ ‫בר‬ ִ  ְ / διὰ τὴν ἀσέβειαν) of these nations that the Lord is driving them out before you. 5 Not because of your righteousness (‫בצדקת‬ ְ   ָ  ְ  ִ     ְ  / τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου) or the uprightness of your heart ( ‫לבב‬ ‫ ֶשׁר‬ ‫ ְבי‬/ διὰ τὴν ὁσιότητα τῆς καρδίας σου) are you going in to possess their ְ ָ ְ land, but because of the wickedness (‫   ְש ַׁעת‬ ‫בר‬ ִ  ְ / διὰ τὴν ἀσέβειαν) of these nations the Lord your God is driving them out from before you, and that he may confirm the word that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. 6 Know, therefore, that the Lord your God is not giving you this good land to possess because of your righteousness (‫בצדקת‬ ְ   ָ     ְ  ִ ְ / διὰ τὰς δικαιοσύνας σου), for you are a stubborn (‫ׁה־ערף‬ ֶ  ֹ         ‫ש‬ ֵ  ‫ ְק‬/ σκληροτράχηλος) people” (ESV). 4) 1 Sam 26:2354 “Then Saul said, ‘I have sinned. Return, my son David, for I will no more do you harm, because my life was precious in your eyes this day. Behold, I have acted foolishly, and have made a great mistake.’ 22 And David answered and said, ‘Here is the spear, O king! Let one of the young men come over and take it. 23 The Lord rewards every man for his righteousness (‫צדקתוֹ‬ ָ   ְ    ִ / τὰς δικαιοσύνας αὐτοῦ) and his faithfulness (‫אמנתוֹ‬  ָ    ֻ   ֱ / τὴν πίστιν αὐτοῦ), for the Lord gave you into my hand today, and I would not put out my hand against the Lord’s anointed’” (ESV). 5-6) 2 Sam 22:21, 25 “The Lord dealt with me according to my righteousness (‫כּצדקתי‬ ִ   ָ     ְ  ִ   ְ / κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην μου); according to the cleanness of my hands (‫ידי‬ ‫כּבר‬  ַ ָ ֹ   ְ / κατὰ τὴν καθαριότητα τῶν χειρῶν μου) he rewarded me. 22 For I have kept the ways of the Lord and have not wickedly departed from my God. 23 For all his rules were before me, and from his statutes I did not turn aside. 24 ִ   ָ / ἄμωμος) before him, and I kept myself from guilt (‫מעוֹני‬ I was blameless (‫תמים‬  ִ   ֲ ֵ / ἀπὸ τῆς ἀνομίας μου). 25 And the Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness (‫כּצדקתי‬ ִ   ָ     ְ  ִ   ְ /  ִ  ֹ   ְ    / κατὰ τὴν καθαριότητα τῶν κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην μου), according to my cleanness (‫כּברי‬ χειρῶν μου) in his sight” (ESV). 7) 1 Kings 3:6 “And Solomon said, ‘You have shown great and steadfast love to your servant David my father, because he walked before you in faithfulness, in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart (‫לבב‬ ‫וּבישׁרת‬ ‫וּבצדקה‬ ‫בּאמת‬   ָ ֵ    ַ  ְ ִ ְ   ָ ָ   ְ ִ    ֶ  ֱ ֶ / ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἐν εὐθύτητι καρδίας) toward you. And you have kept for him this great and steadfast love and have given him a son to sit on his throne this day’” (ESV). 8) Job 27:6 Job speaking: “Far be it from me to say that you are right; till I die I will not put away my integrity (‫תּמּתי‬  ִ ָ  ְ  ִ ְ /   ִ   ָ   ֻ / τὴν ἀκακίαν) from me. 6 I hold fast my righteousness (‫בּצדקתי‬ δικαιοσύνῃ) and will not let it go; my heart does not reproach me for any of my days” (ESV).     



54

The parallel in Psalm 18:20-24 uses the masculine (‫)צדק‬. ֶ   ֶ  

372

Appendix

9) Job 35:8 Elihu: “If you have sinned, what do you accomplish against him? And if your transgressions 55 ָ    ְ   ַ   ָ ‫ ִאם־‬/ ἐπεὶ δὲ οὖν are multiplied, what do you do to him? 7 If you are righteous (‫צדקתּ‬ δίκαιος εἶ), what do you give to him? Or what does he receive from your hand? 8 Your wickedness (‫      ְש    ֶׁע‬ ‫ ִר‬/ ἡ ἀσέβειά σου) concerns a man like yourself, and your righteousness (‫צדקת‬ ֶ ָ     ְ  ִ / ἡ δικαιοσύνη σου) a son of man” (ESV). 10) Ps 11:7 [10:7LXX] 4 “The Lord is in his holy temple; the Lord’s throne is in heaven; his eyes see, his eyelids test, the children of man. 5 The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence. 6 Let him rain coals on the wicked; fire and sulfur and a scorching wind shall be the portion of their cup. ‫כּי־צדּיק‬ 7 For the Lord is righteous (‫יהוה‬ ָ      ְ   ִ  ַ  ִ / ὅτι δίκαιος κύριος); he loves righteous deeds (‫צדקוֹת אהב‬ ֵ     ָ ָ     ְ / δικαιοσύνας ἠγάπησεν); the upright (‫שׁר‬  ָ  ָ‫ י‬/ εὐθύτητα) shall behold his face” (ESV).56 11-12) Prov 8:18, 20 Wisdom speaking: 18 “Riches and honor are with me, enduring wealth and righteousness (‫צדקה‬ ָ ָ     ְ / δικαιοσύνη). 19 My fruit is better than gold, even fine gold, and my yield than choice silver. 20 I walk in the way of righteousness (‫בּארח־צדקה‬ ָ ָ     ְ  ַ  ֹ / ἐν ὁδοῖς δικαιοσύνης), in the paths of justice (‫ׁפּט‬ ‫נתיבוֹת‬ ָ ‫ ִמ ְש‬ ִ  ְ / τρίβων δικαιώματος), 21 granting an inheritance to those who love me, and filling their treasuries” (ESV). 13) Prov 10:2 2 “Treasures gained by wickedness do not profit, but righteousness (‫צדקה‬ ָ   ָ    ְ / δικαιοσύνη) delivers from death. 3 The Lord does not let the righteous go hungry, but he thwarts the craving of the wicked” (ESV). 14-16) Prov 11:4-6 4 “Riches do not profit in the day of wrath, but righteousness (‫צדקה‬ / δικαιοσύνη) delivers from death. ָ ָ     ְ 5 The righteousness of the blameless (‫תּמים‬ ‫צדקת‬ ִ ָ ַ ְ   ִ / δικαιοσύνη ἀμώμους) keeps his way straight, but the wicked falls by his own wickedness. ‫צדקת‬ 6 The righteousness of the upright (‫ש   ִ  ׁרים‬ ָ ‫  ְי‬ ַ  ְ ִ / δικαιοσύνη ἀνδρῶν ὀρθῶν) delivers them, but the treacherous are taken captive by their lust” (ESV). 17-18) Prov 11:18, 19 18 “The wicked man earns deceptive wages, ָ ָ     ְ   ‫זרע‬ ַ    ֵ  ֹ / σπέρμα δικαίων) reaps a sure reward. but he who sows righteousness (‫צדקה‬

55 56

Verb (Qal). Cp. Ps 17:15: “As for me, I shall behold your face in righteousness (‫)צדק‬.” ֶ   ֶ  

Appendix

19

The truly righteous man (‫כּן־צדקה‬ ָ ָ     ְ      ֵ / υἱὸς δίκαιος) attains life, but he who pursues evil goes to his death” (NIV).

19) Prov 12:28 “In the path of righteousness is life (‫חיּים‬ ‫בּארח־צדקה‬ ִ  ַ ָ ָ ְ ַ  ֹ  ְ / ἐν ὁδοῖς δικαιοσύνης ζωή), and in its pathway there is no death” (ESV). 20) Prov 13:6 “Righteousness (‫צדקה‬ ָ ָ     ְ / δικαιοσύνη) guards him whose way is blameless, but sin overthrows the wicked” (ESV). 21) Prov 14:34 “Righteousness (‫צדקה‬ ָ ָ     ְ / δικαιοσύνη) exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (ESV). 22) Prov 15:9 “The way of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, but he loves him who pursues righteousness (‫צדקה‬ ‫מרדּף‬ ָ ָ     ְ ֵ ַ   ִ / διώκοντας δικαιοσύνην)” (ESV). 23) Prov 16:8 “Better is a little with righteousness (‫בּצדקה‬ ָ ָ     ְ   ִ / --) ָ ְ ִ   ֹ ְ / --)” (ESV). than great revenues with injustice (‫משׁפּט‬ ‫בּלא‬ 24) Prov 16:31 “A gray head is a crown of glory; it is found in the way of righteousness (‫צדקה‬ ‫בּדר‬ ָ ָ   ְ ֶ    ֶ    ְ / ἐν ὁδοῖς δικαιοσύνης)” (NASB). 25) Prov 21:21 “Whoever pursues righteousness and kindness (‫וחסד‬ ‫צדקה‬ ‫רדף‬  ֶ ָ  ָ    ָ ָ   ְ ֵ ֹ / ὁδὸς δικαιοσύνης καὶ ἐλεημοσύνης) will find life, righteousness (‫צדקה‬ ָ ָ     ְ / --), and honor” (ESV). ֵ  ֹ 57 ֶ   ֶ   instead of ‫)רדף‬. (LXX seems to have read ‫דרך‬ 26-28) Isa 32:16, 17 (2x) 16 “Then justice (‫משׁ ָפּּט‬ ְ ִ / κρίμα) will dwell in the wilderness, ָ ָ     ְ / δικαιοσύνη) abide in the fruitful field. and righteousness (‫צדקה‬ 17 And the effect of righteousness (‫הצּדקה‬ ‫שׂה‬ ָ ָ ְ   ַ   ֵ ‫מע‬ ֲ ַ / τὰ ἔργα τῆς δικαιοσύνης) will be peace, ָ ָ ְ   ַ ַ  ֹ ֲ / κρατήσει ἡ δικαιοσύνη), and the result of righteousness (‫הצדקה‬ ‫עבדת‬ quietness and trust forever” (ESV). 29) Isa 33:15 14 “The sinners (‫חטּאים‬ ִ    ָ ַ / οἱ ἄνομοι) in Zion are afraid; trembling has seized the godless (‫חנפים‬ ִ ֵ   ֲ / οἱ ἀσεβεῖς): ‘Who among us can dwell with the consuming fire? Who among us can dwell with everlasting burnings?’



57

Second occurrence of ‫צדקה‬ ָ ָ     ְ is listed under “Righteousness before God.”

373

374



Appendix

ָ   ְ     ֵ   ֹ / πορευόμενος ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ) He who walks righteously (‫צדקוֹת‬ ‫הל‬ and speaks uprightly (‫ש   ִ ׁרים‬ ‫   ֵמי‬ ‫דבר‬ ָ ֵ   ֹ / λαλῶν εὐθεῖαν ὁδόν), who despises the gain of oppressions, who shakes his hands, lest they hold a bribe, who stops his ears from hearing of bloodshed and shuts his eyes from looking on evil, 16 he will dwell on the heights; his place of defense will be the fortresses of rocks; his bread will be given him; his water will be sure” (ESV). 15

30) Isa 46:12 12 “Listen to me, you stubborn of heart, you who are far from righteousness: (‫מצּדקה‬ ‫הרחוֹקים‬ ָ ָ   ְ    ִ          ִ   ְ    ָ / οἱ μακρὰν ἀπὸ τῆς δικαιοσύνης) 13 I bring near my righteousness (‫צדקתי‬ ִָ ָ       ְ  ִ / τὴν δικαιοσύνην μου); it is not far off, and my salvation will not delay; I will put salvation in Zion, for Israel my glory” (ESV). 31) Isa 57:12 “I will declare your righteousness and your deeds ַ ‫ואת־מע‬ ֲ ַ ֶ   ְ    ֵ ָ  ְ  ִ / τὴν δικαιοσύνην μου καὶ τὰ κακά σου), (‫ש ִׂי‬ ‫צדקת‬ but they will not profit you” (ESV). 32) Isa 64:6 [64:5MT/LXX] “We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds (‫כּל־צדקתינוּ‬ ֵ   ֹ   ְ  ִ   ָ / πᾶσα ἡ δικαιοσύνη ἡμῶν) are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away” (ESV). 33-34) Ezek 14:14, 20 13 “Son of man, when a land sins against me by acting faithlessly, and I stretch out my hand against it and break its supply of bread and send famine upon it, and cut off from it man and beast, 14 even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness (‫בצדקתם‬ ָ ָ  ְ  ִ     ְ / ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ αὐτῶν), declares the Lord God.” … 19 “Or if I send a pestilence into that land and pour out my wrath upon it with blood, to cut off from it man and beast, 20 even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, declares the Lord God, they would deliver neither son nor daughter. They would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness (‫בצדקתם‬ ָ ָ  ְ  ִ     ְ / ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ αὐτῶν)” (ESV).    

   

35-37) Ezek 18:20, 24, 26 (see below) 38-41) Ezek 33:12, 13 (2x), 18 (see below) 42) Dan 9:18 “O my God, incline your ear and hear. Open your eyes and see our desolations, and the city that is called by your name. For we do not present our pleas before you because of ֵ   ֹ   ְ    ִ ַ    ֹ / LXX & Th: οὐκ ἐπὶ ταῖς δικαιοσύναις ἡμῶν), but our righteousness (‫על־צדקתינוּ‬ ‫לא‬ because of your great mercy” (ESV). 43) Hos 10:12 “Sow for yourselves righteousness (‫צדקה‬ ָ      ָ   ְ / δικαιοσύνη); reap steadfast love; break up your fallow ground, for it is the time to seek the Lord, that he may come and rain righteousness (‫צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ   / δικαιοσύνη) upon you” (ESV).

Appendix

375

II.B. With verbs of doing (15) 1) Gen 18:19 “For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him ‫צדקה‬ ‫לעשׂוֹת‬ to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice (‫וּמשׁפּט‬ ָ ְ ִ      ָ ָ   ְ    ֲ ַ / ποιεῖν δικαιοσύνην καὶ κρίσιν), so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised him” (ESV). 2) Ps 106:3 [105:3LXX] “Blessed are they who observe justice, who do righteousness at all times!” (ESV) ָ      ָ   ְ ‫ש   ׂה‬ (‫בכל־עת‬ ‫צדקה‬ ‫משׁפּט‬ ‫ֹמרי‬ ׁ‫   ֵׁרי ש‬ ‫ ַא   ְש‬ / μακάριοι οἱ φυλάσσοντες κρίσιν καὶ ποιοῦντες ֵ     ָ ְ      ֵ     ‫   ֹע‬ ָ ְ ִ ֵ   ְ δικαιοσύνην ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ) 3) Prov 21:3 ִ       ָ ָ  ְ     “To do righteousness and justice (‫וּמ ְש ָׁפט‬ ‫צדקה‬ ‫ ֲעשׂה‬/ ποιεῖν δίκαια καὶ ἀληθεύειν) is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice” (ESV). 4) Isa 56:158 “Preserve justice and do righteousness (‫צדקה‬ ‫ועשׂוּ‬ ‫משׁפּט‬ ‫   ְׁמרוּ‬ ‫ ִש‬/ Φυλάσσεσθε κρίσιν, ποιήσατε δικαιοσύνην),  ָ ָ   ְ      ֲ   ַ      ָ ְ    ִ ִ   ָ      ְ  / τὸ σωτήριόν μου) is about to come For My salvation (‫ישׁוּעתי‬ And My righteousness (‫צדקתי‬ ִ   ָ     ְ  ִ / τὸ ἔλεός μου) to be revealed” (NASB). 5) Isa 58:2 “Cry aloud; do not hold back; lift up your voice like a trumpet; declare to my people their transgression, to the house of Jacob their sins. 2 Yet they seek me daily and delight to ָ      ָ   ְ / δικαιοσύνην know my ways, as if they were a nation that did righteousness (‫     ָע   ָשׂה‬ ‫צדקה‬ πεποιηκώς) and did not forsake the judgment (‫משׁפּט‬ ַ     ְ    ִ / κρίσις) of their God; they ask of me righteous judgments (‫משׁפּטי־צדק‬ ֶ   ֶ  ֵ ְ ְ ִ / κρίσιν δικαίαν); they delight to draw near to God” (ESV). 6) Ezek 3:20 “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a  ָ    word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. 18 If I say to the wicked (‫שׁע‬ ‫ָר‬ / ὁ ἄνομος), ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. 19 But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul. 20 Again, if a righteous person (‫צדּיק‬   ִ ַ / δίκαιος) turns from his righteousness (‫מצּדקוֹ‬ ‫וע ָשׂה‬ ֶ  ָ ָ   ְ /   ְִ  ִ ִ / ἀπὸ τῶν δικαιοσυνῶν αὐτοῦ) and commits injustice (‫עול‬ καὶ ποιήσῃ παράπτωμα), and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die. Because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous deeds that he has done (‫    ָע   ָשׂה‬ ‫ש  ׁר‬ ‫צדקתו‬ ֶ ‫    ֲא‬ ָ  ֹ ְ  ִ / αἱ δικαιοσύναι αὐτοῦ ἃς ἐποίησεν) shall not be remembered, but his blood I will require at your hand. 21 But if you warn the righteous person (‫צדּיק‬   ִ ַ / ὁ δίκαιος) not to sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live, because he took warning, and you will have delivered your soul” (ESV).



58

Note context of Sabbath-keeping.

376

Appendix

7) Ezek 18:5 5 “If a man is righteous (‫צדּיק‬ ‫משׁפּט‬   ִ ַ / δίκαιος) and does what is just and right (‫וּצדקה‬ ָ      ָ   ְ    ָ ְ ִ  ָ    ‫ ָע‬/ ὁ ποιῶν κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην) – 6 if he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up ‫שׂה‬ his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor’s wife or approach a woman in her time of menstrual impurity, 7 does not oppress anyone, but restores to the debtor his pledge, commits no robbery, gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment, 8 does not lend at interest or take any profit, withholds his hand from injustice, executes true justice between man and man, 9 walks in my statutes, and keeps my rules by acting faithfully—he is righteous (‫צדּיק‬   ִ ַ / δίκαιος); he shall surely live, declares the Lord God” (ESV). 8-12) Ezek 18:19, 21, 22, 24, 27 19 “Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right (‫שׂה‬ ‫וּצדקה‬ ‫משׁפּט‬ ָ ‫  ָע‬ ָ  ָ  ְ ָ    ְ ִ / δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἔλεος ἐποίησεν), and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous (‫הצּדּיק‬ ‫צדקת‬  ִ ַ ַ   ַ  ְ  ִ / δικαιοσύνη δικαίου) shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. 21 “But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right (‫וּצדקה‬ ‫משׁפּט‬ ‫שׂה‬ ָ ָ   ְ    ָ ְ ִ       ָ ‫ ָע‬/ ποιήσῃ δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἔλεος), he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done (‫ׁר־עשׂה‬ ‫בּצדקתוֹ‬ ָ ָ ‫ש‬ ֶ ‫ ֲא‬ ָ  ְ  ִ ְ / ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ αὐτοῦ, ἧ ἐποίησεν) he shall live. 23 Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? 24 But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness (‫מצּדקתוֹ‬ ‫צדּיק‬ ‫ ְבשׁוּב‬/ ἐν δὲ τῷ ἀποστρέψαι δίκαιον ἐκ τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ) and does ָ  ְ  ִ ִ   ִ ַ injustice and does the same abominations that the wicked person does, shall he live? None ָ ‫ׁר־ע‬ ָ    ‫ש‬ ֶ ‫  ֲא‬ ָ  ֹ ְ  ִ ָ / πᾶσαι αἱ δικαιοσύναι of the righteous deeds that he has done (‫שׂה‬ ‫כּל־צדקתו‬ αὐτοῦ, ἃς ἐποίησεν) shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, for them he shall die. 25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way not just? Is it not your ways that are not just? 26 When a righteous person turns away from his righteousness (‫מצּדקתוֹ‬ ‫ׁוּב־צדּיק‬ ‫     ְבּש‬/ ἐν τῷ ἀποστρέψαι τὸν δίκαιον ἐκ τῆς δικαιοσύνης ָ  ְ  ִ ִ   ִ ַ   αὐτοῦ) and does injustice, he shall die for it; for the injustice that he has done he shall die. 27 Again, when a wicked person turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right (‫וּצדקה‬ ‫משׁפּט‬ ׂ‫ויּעש‬ ָ ָ   ְ       ָ ְ ִ        ַ  ַ ַ / καὶ ποιήσῃ κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην), he shall save his life. 28 Because he considered and turned away from all the transgressions that he had committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die” (ESV). 13-15) Ezek 33:14, 16, 19 12 “And you, son of man, say to your people, The righteousness of the righteous (‫הצּדּיק‬ ִ ַ ַ ‫צדקת‬ ַ  ְ  ִ / δικαιοσύνη δικαίου) shall not deliver him when he transgresses, and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall by it when he turns from his wickedness, and the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins. 13 Though I say to the ָ  ְ  ִ ַ / ἐπὶ τῇ righteous that he shall surely live, yet if he trusts in his righteousness (‫על־צדקתוֹ‬ δικαιοσύνῃ αὐτοῦ) and does injustice, none of his righteous deeds (‫כּל־צדקתו‬ ָ   ְ  ִ ָ / πᾶσαι αἱ δικαιοσύναι αὐτοῦ) shall be remembered, but in his injustice that he has done he shall die. 14 Again, though I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ yet if he turns from his sin and      ָ    ְ ִ            ָ ‫וּע‬ ָ / καὶ ποιήσῃ κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην), 15 if  ָ ָ   ְ         does what is just and right (‫וּצדקה‬ ‫משׁפּט‬ ‫שׂה‬ the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the

Appendix



377

statutes of life, not doing injustice, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 16 None of the sins that he has committed shall be remembered against him. He has done what is just and right (‫ׂה‬ ‫וּצדקה‬ ‫משׁפּט‬ / κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην ἐποίησεν); he shall surely live. ָ‫ש‬ ‫    ָע‬ ָ ָ   ְ      ָ ְ ִ      17 “Yet your people say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just,’ when it is their own way that is not just. 18 When the righteous turns from his righteousness (‫מצּדקתוֹ‬ ‫בּשׁוּב־צרּיק‬  ָ  ְ  ִ ִ   ִ ַ  ְ / ἐν τῷ ἀποστρέψαι δίκαιον ἀπὸ τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ) and does injustice, he shall die for it. 19 And when the wicked turns from his wickedness and does what is just and right (‫וּצדקה‬ ָ ָ   ְ      ‫משׁפּט‬ ‫וע ָשׂה‬ ָ    ְ ִ        ָ / καὶ ποιήσῃ κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην), he shall live by them” (ESV).

II.C. Righteous laws, word (0) II.D. Gates, paths, cities, oaks, habitation of righteousness (0) II.E. Righteousness as a status before God (14) 1) Gen 15:6 ‫ויּחשׁבה לּוֹ‬ “And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness (‫צדקה‬    ָ ָ   ְ         ָ ֶ    ְ  ְ  ַ ַ      / καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην)” (ESV). 2) Deut 6:25 24 “And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as we are this day. 25 And it will be righteousness for us (‫תּהיה־לּנוּ‬ ‫וּצדקה‬ ָ   ֶ   ְ ִ    ָ ָ   ְ / καὶ ἐλεημοσύνη ἔσται ἡμῖν), if we are careful to do all this commandment before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us” (ESV). 3) Deut 24:13 10 “When you make your neighbor a loan of any sort, you shall not go into his house to collect his pledge. 11 You shall stand outside, and the man to whom you make the loan shall bring the pledge out to you. 12 And if he is a poor man, you shall not sleep in his pledge. 13 You shall restore to him the pledge as the sun sets, that he may sleep in his cloak and bless you. And it shall be righteousness for you (‫צדקה‬ ‫תּהיה‬ ‫וּל‬    ָ ָ   ְ   ֶ  ְ ִ ְ / καὶ ἔσται σοι ἐλεημοσύνη) before the Lord your God” (ESV). 4-5) 1 Kings 8:32 (|| 2 Chron 6:23) 31 “If a man sins against his neighbor and is made to take an oath and comes and swears his oath before your altar in this house, 32 then hear in heaven and act and judge (‫ׁפטתּ‬ ָ ְ   ַ   ‫ש‬ ָ / κρινεῖς) your servants, condemning the guilty (‫רשׁע‬  ָ   ָ    ‫להרשׁיע‬ ַ ִ   ְ   ַ ְ    / ἀνομηθῆναι ἄνομον) by bringing his conduct on his own head, and vindicating the righteous (‫צדּיק‬ ‫להצדּיק‬ ִ  ַ   ִ  ְ   ַ    ְ / τοῦ δικαιῶσαι δίκαιον) by rewarding him according to his righteousness (‫כּצדקתוֹ‬ ָ     ְ  ִ     ְ / κατὰ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ)” (ESV). 6) Job 33:26 ֵ   ְ ִ / δεκτὰ αὐτῷ ἔσται); he sees Elihu: “ … then man prays to God, and he accepts him (‫יּרצהוּ‬ ָ   ְ    ִ         ֱ ֶ ֶ   ָ ַ his face with a shout of joy, and he restores to man his righteousness (‫צדקתוֹ‬ ‫לאנוֹשׁ‬ ‫ויּשׁב‬ / ἀποδώσει δὲ ἀνθρώποις δικαιοσύνην)” (ESV). 7) Ps 24:5 [23:5LXX] 3 “Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? 4 He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false and does not swear deceitfully.

378

5

Appendix He will receive blessing from the Lord (‫יהוה‬ ‫מאת‬ ‫ברכה‬ ‫ישּׂא‬ ָ     ְ      ֵ ֵ    ָ  ָ   ְ   ָ   ִ / οὗτος λήμψεται εὐλογίαν παρὰ κυρίου) and righteousness from the God of his salvation (‫ישׁעוֹ‬ ‫וּצדקה‬ ְ   ִ ‫מאהי‬ ֵ ֱ ֵ ָ ָ ְ / καὶ ἐλεημοσύνην παρὰ θεοῦ σωτῆρος αὐτοῦ)” (ESV).59

8) Ps 106:31 [105:31LXX] “Then Phinehas stood up and intervened, and the plague was stayed. 31 And that was counted to him as righteousness (‫לצדקה‬ ‫שׁב לוֹ‬ ָ    ָ   ְ   ִ     ֶ  ‫ותּח‬ ָ ֵ  ַ / καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην) from generation to generation forever” (ESV). 9) Prov 21:21 “Whoever pursues righteousness and kindness ֶ ָ  ָ    ָ ָ   ְ ֵ ֹ / ὁδὸς δικαιοσύνης καὶ ἐλεημοσύνης) (‫וחסד‬ ‫צדקה‬ ‫רדף‬ will find life, righteousness (‫צדקה‬ ָ ָ     ְ / --), and honor” (ESV). (LXX seems to have read ‫דרך‬ ֵ  ֹ 60 ֶ   ֶ   instead of ‫)רדף‬. 10) Isa 45:24 24 “Only in the Lord, it shall be said of me, are righteousness and strength; (‫ועז‬ ‫צדקוֹת‬ ‫אמר‬ ‫ ִלי‬ ‫בּיהוה‬ ‫ ַא‬/ λέγων Δικαιοσύνη καὶ δόξα πρὸς αὐτὸν ἥξουσιν) ֹ   ָ   ָ   ְ     ַ   ָ ָ     ַ to him shall come and be ashamed all who were incensed against him. 25 In the Lord all the offspring of Israel shall be justified (‫יצדּקוּ‬  ְ    ְ  ִ / δικαιωθήσονται) and shall glory” (ESV).  

11) Isa 48:18 “Oh that you had paid attention to my commandments! Then your peace would have been like a river, ְ     ַָ  ְ    ִ / ἡ δικαιοσύνη σου) and your righteousness (‫צדקת‬ like the waves of the sea” (ESV).    

12-13) Isa 59:9, 14 9 “Therefore justice is far from us, and righteousness (‫צדקה‬ ָ ָ     ְ / δικαιοσύνη) does not overtake us; we hope for light, and behold, darkness, and for brightness, but we walk in gloom. 10 We grope for the wall like the blind; we grope like those who have no eyes; we stumble at noon as in the twilight, among those in full vigor we are like dead men.

59 The NIV has “He will receive blessing from the Lord and vindication from God his Savior.” So a case could be made for categorizing this verse under “Vindication” above. However, I believe it fits best here since there is no hint of oppressors or accusers in context. Rather, this is the Lord’s recognition and approval of those who are ethically righteous. 60 “Whoever pursues righteousness … will find righteousness” may appear redundant; perhaps that is why the LXX leaves the second “righteousness” untranslated. However, it makes sense if the second “righteousness” is understood as “righteousness before God,” i.e., righteousness as approved, a status of righteousness before God. First occurrence of ‫צדקה‬ ָ ָ     ְ is listed under “ethical righteousness.”

Appendix











379

We all growl like bears; we moan and moan like doves; we hope for justice, but there is none; for salvation, but it is far from us. 12 For our transgressions are multiplied before you, and our sins testify against us; for our transgressions are with us, and we know our iniquities: 13 transgressing, and denying the Lord, and turning back from following our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart lying words. 14 Justice is turned back, and righteousness (‫צדקה‬ ָ ָ     ְ / δικαιοσύνη) stands afar off; for truth has stumbled in the public squares, and uprightness cannot enter. 15 Truth is lacking, and he who departs from evil makes himself a prey. The Lord saw it, and it displeased him that there was no justice. 16 He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no one to intercede; then his own arm brought him salvation, ָ  ְ  ִ / ἐλεημοσύνη)61 upheld him. and his righteousness (‫צדקתוֹ‬ 17 He put on righteousness (‫צדקה‬ ָ ָ     ְ / δικαιοσύνη)62 as a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation on his head; he put on garments of vengeance for clothing, and wrapped himself in zeal as a cloak” (ESV). 11

14) Malachi 3:3 2 “But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner’s fire and like fullers’ soap. 3 He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, and they will bring offerings in righteousness (‫בּצדקה‬ ‫מנחה‬ ‫שׁי‬ ‫מגּי‬ ָ ָ   ְ   ִ          ָ   ְ  ִ    ֵ    ִ    ַ / προσάγοντες θυσίαν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ) to the Lord” (ESV). II.F. Honesty (1) 1) Gen 30:33 Jacob speaking to Laban: “So my honesty (‫צדקתי‬ ִ   ָ     ְ  ִ / ἡ δικαιοσύνη μου) will answer for me later, when you come to look into my wages with you. Every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats and black among the lambs, if found with me, shall be counted stolen” (ESV).



61 62

See “The Righteousness of God.” See “Clothed with righteousness.”

380

Appendix

III. CORRECTNESS III.A. Speaking/swearing in righteousness, telling the truth (4) 1) Isa 45:23 23 “By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: (‫דּבד‬ ‫צדקה‬ ‫מפּי‬ ‫יצא‬ ָ    ָ     ָ      ָ   ְ    ִ   ִ   ָ  ָ / ἐξελεύσεται ἐκ τοῦ στόματός μου δικαιοσύνη, οἱ λόγοι μου) ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance’” (ESV). 2) Isa 48:1 “Hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and who came from the waters of Judah, who swear by the name of the Lord and confess the God of Israel, but not in truth or right” (ESV). (‫בצדקה‬ ‫ולא‬ ‫באמת‬ ָ    ָ   ְ    ִ       ֹ ְ ֶ  ֱ ֶ ‫לא‬ ֹ / οὐ μετὰ ἀληθείας οὐδὲ μετὰ δικαιοσύνης) 3) Isa 63:1 “Who is this who comes from Edom, in crimsoned garments from Bozrah, he who is splendid in his apparel, marching in the greatness of his strength? ‘It is I, speaking in righteousness, mighty to save’” (ESV). (‫להוֹשׁיע‬ ‫   ַרב‬ ‫בּצדקה‬ ‫מדבּר‬ ‫אני‬ ַ ִ ְ   ָ ָ   ְ ִ      ֵ  ָ   ְ     ִ ֲ / ἐγὼ διαλέγομαι δικαιοσύνην καὶ κρίσιν σωτηρίου) 4) Jer 4:2 1 “If you return, O Israel, declares the Lord, to me you should return. If you remove your detestable things from my presence, and do not waver, 2 and if you swear, ‘As the Lord lives,’ in truth, in justice, and in righteousness, (‫וּבצדקה‬ ‫בּמשׁפּט‬ ‫בּאמת‬ ָ    ָ   ְ   ִ    ָ    ְ ִ ְ    ֶ  ֱ ֶ / μετὰ ἀληθείας καὶ ἐν κρίσει καὶ ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ) then nations shall bless themselves in him, and in him shall they glory” (ESV). III.B. Just balances, weights (0) III.C. Doing something correctly (1) 1) Zech 8:8 7 “Thus says the Lord of hosts: behold, I will save my people from the east country and from the west country, 8 and I will bring them to dwell in the midst of Jerusalem. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God, in faithfulness and in righteousness (‫וּבצדקה‬ ‫בּאמת‬ ָ    ָ   ְ   ִ       ֶ  ֱ  ֶ / ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ)” (ESV).

381

Appendix IV. DIFFICULT CASES (5)

1) Judges 5:11 “To the sound of musicians at the watering places, there they repeat the righteous triumphs ֹ ְ  ִ in Israel” ֹ   ְ  ִ ‫)יהוה‬, ‫)צדקת‬ of the Lord (‫צדקוֹת‬  ְ  ִ ָ  ְ the righteous triumphs of his villagers (‫פּרזנוֹ‬ (ESV). See LXX-A and LXX-B.  

2-3) Ps 112:3, 9 [111:3, 9LXX] “Praise the Lord! Blessed is the man who fears the Lord, who greatly delights in his commandments! 2 His offspring will be mighty in the land; the generation of the upright will be blessed. 3 Wealth and riches are in his house, and his righteousness endures forever. (‫לעד‬ ‫עמדת‬ ‫וצדקתוֹ‬ ַ ָ ֶ   ֶ  ֹ   ָ   ְ  ִ  ְ / καὶ ἡ δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος) 4 Light dawns in the darkness for the upright; he is gracious, merciful, and righteous. 5 It is well with the man who deals generously and lends; who conducts his affairs with justice. 6 For the righteous will never be moved; he will be remembered forever. 7 He is not afraid of bad news; his heart is firm, trusting in the Lord. 8 His heart is steady; he will not be afraid, until he looks in triumph on his adversaries. 9 He has distributed freely; he has given to the poor; his righteousness endures forever; (‫לעד‬ ‫עמדת‬ ‫צדקתוֹ‬ ַ   ָ  ֶ   ֶ  ֹ   ָ   ְ  ִ  / ἡ δικαιοσύνη αὐτοῦ μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος) his horn is exalted in honor. 10 The wicked man sees it and is angry; he gnashes his teeth and melts away; the desire of the wicked will perish!” (ESV) 4) Isa 61:11 “For as the earth brings forth its sprouts, and as a garden causes what is sown in it to sprout up, so the Lord God will cause righteousness (‫צדקה‬ ָ      ָ   ְ / δικαιοσύνη) and praise to sprout up before all the nations” (ESV). 5) Malachi 4:2 [3:20 MT/LXX] 1 “For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the Lord of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. 2 But for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness (‫צדקה‬ ‫שׁ     ֶׁמשׁ‬ ָ      ָ   ְ    ֶ / ἥλιος δικαιοσύνης) shall rise with healing in its wings. You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall” (ESV).

382

Appendix

V. PLURAL (14x) These are already included above but are collated here as an additional category. God’s righteous acts (5x)

Jdg 5:11(a); 1 Sam 12:7; Mic 6:5 – “The righteous acts of the Lord” Ps 103:6 – “the Lord performs righteous acts and justice for all who are oppressed” Dan 9:16 – “according to all your righteous acts let your anger turn aside”

Man’s righteous deeds (ethical uprightness) (7x) Jdg 5:11(b) – “the righteous deeds of his [the Lord’s] villagers in Israel” Ps 11:7 – “the Lord loves righteous deeds” Isa 33:15 – “he who walks righteously” Isa 64:5 – “him who joyfully performs righteous deeds” Ezek 18:24; 33:13 – a man’s “righteous deeds” Dan 9:18 – “not because of our righteousness deeds, but because of your great mercy” Vindication/justification (2x)

Isa 45:24 – “only in the Lord are righteousness and strength” (v 25: “In the Lord all the offspring of Israel shall be justified and shall glory”) Jer 51:10 – “the Lord has brought about our vindications”

Bibliography Primary Sources Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas). Edited and translated by Moses Hadas. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951. Aristotle: The Nicomachean Ethics. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by H. Rackham. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1934. Aristotle, On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Translated by George Kennedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 5. Edited by Philip Schaff. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994. Augustine: Later Works. The Library of Christian Classics 8. Translated by John Burnaby. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1955. Augustine on Romans: Propositions from the Epistle to the Romans and Unfinished Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Text and translation by Paula Fredriksen Landes. Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations 23. Scholars Press: Chico, 1982. Bensly, Robert L. The Fourth Book of Ezra: The Latin Version Edited from the MSS. Texts and Studies 3.2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1895. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. 2nd Edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983. Brock, S. P. Testamentum Iobi. Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece 2. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Buitenwerf, Rieuwerd. Book III of the Sibylline Oracles and Its Social Setting with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica 17. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Calvin’s Commentaries: The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians. Translated by Ross MacKenzie. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960. Charles, R. H.. Masehafa Kufase, or the Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees. Anecdota Oxoniensia. Oxford: Clarendon, 1895. –. ed. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English. 2 Vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. –. The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1908. Reprinted: Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1960. –. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Translations of Early Documents, Series 1: Palestinian Jewish Texts (Pre-Rabbinic). London: SPCK, 1925. Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 Vols. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985. –. ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/ Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993–.

384

Bibliography

Chrysostom. Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 11. Edited by Philip Schaff. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994. de Jonge, M. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text. Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece I,2. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Demosthenes. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by J. H. Vince. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1935. Denis, A.-M. Concordance grecque des pseudépigraphes d’ancien Testament. Louvain-laNeuve: Université Catholique de Louvain, Institut Orientaliste, 1987. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. 2 Vols. Edited by H. Diels and W. Kranz. 5th Edition. Berlin: Weidmann, 1952. ET: Kathleen Freeman. Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers: A Complete Translation of the Fragments in Diels, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957. Digital Library of Classic Protestant Texts. Alexandria, Va.: Alexander Street Press, 2007. Dio Chrysostom. Loeb Classical Library. Various translators. London: William Heinemann, 1932. Diodorus of Sicily. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by C. H. Oldfather. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960. Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by Earnest Cary. London: William Heinemann, 1948. Dupont-Sommer, André. Les écrits esséniens découverts près de la mer Morte. Paris: Payot, 1959. ET: The Essene Writings from Qumran. Translated by Geza Vermes. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1961. Epictetus: Discourses. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by W. A. Oldfather. London: William Heinemann, 1925. Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum Quae Supersunt Graeca. Edited by Albert-Marie Denis. Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece 3. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Geffcken, J. Die Oracula sibyllina. Die griechischen christlichen Shriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 8. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902. Greek Elegiac Poetry from the Seventh to the Fifth Centuries BC. Loeb Classical Library. Edited and translated by Douglas E. Gerber. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999. Harrington, Daniel J. Pseudo-Philon, Les Antiquités Bibliques. Sources chrétiennes 229-30. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1976. Herodotus. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by A. D. Godley. London: William Heinemann, 1926. –. The Histories. Translated by Aubrey de Sélincourt. Revised with introduction and notes by A. R. Burn. London: Penguin, 1972. Hesiod. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by Glenn W. Most. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006. Isocrates. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by George Norlin. London: William Heinemann, 1929. Josephus: Jewish Antiquities. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray and Ralph Marcus. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998. Klijn, A. Frederik J. Der Lateinische Text der Apokalypse des Esra. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 131. Berlin: Akademie, 1983. Library of Latin Texts – Series A. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols.

Bibliography

385

Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1938. ET: Luther’s Works: American Edition. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann. Saint Louis: Concordia, 1972. Melanchthons Werke. Edited by Robert Stupperich. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1965. Nicklesburg, George W. E. and James C. VanderKam. 1 Enoch: A New Translation Based on the Hermeneia Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. Novum Testamentum Graece. Edited by Eberhard and Erwin Nestle, Barbara and Kurt Aland et al. 27th Edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgellschaft, 2001. Origen: Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 2 Vols. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. The Fathers of the Church 103, 104. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2001–2002. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Parts. I-LXIX. Various editors. London: The Egypt Exploration Society, 1898–2005. Paraleipomena Jeremiou. Texts and Translations 1, Pseudepigrapha Series 1. Edited and translated by Robert A. Kraft and Ann-Elizabeth Purintun. Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972. Parry, Donald W. and Emanuel Tov, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. 6 Vols. Leiden: Brill, 2004–2005. Philippi Melanchthonis epistolae, iudicia, consilia, testimonia aliorumque ad eum epistolae, quae in Corpore Reformatorum desiderantur. Edited by Heinrich Ernst Bindseil. Halis Saxonum: Typis sumtibusque Gustavi Schwetschke, 1874. Pietersma, Albert and Benjamin G. Wright, eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Plato’s Republic. Translated by G. M. A. Grube. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1974. Plato: Laws. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by R. G. Bury. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001. Plutarch’s Lives. Loeb Classical Library. Various translators. London: William Heinemann, 1914. Plutarch’s Moralia. Loeb Classical Library. Various translators. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1939. Polybius: The Histories. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by W. R. Paton. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1954. Rönsch, Hermann, ed. Das Buch der Jubiläen, oder Die kleine Genesis. Leipzig: Fues, 1874. Septuaginta: id est, Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpres. Edited by Alfred Rahlfs. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1935. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931–. Sextus Empiricus. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by R. G. Bury. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1936. Sparks, H. F. D., ed. The Apocryphal Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1984. Spittler, Russell P. The Testament of Job According to the SV Text. Edited by Robert A. Kraft with Harold Attridge, Russell Spittler, and Janet Timbie. Texts and Translations 5, Pseudepigrapha Series 4. Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature and Scholars’ Press, 1974. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. University of California, Irvine. Online: www.tlg.uci.edu Thomas Aquinas: Lectures on the Letter to the Romans. Translated by Fabian Larcher. Edited by Jeremy Holmes. Ave Maria, Florida: The Aquinas Center for Theological Renewal at Ave Maria University. Online: www.aquinas.avemaria.edu/commentaries.asp

386

Bibliography

Thucydides: History of the Peloponnesian War. Translated by Rex Warner. Introduction and notes by M. I. Finley. London: Penguin, 1972. Vermes, Geza. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. New York: Penguin Books, 2004. von Arnim, Hans F. A., ed. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta. 4 Vols. Lipsiae: Teubner, 19031924. Whiston, William. The Works of Josephus. New Updated Edition. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995. William of St Thierry: Exposition on the Epistle to the Romans. Translated by John Baptist Hasbrouck. Cistercian Fathers Series 27. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1980. Wise, Michael, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. New York: HarperCollins, 1996. Xenophon. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by Walter Miller. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983. Yonge, C. D. The Works of Philo. New Updated Edition. Peabody, Hendrickson, 1993. Young, Douglas, ed. Theognis: Ps.-Pythagoras, Ps.-Phocylides, Chares, Anonymi Aulodia, Fragmentum Teliambicum. 2nd Edition. Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana. Leipzig: Teubner, 1971.

Secondary Sources Abbott, T. K. Essays Chiefly on the Original Texts of the Old and the New Testaments. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1891. Achtemeier, E. R. “Righteousness in the Old Testament.” Pages 80-85 in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 4. Edited by George A. Buttrick. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962. Achtemeier, P. J. “Righteousness in the New Testament.” Pages 91-99 in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 4. Edited by George A. Buttrick. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962. Adamson, James B. The Epistle of James. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976. Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “Von Sprache zur Theologie: Methodologie Überlegungen zur Theologie der Septuaginta.” In The Septuagint and Messianism. Edited by M. A. Knibb. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 195. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2006. Aitken, James K. “Review of Judentum und Hellenismus by Martin Hengel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 123 (2004): 331-41. Aletti, Jean Noël, S.J. God’s Justice in Romans: Keys for Interpreting the Epistle to the Romans. Translated by Peggy Manning Meyer. Subsidia biblica 37. Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2010. Allen, Leslie C. The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976. –. Psalms 101–150. Word Biblical Commentary 21. Waco: Word Books, 1983. Alon, Gedalyahu. Jews, Judaism and the Classical World. Translated by Israel Abraham. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Poetry. New York: Basic Books, 1985. –. The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary. New York: W. W. Norton, 2007. Assel, Heinrich. Die andere Aufbruch: die Lutherrenaissance – Ursprünge, Aporien und Wege: Karl Holl, Emmanuel Hirsch, Rudolf Hermann (1910–1935). Forschungen zur systematischen und ökumenischen Theologie 72. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994.

Bibliography

387

Badenas, Robert. Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 10. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Baer, D. A., and R. P. Gordon. “‫חסד‬.” Pages 211-18 in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, Vol. 2. Edited by Willem VanGemeren. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997. Barclay, John M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117 CE. Berkeley and Los Angeles: The University of California Press, 1996. Barclay, John M. G. and Simon J. Gathercole, eds. Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Barnett, Paul. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961. –. “Common Sense and Biblical Language.” Biblica 49 (1968): 377-87. –. The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations. Mitteilungen des SeptuagintaUnternehmens 15. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. –. “Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the Hellenistic Age.” Pages 79-114 in The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 2. Edited by W. D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Harper’s New Testament Commentaries. New York: Harper & Row, 1973. –. The Epistle to the Romans. 2nd Edition. Black’s New Testament Commentaries. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991. Barth, Markus. “Jews and Gentiles: The Social Character of Justification in Paul.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 5 (1968): 241-67. Beale, G. K., and D. A. Carson, eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Becker, Jürgen. Das Heil Gottes: Heils- und Sündenbegriffe in den Qumrantexten und im Neuen Testament. Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964. Benoit, P. “Qumran and the New Testament.” Pages 1-30 in Paul and Qumran: Studies in New Testament Exegesis. Edited by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor. London: Chapman, 1968. Berger, Klaus. “Neues Material zur ‘Gerechtigkeit Gottes’.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 68 (1977): 266-75. Berlin, Adele. “Parallelism.” Pages 155-62 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 5. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Bickerman, Elias. Studies in Jewish and Christian History. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 9. 3 Vols. Leiden: Brill, 1976–1986. Bird, Michael F. The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective. Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007. –. Introducing Paul: The Man, His Mission and His Message. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2008. Bird, Michael F. and Preston M. Sprinkle, eds. The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies. Milton Keynes: Paternoster/Peabody: Hendrickson, 2009. Black, Matthew. The Scrolls and Christian Origins: Studies in the Jewish Background of the New Testament. Originally published in 1961. Reprint: Brown Judaic Studies 48. Chico: Scholars Press, 1983. Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.

388

Bibliography

Boehme, Armand J. “Tributaries into the River JDDJ: Karl Holl and Luther’s Doctrine of Justification.” Logia: A Journal of Lutheran Theology 18.3 (2009): 9ff. Bollier, John A. “The Righteousness of God.” Interpretation 8 (1954): 404-13. Bonnard, P.-E. Le second Isaïe, son disciple et leurs éditeurs: Isaïe 40-66. Paris: Gabalda, 1972. Borgen, Peder and Søren Giversen, eds. The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995. Bornkamm, Günther. Paul. New York: Harper & Row, 1971. Bousset, Willhelm. Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter. 3rd Edition. Edited by Hugo Gressmann. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1926. Boyd-Taylor, Cameron. “Calque-culations – Loanwords and the Lexicon.” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 38 (2005): 79-99. Brauch, Manfred T. “Perspectives on ‘God’s Righteousness’ in Recent German Discussion.” Pages 523-42 in E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977. Braun, H. “Vom Erbarmen Gottes über den Gerechten: Zur Theologie der Psalmen Solomos.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 43 (1950-51): 1-54. Bray, Gerald. “Justification: The Reformers and Recent New Testament Scholarship.” Churchman 109 (1995): 102-26. –. ed. Romans. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998. –. “Ambrosiaster.” Pages 21-38 in Reading Romans Through the Centuries: From the Early Church to Karl Barth. Edited by Jeffrey P. Greenman and Timothy Larsen. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2005. Briggs, Charles Augustus. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms. International Critical Commentary. 2 Vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1907. Broyles, Craig C. Psalms. New International Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999. Bruce, F. F. 1 and 2 Corinthians. New Century Bible. London: Oliphants, 1971. Bultmann, Rudolf. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 2 Vols. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1948. ET: Theology of the New Testament. Translated by K. Grobel. New York: Scribners, 1955. –. “ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ.” Journal of Biblical Literature 83 (1964): 12-16. –. “ἔλεος, κτλ.” Pages 477-87 in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 2. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964. –. The Second Letter to the Corinthians. Translated by Roy A. Harrisville. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985. Burk, Denny. “The Righteousness of God (Dikaiosunē Theou) and Verbal Genitives: A Grammatical Clarification.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34 (2012): 346-60. Burke, David G. The Poetry of Baruch: A Reconstruction and Analysis of the Original Hebrew Text of Baruch 3:9–5:9. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 10. Chico: Scholars Press, 1982. Burkes, Shannon. “‘Life’ Redefined: Wisdom and Law in Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63 (2001): 55-71. Burrows, Millar. “Levirate Marriage in Israel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 59 (1940): 23-33. –. “The Ancient Oriental Background of Hebrew Levirate Marriage.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 77 (1940): 2-15. Byrne, Brendan. Romans. Sacra Pagina 6. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1996. Caird, G. B. “Towards a Lexicon of the Septuagint.” Journal of Theological Studies 19 (1963): 453-75.

Bibliography

389

Cambier, Jules. “Justice de Dieu, salut de tous les homes et foi.” Revue Biblique 71 (1964): 537-83. –. L’Évangile de Dieu selon l’Épître aux Romains: Exégèse et théologie biblique. Studia Neotestamentica 3. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1967. Campbell, Douglas A. The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3.21-26. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 65. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. –. The Quest for Paul’s Gospel: A Suggested Strategy. London: T&T Clark, 2005. –. “An Echo of Scripture in Paul, and Its Implications.” Pages 367-91 in The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays. Edited by J. Ross Wagner, C. Kavin Rowe, and A. Katherine Grieb. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Republished as “The Meaning of δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Romans: An Intertextual Suggestion.” Pages 189-212 in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. –. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. –. “The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Romans 3:22.” Pages 57-71 in The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies. Edited by Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle. Milton Keynes: Paternoster/Peabody: Hendrickson, 2009. Cancik, Hubert et al., eds. Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World. 20 Vols. Leiden: Brill, 2002–. Carson, D. A., Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, eds. Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/140. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. Carson, D. A., Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, eds. Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 2: The Paradoxes of Paul. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/181. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. Cavallin, H. C. C. “‘The Righteous Shall Live by Faith’: A Decisive Argument for the Traditional Interpretation.” Studia Theologica 32 (1978): 33-43. Cazelles, H. “A propos de quelques textes difficiles relatifs à la justice de Dieu dans l’Ancien Testament.” Revue Biblique 58 (1951): 169-88. Chisholm, Hugh, ed. Encyclopaedia Britannica. 11th Edition. 29 Vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910. Clark, Gordon R. The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 157. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Clark, R. Scott. “Iustitia Imputata Christi: Alien or Proper to Luther’s Doctrine of Justification?” Concordia Theological Quarterly 70 (2006): 269-310. Coats, George W. “Widow’s Rights: A Crux in the Structure of Genesis 38.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972): 461-66. Collins, John J. “The Development of the Sibylline Tradition.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.20.1 (1986): 421-59. –. “The Jewish Transformation of Sibylline Oracles.” Pages 181-97 in Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism. Journal for the Study of Judaism: Supplement Series 54. Leiden: Brill, 1997. –. Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

390

Bibliography

Conzelmann, Hans. “Die Rechtfertigungslehre des Paulus: Theologie oder Anthropologie?” Evangelische Theologie 28 (1968): 389-404. ET: “Paul’s Doctrine of Justification: Theology or Anthropology?” Pages 108-23 in Theology of the Liberating Word. Edited by Frederick Herzog. Nashville: Abingdon, 1971. –. Grundriß der Theologie des Neuen Testaments. München: Chr. Kaiser, 1968. ET: An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament. Translated by John Bowden. New York: Harper & Row, 1969. Cotterell, Peter and Max Turner. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1989. Craigie, Peter C. Psalms 1–50. Word Biblical Commentary 19. Waco: Word Books, 1983. Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 2 Vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975, 1979. Creed, J. M. “ΠΑΡΕΣΙΣ in Dionysius of Halicarnassus and in St. Paul.” Journal of Theological Studies 41 (1940): 28-30. Cremer, Hermann. Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek with Supplement. Translated by William Urwick. 4th Edition. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1895. –. Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre im Zusammenhange ihrer geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen. 2nd Edition. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1900. Croft, William and D. Alan Cruse. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Cronbach, Abraham. “Righteousness in Jewish Literature, 200 B.C.–A.D. 100.” Pages 8591 in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by George A. Buttrick. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962. Cross, F. L. and E. A. Livingstone, eds. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 3rd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Cross, Frank Moore. The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies. London: G. Duckworth, 1958. Dahl, Nils Alstrup. “The Doctrine of Justification: Its Social Function and Implications.” Pages 95-120 in idem, Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977. Dahood, Mitchell. Psalms II: 51-100. The Anchor Bible 17. Garden City: Doubleday, 1968. Danker, Frederick William, W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Das, Andrew A. Paul, the Law, and the Covenant. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2001. –. “Beyond Covenantal Nomism: Paul, Judaism, and Perfect Obedience.” Concordia Journal 27 (2001): 234-52. Davids, Peter H. The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Leicester, England: Apollos, 2006. Davies, Eryl W. “Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage,” Parts 1-2. Vetus Testamentum 31 (1981): 138-44, 257-68. Davila, James R. “(How) Can We Tell if a Greek Apocryphon or Pseudepigraphon has been Translated from Hebrew or Aramaic?” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 15.1 (2005): 3-61. de Jong, M. and J. Tromp. The Life of Adam and Eve and Related Literature. Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Deines, Roland. Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias: Mt 5,13-20 als Schlüsseltext der matthäischen Theologie. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 177. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.

Bibliography

391

–. “Not the Law but the Messiah: Law and Righteousness in the Gospel of Matthew – An Ongoing Debate.” Pages 53-84 in Built Upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew. Edited by Daniel M. Gurtner and John Nolland. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Deissmann, Adolf. The Philology of the Greek Bible: Its Present and Future. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1908. –. St. Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History. Translated by L. R. M. Strachan. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1912. Delitzsch, Franz. Biblical Commentary on the Psalms. 3 Vols. Translated by David Eaton. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1889. Descamps, L. Les Justes et la Justice dans les Évangiles et le Christianisme primitif. Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain/Gembloux: J. Duculot, 1950. deSilva, David A. 4 Maccabees. Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. –. Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. –. 4 Maccabees: Introduction and Commentary on the Greek Text in Codex Sinaiticus. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Dibelius, Martin. James. Revised by Heinrich Greeven. Translated by Michael A. Williams. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Diestel, Ludwig. “Die Idee der Gerechtigkeit, vorzüglich im Alten Testament, biblischtheologisch dargestellt.” Jahrbuch für deutsche Theologie 5 (1860): 173-204. Dihle, Albrecht. “Gerechtigkeit.” Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 10 (1978): 236-89. Dines, Jennifer M. The Septuagint. Understanding the Bible and Its World. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Dodd, C. H. The Bible and the Greeks. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935. Dunn, James D. G. “The New Perspective on Paul.” The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 65 (1983): 95-122. –. Romans. 2 vols. Word Biblical Commentary 38AB. Dallas: Word Books, 1988. –. Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1990. –. “The Justice of God: A Renewed Perspective on Justification.” Journal of Theological Studies 43 (1991): 1-22. –. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. –. ed. Paul and the Mosaic Law. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. –. The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/185. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. –. Romans. Daily Bible Commentary. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007. Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. 2 Vols. Translated by J. A. Baker. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961. Evans, Craig A. Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005. Even-Shoshan, Abraham. A New Concordance of the Bible. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1990. Fahlgren, Karl H. “Sedaka, nahestehende und entgegengesetzte Begriffe im Alten Testament.” Th.D. Dissertation. Uppsala University, 1932. Falk, Daniel. “Psalms and Prayers.” Pages 35-51 in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Volume 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. Edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/140. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.

392

Bibliography

Fee, Gordon D. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994. Fiedler, Martin J. “Δικαιοσύνη in der diaspora-jüdischen und intertestamentarischen Literatur.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 1 (1970): 120-43. Fillmore, Charles. “Frame Semantics.” Pages 111-137 in Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Edited by the Linguistic Society of Korea. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing, 1982. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “The Gospel in the Theology of Paul.” Pages 149-85 in To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Essays. New York: Crossroad, 1981. –. Paul and His Theology: A Brief Sketch. Engelwood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1989. –. Responses to 101 Questions on the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Paulist Press, 1992. –. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993. –. “The Aramaic and Hebrew Fragments of Tobit from Cave 4.” Catholic Biblical Quraterly 57 (1995): 655-75. –. The Acts of the Apostles. The Anchor Bible 31. New York: Doubleday, 1998. Fokkelman, J. P. Reading Biblical Poetry: An Introductory Guide. Translated by Ineke Smit. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. –. Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible: At the Interface of Prosody and Structural Analysis. Studia semitica neerlandica. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2003. Futato, Mark D. Interpreting the Psalms: An Exegetical Handbook. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007. Garnet, P. “Qumran Light on Pauline Soteriology.” Pages 19-32 in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce on his 70th Birthday. Edited by D. A. Hagner and M. J. Harris. Exeter: Paternoster, 1980. Gasque, W. Ward. “Tarsus.” Page 334 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 6. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Gathercole, Simon J. Where Is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1-5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. –. “Torah, Life, and Salvation: Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and the New Testament.” Pages 126-45 in From Prophecy to Testament: The Function of the Old Testament in the New. Edited by Craig A. Evans. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004. –. “The Doctrine of Justification in Paul and Beyond: Some Proposals.” Pages 219-41 in Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges. Edited by Bruce L. McCormack. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. Gehman, H. S. “The Hebraic Character of LXX Greek.” Vetus Testamentum 1 (1951): 81-90. Gesenius, Wilhelm. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar as Edited and Enlarged by the Late E. Kautzsch. Edited by A. E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon, 1980. Godet, Frederick L. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Translated by A. Cusin. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1883. Goldingay, John. Psalms. 3 Vols. Baker Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006–2008. Gooding, D. W. “Review of ‘Righteousness’ in the Septuagint of Isaiah: A Contextual Study, by John W. Olley.” Journal of Theological Studies 32 (1981): 204-12. Gordon, T. David. “Observations on N. T. Wright’s Biblical Theology With Special Consideration of ‘Faithfulness of God’.” Pages 61-73 in By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification. Edited by Gary L. W. Johnson and Guy P. Waters. Wheaton: Crossway, 2006. Grabbe, Lester L. Judaism from Cyrus to Herod. 2 Vols. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.

Bibliography

393

Green, Lowell C. How Melanchthon Helped Luther Discover the Gospel. Fallbrook: Verdict Publications, 1980. Greenman, Jeffrey P. and Timothy Larsen, eds. Reading Romans Through the Centuries: From the Early Church to Karl Barth. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2005. Grundmann, W. “Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit von Qumran und die Frage nach der Glaubensgerechtigkeit in der Theologie des Apostels Paulus.” Revue de Qumran 2 (1960): 231-54. Revised/ET: “The Teacher of Righteousness of Qumran and the Question of Justification by Faith in the Theology of the Apostle Paul.” Pages 85-114 in Paul and Qumran: Studies in New Testament Exegesis. Edited by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor. London: Chapman, 1968. Güttgemans, Erhardt. “‘Gottesgerechtigkeit’ und strukturale Semantik: Linguistische Analyse zu δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ.” Pages 59-98 in Studia Linguistica Neotestamentica: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur linguistischen Grundlage einer neutestamentlichen Theologie. Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie 60. München: Chr. Kaiser, 1971. Hagner, Donald A. “Righteousness in Matthew’s Theology.” Pages 101-20 in Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church: Essays in Honor of Ralph P. Martin. Edited by Michael J. Wilkins and Terence Paige. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 87. Sheffield: JSOT, 1992. –. Matthew. 2 Vols. Word Biblical Commentary 33AB. Dallas: Word Books, 1993, 1995. –. “Matthew: Apostate, Reformer, Revolutionary?” New Testament Studies 49 (2003): 193209. Haldane, Robert. Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans. New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1870. Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Hanhart, Robert. “Die Bedeutung der Septuaginta in neutestamentlicher Zeit.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 81 (1984): 395-416. Harrington, Daniel J. “The Biblical Text of Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33 (1971): 1-17. –. Invitation to the Apocrypha. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Harris, Murray J. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Harrisville, III, Roy A. “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ: Witness of the Fathers.” Novum Testamentum 36 (1994): 233-41. Harvey, Julien. “‘Le Rîb-Pattern,’ Réquisitoire prophétique sur la rupture de l’alliance.” Biblica 43 (1963): 172-96. Hastings, James, ed. Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics. 12 Vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1918. Hatch, Edwin. Essays in Biblical Greek. Oxford: Clarendon, 1889. Hatch, Edwin and Henry A. Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament. 3 Vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1897, 1906. Havelock, Eric A. “DIKAIOSUNE: An Essay in Greek Intellectual History.” Phoenix 23 (1969): 49-70. –. The Greek Concept of Justice From Its Shadow in Homer to Its Substance in Plato. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978. Hays, Richard B. “Psalm 143 and the Logic of Romans 3.” Journal of Biblical Literature 99 (1980): 107-15. Republished as “Psalm 143 as Testimony to the Righteousness of God.” Pages 50-60 in idem, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

394

Bibliography

–. The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 56. Chico: Scholars Press, 1983. 2nd Expanded Edition: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Dearborn: Dove, 2002. –. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. –. “Justification.” Pages 1129-33 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. –. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Hemer, Colin J. “Reflections on the Nature of New Testament Greek Vocabulary.” Tyndale Bulletin 38 (1987): 65-92. Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982. Hengel, Martin. Judentum und Hellenismus, Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh. vor Chr. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 19691, 19732. ET: Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. –. The ‘Hellenization’ of Judaea in the First Century after Christ. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM, 1989. –, in collaboration with Roland Deines. The Pre-Christian Paul. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM, 1991. –. “Judaism and Hellenism Revisited.” Pages 6-37 in Hellenism in the Land of Israel. Edited by John J. Collins and Gregory E. Sterling. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001. –. The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. Herzer, Jens. Die Paralipomena Jeremiae: Studien zu Tradition und Redaktion einer Haggada des frühen Judentums. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 43. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. –. 4 Baruch (Paraleipomena Jeremiou). Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the GrecoRoman World 22. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Hill, David. “ΔΙΚΑΙΟΙ as a Quasi-Technical Term.” New Testament Studies 11 (1964-65): 296-302. –. Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Hillers, Delbert R. Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969. –. Micah. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1984. Hodge, Charles. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Revised Edition. Philadelphia: William S. & Alfred Martien, 1864. Holladay, William L. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Leiden: Brill, 1991. Hollander, H. W. and M. de Jonge. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary. Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica 8. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Hornblower, Simon and Antony Spawforth, eds. The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 3rd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Horst, F. “Die Doxologien im Amosbuch.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 47 (1929): 45-54.

Bibliography

395

–. “Gerechtigkeit Gottes im AT und Judentum.” Pages 1403-1406 in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Vol. 2. 3rd Edition. Edited by Kurt Galling et al.. Tübingen: Mohr, 1958. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. A Commentary on Psalms 51–100. Edited by Klaus Baltzer. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Hübner, Hans. “Existentiale Interpretation der paulinischen ‘Gerechtigkeit Gottes.’ Zur Kontroverse Rudolf Bultmann-Ernst Käsemann.” New Testament Studies 21 (1974-75): 462-88. Huffmon, H. B. “The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets.” Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (1959): 285-95. Hultgren, Arland J. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Jacobson, Howard. A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum with Latin Text and English Translation. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 31. 2 Vols. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Jellicoe, Sidney. The Septuagint and Modern Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968. Jenni, Ernst and Claus Westermann, eds. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997. Jepsen, A. “‫ צדק‬und ‫ צדקה‬im Alten Testament.” Pages 78-89 in Gottes Word und Gottes Land: Hans-Wilhelm Hertzberg zum 70. Geburtstag am 16. Januar 1965 dargebracht von Kollegen, Freunden und Schülern. Edited by H. Graf Reventlow. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. Jeremias, Joachim. The Central Message of the New Testament. London: SCM Press, 1965. Republished: Jesus and the Message of the New Testament. Fortress Classics in Biblical Studies. Edited by Kenneth C. Hanson. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Jewett, Robert. “Major Impulses in the Theological Interpretation of Romans Since Barth.” Interpretation 34 (1980): 17-31. –. Romans: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Jobes, Karen and Moises Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000. Johnson, Bo. “Die Bedeutungsuntershied zwischen ṣädäq und ṣedaqa.” Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 11 (1977–78): 31-39. –. “‫צדק‬,” etc. Pages 239-64 in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Vol. 12. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Johnson, S. “Paul and 1QS.” Harvard Theological Review 118 (1955): 157-65. Johnson, S. L., Jr. “The Gospel that Paul Preached.” Bibliotheca Sacra 128 (1971): 327-40. Kalmin, Richard. “Levirate Law.” Pages 296-7 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 4. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Karlberg, Mark. Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective. Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock, 2004. Karrer, Martin and Wolfgang Kraus, eds. Die Septuaginta – Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.23. Juli 2006. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/219. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Käsemann, Ernst. “Zum Verständnis von Römer 3,24-26.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 43 (1950/51): 150-54. Republished: Pages 96-100 in idem, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, Erster Band. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960. –. “Gottesgerechtigkeit bei Paulus.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 58 (1961): 367-78. Republished: Pages 181-93 in idem, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, Zweiter Band.

396

Bibliography

2nd Edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. ET: “‘The Righteousness of God’ in Paul.” Pages 168-82 in idem, New Testament Questions of Today. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969. –. “Rechtfertigung und Heilsgeschichte im Römerbrief.” In Paulinischen Perspektiven. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1969. ET: “Justification and Salvation History in the Epistle to the Romans.” Pages 60-78 in idem, Perspectives on Paul. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. –. “Justice for the Unjust.” Colloquium 1 (1978): 10-16. –. An Die Römer. 4th Edition. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 8a. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980. ET: Commentary on Romans. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Kautzsch, Emil. Über die Derivate des Stammes ‫ צדק‬im alttestamentlichen Sprachgebrauch. Tübingen: Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, 1881. Keck, Leander E. Romans. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005. Kee, Howard Clark. “The Ethical Dimensions of the Testaments of the XII as a Clue to Provenance.” New Testament Studies 24 (1977-78): 259-70. Keener, Craig. 1–2 Corinthians. New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Kelly, J. N. D. A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude. Harper’s New Testament Commentaries. New York: Harper & Row, 1969. Kennedy, H. A. A. Sources of New Testament Greek: or the Influence of the Septuagint on the Vocabulary of the New Testament. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1895. Kertelge, Karl.“Rechtfertigung” bei Paulus: Studien zur Struktur und zum Bedeutungsgehalt des paulinischen Rechtfertigungsbegriffs. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen 3. Münster: Aschendorff, 1967. –. “δικαιοσύνη, δικαιόω, δικαίωμα.” Pages 325-35 in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 1. Edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Kidner, Derek. Psalms 73–150: A Commentary on Books III-IV of the Psalms. London: InterVarsity, 1975. Kim, Seyoon. The Origin of Paul’s Gospel. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981. –. Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Kirkpatrick, A. F. The Book of Psalms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902. Klein, Günter. “Gottes Gerechtigkeit als Thema der neuesten Paulus-Forschung.” Verkündigung und Forschung 12 (1967): 1-11. –. “Righteousness in the New Testament.” Pages 750-52 in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume. Edited by Keith Crim. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976. Kline, Meredith G. The Structure of Biblical Authority. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. –. Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview. Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock, 2006. Koch, D.-A. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus. Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. Koch, Klaus. “‫ צדק‬im Alten Testament: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung.” Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Heidelberg, 1953. –. “Gerechtigkeit im Alten Testament.” Pages 1501-1502 in Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon, Vol. 1. Edited by Heinz Brunotte and Otto Weber. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956.

Bibliography

397

–. “Wesen und Ursprung der ‘Gemeinschaftstreue’ im Israel der Königszeit.” Zeitschrift für evangelische Ethik 5 (1961): 72-90. –. “‫צדק‬.” Pages 507-30 in Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament, Vol. 2. Edited by Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann. München: Chr. Kaiser, 1971-76. –. “Is There a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old Testament?” Pages 57-87 in Theodicy in the Old Testament. Edited by James L. Crenshaw. Issues in Religion and Theology 4. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated by M. E. J. Richardson. 2 Vols. Study Edition. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Koole, Jan L. Isaiah III, Vol. 2: Isaiah 49-55. Translated by Anthony P. Runia. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Leuven: Peeters, 1998. Köstenberger, Andreas J. “The Reception of Schlatter’s New Testament Theology 1909-23.” Pages 9-22 in Adolf Schlatter, The Theology of the Apostles: The Development of New Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. Kraft, Robert A., ed. Septuagintal Lexicography. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 1. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms 60–150: A Commentary. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald. ET of Biblischer Kommentar. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989. Kraus, Wolfgang and R. Glenn Wooden, eds. Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 53. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Kugel, James L. The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981. Kümmel, Werner Georg. “Πάρεσις und ἔνδειξις: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der paulinischen Rechtfertigungslehre.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 49 (1952): 154-67. ET: “Πάρεσις and ἔνδειξις: A Contribution to the Understanding of the Pauline Doctrine of Justification.” Pages 1-13 in Distinctive Protestant and Catholic Themes Reconsidered (Journal for Theology and the Church, Vol. 3). Edited by Robert W. Funk. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/New York: Harper & Row, 1967. Laato, Timo. “‘God’s Righteousness’ – Once Again.” Pages 40-73 in The Nordic Paul: Finnish Approaches to Pauline Theology. Edited by Lars Aejmelaeus and Antti Mustakallio. Library of New Testament Studies. London: T&T Clark/Continuum, 2008. Lagrange, Marie-Joseph. Saint Paul: Epitre aux Romains. 6th Edition. Paris: Gabalda, 1950. Lambrecht, Jan. Second Corinthians. Sacra Pagina 8. Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1999. Lane, William L. “Paul’s Legacy from Phariseeism: Light from the Psalms of Solomon.” Concordia Journal 8 (1982): 130-38. Langacker, Ronald W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Vol. 2, Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987, 1991. –. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1991. Lee, John A. L. “A Note on Septuagint Material in the Supplement to Liddell and Scott.” Glotta 47 (1969): 234-42. –. A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 14. Chico: Scholars Press, 1983. Leggett, Donald A. The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament: With Special Attention to the Book of Ruth. Cherry Hill, New Jersey: Mack, 1974. Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1936.

398

Bibliography

Levine, Lee I. Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? Seattle: The University of Washington Press, 1998. Lewis, Charlton T. and Charles Short. A Latin Dictionary Founded on Andrews’ Edition of Freund’s Latin Dictionary Revised, Enlarged, and in Great Part Rewritten. Oxford: Clarendon, 1879, 1962. Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones, with the assistance of Robert McKenzie. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th Edition, with a Supplement 1968. Oxford: Clarendon, 1989. Lofthouse, W. F. “The Righteousness of God.” Expository Times 50 (1939): 441-45. Lohse, Eduard. “Die Gerechtigkeit Gottes in der paulinischen Theologie.” Pages 209-27 in Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments: Exegetische Studien zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. –. Theological Ethics of the New Testament. Translated by M. Eugene Boring. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Longman III, Tremper. “Psalm 98: A Divine Warrior Victory Song.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27/3 (1984): 267-74. Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene A. Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. 2 Vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988. Lowth, Robert. Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews (1787). 2 Vols. Translated by G. Gregory. Anglistica & Americana 43. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1969. Lührmann, Dieter. “Paul and the Pharisaic Tradition.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36 (1989): 75-94. Lust, Johann, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie. Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Revised Edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003. Lyonnet, Stanislas. “De ‘Justitia Dei’ in Epistola ad Romanos.” Verbum Domini 25 (1947): 23ff, 118ff, 129ff, 193ff, 257ff. Lyonnet, Stanislas and Léopold Sabourin. Sin, Redemption, and Sacrifice: A Biblical and Patristic Study. Analecta biblica 48. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1971. Lyons, John. Semantics. 2 Vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. –. Language and Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. McClintock, John and James Strong, eds. Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. 12 Vols. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1880. McCormack, Bruce L., ed. Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. McGrath, Alister E. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. 3rd  Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. McKenzie, John L. Second Isaiah. The Anchor Bible 20. Garden City: Doubleday, 1968. McKim, Donald K., ed. Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2007. McLay, Timothy R. The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Martin, Ralph P. 2 Corinthians. Word Biblical Commentary 40. Waco: Word Books, 1986. Mason, Steve. Josephus and the New Testament. 2nd Edition. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003. Matera, Frank. II Corinthians. The New Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003.

Bibliography

399

Matlock, R. Barry. “Saving Faith: The Rhetoric and Semantics of πίστις in Paul.” Pages 73-89 in The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies. Edited by Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle. Milton Keynes: Paternoster/Peabody: Hendrickson, 2009. Matthew, H. C. G. and Brian Harrison, eds. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Mays, James Luther. Micah: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976. –. Psalms. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox, 1994. Mendenhall, George E. Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pittsburgh: Biblical Colloquium, 1955. Meyer, H. A. W. Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistle to the Romans. Translated by John C. Moore and Edwin Johnson. Revised Edition. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884. Michel, Diethelm. Grundlegung einer hebräischen Syntax. 2 Vols. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1977. Mitchell, Christopher. “The Use of Lexicons and Word Studies in Exegesis.” Concordia Journal 11 (1985): 128-133. Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. –. The Letter of James. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Leicester, England: Apollos, 2000. Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Motyer, J. Alec. The Prophecy of Isaiah. Downers Grove, InterVarsity, 1993. Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959. Moulton, J. H. and G. Milligan. Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1930. Mowinckel, Sigmund. The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. 2 Vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962. Müller, Christian. Gottes Gerechtigkeit und Gottes Volk: Eine Untersuchung zu Römer 9-11. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 86. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964. Müller, Mogens. The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 206. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Mueller, David L. An Introduction to the Theology of Albrecht Ritschl. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969. Muraoka, Takamitsu. “On Septuagint Lexicography and Patristics.” Journal of Theological Studies 35 (1984): 441-48. –. ed. Melbourne Symposium on Septuagint Lexicography. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 28. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. –. “Septuagintal Lexicography: Some General Issues.” Pages 17-47 in Melbourne Symposium on Septuagint Lexicography. Edited by Takamitsu Muraoka. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 28. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. –. Hebrew/Aramaic Index to the Septuagint Keyed to the Hatch-Redpath Concordance. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. –. “Septuagintal Lexicography.” Pages 85-90 in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker. Edited by Bernard A. Taylor, John A. L. Lee, Peter R. Burton, and Richard E. Whitaker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. –. “Recent Discussions on the Septuagint Lexicography with Special Reference to the So-called Interlinear Model.” Pages 221-35 in Die Septuaginta – Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten:

400

Bibliography

Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.-23. Juli 2006. Edited by Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/219. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. –. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Louvain: Peeters, 2009. Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959. Myers, Jacob M. I and II Esdras: Introduction, Translation and Commentary. The Anchor Bible 42. Garden City: Doubleday, 1974. Nägeli, Theodor. Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus: Beitrag zur sprachgeschichtlichen Erforschung des Neuen Testaments. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1905. Neuer, Werner. Adolf Schlatter: A Biography of Germany’s Premier Biblical Theologian. Translated by Robert W. Yarbrough. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995. Nicklesburg, George W. E. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Nida, Eugene A. and Johannes P. Louw. Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament: A Supplement to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study 25. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Niditch, Susan. “The Wronged Woman Righted: An Analysis of Genesis 38.” Harvard Theological Review 72 (1979): 143-49. Nötscher, Friedrich. Die Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei den vorexilischen Propheten. Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen 6. Münster: Aschendorff, 1915. Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans. Translated by Carl C. Rasmussen. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1949. O’Dell, J. “The Religious Background of the Psalms of Solomon (Re-evaluated in the Light of the Qumran Texts).” Revue de Qumran 3 (1961): 241-57. Oepke, Albrecht. “Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ bei Paulus in neuer Beleuchtung.” Theologische Literaturzeitung 78 (1953): 257-64. Ogden, C. K. and I. A. Richards. The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language Upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1938. Olley, John W. “Righteousness” in the Septuagint of Isaiah: A Contextual Study. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 8. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979. –. “‘Righteousness’ – Some Issues in Old Testament Translation into English.” The Bible Translator 38 (1987): 307-15. Onesti, K. L. and M. T. Brauch. “Righteousness, Righteousness of God.” Pages 827-37 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Ralph P. Martin, Gerald F. Hawthorne, and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993. Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Ottley, R. R. The Book of Isaiah According to the Septuagint (Codex Alexandrinus). 2 Vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1906. Otto, Eckart. “Gerechtigkeit, Biblisch, Alter Orient und Altes Testament.” Pages 702-3 in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Vol. 3. 4th Edition. Edited by Hans Dieter Betz et al. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Parker, T. H. L. Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans, 1532–1542. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986. Pedersen, Johannes. Israel, Its Life and Culture. 2 Vols. London: Oxford University Press, 1926.

Bibliography

401

Perrin, Nicholas and Richard B. Hays, eds. Jesus, Paul and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N. T. Wright. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2011. Philippi, Friedrich Adolph. Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. 2 Vols. Translated by J. S. Banks. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1878-79. Pietersma, Albert. Translation Manual for “A New English Translation of the Septuagint” (NETS). Ada: Uncial Books for IOSCS, 1996. –. “Context is King in Septuagint Lexicography – Or is It?” Paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting in San Diego. November 18, 2007. –. “Text-Production and Text-Reception: Psalm 8 in Greek,” Pages 487-501 in Die Septuaginta – Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.-23. Juli 2006. Edited by Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/219. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. –. “Response to: T. Muraoka, ‘Recent Discussions on the Septuagint Lexicography with Special Reference to the So-called Interlinear Model,’ in Die Septuaginta. Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten (ed. M. Karrer and W. Kraus; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2008) 221-235.” Unpublished paper, 2008. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/discussion/pietersmare-muraoka.pdf. Piper, John. “The Demonstration of the Righteousness of God in Romans 3:25, 26.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 7 (1980): 2-32. –. “The Righteousness of God in Romans 3.1-8.” Theologische Zeitschrift 36 (1980): 3-16. –. The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23. 2nd Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993. –. Counted Righteous in Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness? Wheaton: Crossway, 2002. –. The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright. Wheaton: Crossway, 2007. Porter, Stanley E. “The Argument of Romans 5: Can a Rhetorical Question Make a Difference?” Journal of Biblical Literature 110.4 (1991): 655-77. –. “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology.” Pages 79-96 in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 148; Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 5. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. –. “Further Comments on the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament.” Pages 98-110 in The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practice. Edited by Thomas L. Brodie, Dennis R. MacDonald, and Stanley E. Porter. New Testament Monographs 16. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2006. –. “Allusions and Echoes.” Pages 29-40 in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. –. “Not Only That (οὐ μόνον), But It Has Been Said Before: A Response to Verlyn Verbrugge, or Why Reading Previous Scholarship Can Avoid Scholarly Misunderstandings.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 56.3 (2013): 577-83. Porter, Stanley E. and Christopher D. Stanley, eds. As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Pritchard, James B. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd Edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

402

Bibliography

Przybylski, Benno. Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Rabin, C. “The Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint.” Textus 6 (1968): 1-26. Rajak, Tessa. The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome: Studies in Cultural and Social Interaction. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 48. Leiden: Brill, 2001. –. Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Reasoner, Mark. Romans in Full Circle: A History of Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005. Reimer, David J. “‫צדק‬.” Pages 744-69 in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, Vol. 3. Edited by Willem VanGemeren. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997. Reiterer, Friedrich V. Gerechtigkeit als Heil: Tsedeq bei Deuterojesaja: Aussage u. Vergleich mit d. alttestamentlichen Tradition. Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1976. Reumann, John. “Justification of God: Righteousness and the Cross.” Moravian Theological Seminary Bulletin (1964): 16-31. –. “The ‘Righteousness of God’ and the ‘Economy of God’: Two Great Doctrinal Themes Historically Compared.” Pages 615-37 in Aksum, Thyateira: A Festschrift for Archbishop Methodios of Thyateira and Great Britain. Edited by George D. Dragas and Methodios G. Phougias. London: Thyateira House, 1985. –. “Righteousness (Early Judaism),” “Righteousness (Greco-Roman World),” “Righteousness (NT).” Pages 736-73 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 5. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Reumann, John, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Jerome D. Quinn. “Righteousness” in the New Testament: “Justification” in the United States Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue. Philadelphia: Fortress/New York: Paulist, 1982. Richard, Earl J. Reading 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2000. Ritschl, Albrecht. Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung. 3 Vols. Bonn: A. Marcus, 1870–74. Ropes, James Hardy. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1948. Rösel, Martin. Übersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung: Studien zur Genesis-Septuaginta. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 223. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994. Ryken, Leland, James C. Wright, and Tremper Longman III. The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998. Sakenfeld, Katharine Doob. The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry. Harvard Semitic Monographs 17. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978. Saldarini, Anthony J. “The Book of Baruch: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” Pages 927-82 in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 6. Edited by Leander E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 2001. Sanday, William and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 5th Edition. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902. Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977.

Bibliography

403

Sarna, Nahum M. Genesis. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989. Sawyer, John F. A. Semantics in Biblical Research: New Methods of Defining Hebrew Words for Salvation. Studies in Biblical Theology II/24. London: SCM, 1972. –. “‫ישע‬.” Pages 1035-59 in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, Vol. 3. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1982. ET: Pages 441-63 in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Vol. 6. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Translated by David E. Green and Douglas W. Stott. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. –. Isaiah. The Daily Study Bible. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Schenck, Kenneth. A Brief Guide to Philo. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005. Schlatter, Adolf. Gottes Gerechtigkeit: Ein Kommentar zum Römerbrief. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1935. ET: Romans: The Righteousness of God. Translated by Siegfried S. Schatzmann. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995. –. The Theology of the Apostles: The Development of New Testament Theology. Translated by Andreas J. Köstenberger. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. Schmid, H. H. Gerechtigkeit als Weltordnung: Hintergrund und Geschichte des alttestamentliche Gerechtigkeitsbegriffs. Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 40. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968. –. “Creation, Righteousness, and Salvation: ‘Creation Theology’ as the Broad Horizon of Biblical Theology,” Pages 102-17 in Creation in the Old Testament. Edited by Bernhard W. Anderson. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. –. Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001. –. New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Schrenk, Gottlob. “ἀντίδικος.” Pages 373-5 in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 1. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964. –. “δίκη, κτλ.” Pages 180-229 in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, Vol. 2. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1935. ET: Pages 178-225 in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 2. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964. Schultz, Hermann. Alttestamentliche Theologie: Die Offenbarungsreligion auf ihrer vorchristlichen Entwickelungsstufe. 5th Edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896. Schulz, Siegfried. “Zur Rechtfertigung aus Gnaden in Qumran und bei Paulus: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Form- und Überlieferungsgeschichte der Qumrantexte.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 56 (1959): 155-85. Scullion, J. J. “Righteousness (OT).” Pages 724-36 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 5. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Seifrid, Mark A. Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 68. Leiden: Brill, 1992. –. Christ, Our Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Justification. New Studies in Biblical Theology 9. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000. –. “The ‘New Perspective on Paul’ and Its Problems.” Themelios 252 (2000): 4-18. –. “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism.” Pages 415-42 in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism.

404

Bibliography

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/140. Edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. –. “Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language Against Its Hellenistic Background,” Pages 39-74 in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 2: The Paradoxes of Paul. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/181. Edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. –. “Luther, Melanchthon and Paul on the Question of Imputation: Recommendations on a Current Debate.” Pages 137-52 in Justification: What’s At Stake in the Current Debates. Edited by Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier. Downers Grove: IVP/Leicester, UK: Apollos, 2004. –. “The Narrative of Scripture and Justification by Faith: A Fresh Response to N. T. Wright.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 72 (2008): 19-44. Seitz, Christopher R. “The Book of Isaiah 40–66.” In The New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 6. Nashville: Abingdon, 2001. Seland, Torrey. “Saul of Tarsus and Early Zealotism: Reading Gal 1,13-14 in Light of Philo’s Writings.” Biblica 83 (2002): 449-71. Shedd, William G. T. A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1879. Silva, Moisés. “Semantic Borrowing in the New Testament.” New Testament Studies 22 (197576): 104-10. –. “New Lexical Semitisms?” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 69 (1978): 253-57. –. “Describing Meaning in the LXX Lexicon.” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 11 (1978): 19-26. –. “Bilingualism and the Character of New Testament Greek.” Biblica 69 (1980): 198-219. –. Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983. –. God, Language, and Scripture: Reading the Bible in the Light of General Linguistics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990. –. “Faith Versus Works of Law in Galatians.” Pages 217-48 in Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 2: The Paradoxes of Paul. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/181. Edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. –. Philippians. 2nd Edition. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Simon-Shoshan, Moshe. “The Tasks of the Translators: The Rabbis, the Septuagint, and the Cultural Politics of Translation.” Prooftexts 27 (2007): 1-39. Simpson, D. P. Cassell’s Latin Dictionary: Latin-English, English-Latin. New York: Macmillan, 1968. Singer, Isidore, ed. The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1904. Skehan, Patrick W. and Alexander A. di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. The Anchor Bible 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Skolnik, Fred, and Michael Berenbaum, eds. Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2nd Edition. Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2007. Smith, Ralph L. Micah-Malachi. Word Biblical Commentary 32. Waco: Word Books, 1984. Snaith, Norman H. The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament. London: Epworth, 1944. Soards, Marion L. “The Righteousness of God in the Writings of the Apostle Paul.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 15 (1985): 104-9.

Bibliography

405

–. “Käsemann’s ‘Righteousness’ Reexamined.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (1987): 264-7. Southall, David J. Rediscovering Righteousness in Romans: Personified dikaiosynē within Metaphoric and Narrational Settings. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/240. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Speiser, E. A. “‘People’ and ‘Nation’ of Israel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 79 (1960): 157-63. –. Genesis. The Anchor Bible 1. 3rd Edition. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1986. Spicq, Ceslas. “δίκαιος, dikaios, etc.” Pages 318-47 in idem, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, Vol. 1. Translated and edited by J. D. Ernest. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994. –. Les Épitres de Saint Pierre. Sources bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1966. Stayer, James M. Martin Luther, German Saviour: German Evangelical Theological Factions and the Interpretation of Luther, 1917–1933. McGill-Queen’s Studies in the History of Religion. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2000. Stegman, Thomas. The Character of Jesus: The Linchpin to Paul’s Argument in 2 Corinthians. Analecta biblica 158. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2005. –. Second Corinthians. Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. Stendahl, Krister. “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West.” Harvard Theological Review 56 (1963): 199-215. –. Paul Among Jews and Gentiles. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Stone, Michael E. Faith and Piety in Early Judaism: Texts and Documents. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. –. Fourth Ezra. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Stott, John R. W. The Message of Romans: God’s Good News for the World. The Bible Speaks Today. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994. Stowers, Stanley K. The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 57. Chico: Scholars Press, 1981. –. A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994. Strecker, Georg. Theology of the New Testament. Translated by M. Eugene Boring. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000. Stuart, Moses. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 3rd Edition. Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1854. Stuhlmacher, Peter. Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus. 2nd Edition. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 87. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. –. “Zur neueren Exegese von Röm 3,24-26.” Pages 315-33 in Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift für Werner Georg Kümmel zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by E. Earle Ellis and Erich Gräßer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. –. Versöhnung, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit: Aufsätze zur biblischen Theologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. ET: Reconciliation, Law, and Righteousness: Essays in Biblical Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. –. Der Brief an die Römer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. ET: Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Translated by Scott J. Hafemann. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994. –. “The Theme of Romans.” Pages 333-45 in The Romans Debate. Edited by Karl P. Donfried. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992. –. “Adolf Schlatter as Interpreter of Paul – An Attempt.” Pages ix-xxiv in Adolf Schlatter, Romans: The Righteousness of God. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995. –. Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective, with an essay by Donald A. Hagner. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001.

406

Bibliography

–. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Band 1: Grundlegung – Von Jesus zu Paulus. 3rd Edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Talbert, Charles H. “Paul, Judaism, and the Revisionists.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63 (2001): 1-22. Tate, Marvin E. Psalms 51–100. Word Biblical Commentary 20. Dallas: Word Books, 1990. Taylor, Bernard A. “Hebrew to Greek: A Semantic Study of σπεύδω for the New English Translation of the Septuagint.” Pages 136-48 in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker. Edited by Bernard A. Taylor, John A. L. Lee, Peter R. Burton, and Richard E. Whitaker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Thackeray, Henry St. John. A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint, Vol. 1: Introduction, Orthography and Accidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909. Thayer, Joseph H. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. 4th Edition. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1896. Tholuck, Friedrich A. G. Exposition of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Translated by Robert Menzies. Philadelphia: Sorin and Ball, 1844. Tobin, Thomas H. Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts: The Argument of Romans. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004. Toury, Gideon. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1995. Tov, Emanuel. The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8. Harvard Semitic Monographs 8. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976. –. “Three Dimensions of LXX Words.” Revue Biblique 83 (1976): 529-44. –. “Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings.” Pages 83-126 in Melbourne Symposium on Septuagint Lexicography. Edited by Takamitsu Muraoka. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 28. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Toy, Crawford H. The Book of Proverbs. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1899, 1970. Ullmann, Stephen. Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Oxford: Blackwell, 1977. van der Horst, P. W. The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides with Introduction and Commentary. Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica 4. Leiden: Brill, 1978. VanderKam, James C. Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees. Harvard Semitic Monographs 14. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977. VanDrunen, David. Divine Covenants and Moral Order: A Biblical Theology of Natural Law. Emory University Studies in Law and Religion. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. van Henten, Jan Willem. “Datierung und Herkunft des Vierten Makkabäerbuches.” Pages 13649 in Tradition and Re-interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honour of Jürgen C. H. Lebram. Edited by J. W. van Henten et al. Studia post-Biblica 36. Leiden: Brill, 1986. von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology. 2 Vols. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1962. Wagner, J. Ross. Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul “in Concert” in the Letter to the Romans. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 101. Leiden: Brill, 2002. –. “The Septuagint and the ‘Search for the Christian Bible’.” Pages 17-28 in Scripture’s Doctrine and Theology’s Bible: How the New Testament Shapes Christian Dogmatics. Edited by Markus Bockmuehl and Alan J. Torrance. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Bibliography

407

Wallis, Ian. The Faith of Jesus Christ in Early Christian Traditions. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Walter, Gregory. “Karl Holl (1866–1926) and the Recovery of Promise in Luther.” Lutheran Quarterly 25 (2011): 398-413 Waltke, Bruce K. A Commentary on Micah. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Waltke, Bruce K. and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Waltke Bruce K. with Cathi J. Fredricks. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001. Walton, John H. Genesis. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001. Watson, Francis. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. London: T&T Clark, 2004. –. Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective. Revised Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Watson, Nigel M. “Some Observations on the Use of ΔΙΚΑΙΟΩ in the Septuagint.” Journal of Biblical Literature 79 (1960): 255-66. Watson, Wilfred G. E. “Gender-Matched Synonymous Parallelism in the OT.” Journal of Biblical Literature 99 (1980): 321-41. Way, David V. The Lordship of Christ: Ernst Käsemann’s Interpretation of Paul’s Theology. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. Weingreen, J. “The Title Moreh Sedek.” Journal of Semitic Studies 6 (1961): 162-74. Weisberg, Dvora E. “The Widow of Our Discontent: Levirate Marriage in the Bible and Ancient Israel.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 28 (2004): 403-29. Weiser, Artur. The Psalms: A Commentary. Translated by Herbert Hartwell. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962. Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 16–50. Word Biblical Commentary 2. Dallas: Word Books, 1994. Werblowsky, R. J. Zwi, and Geoffrey Wigoder, eds. The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Westerholm, Stephen. Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. –. “The Righteousness of the Law and the Righteousness of Faith in Romans.” Interpretation 58 (July 2004): 253-64. Westermann, Claus. Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. Old Test­ ament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969. Wevers, John William. Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 30. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. –. Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 35. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. –. Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 39. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Whitelam, Keith W. The Just King: Monarchical Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 12. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979. Whitley, C. F. “Deutero-Isaiah’s Interpretation of sedeq.” Vetus Testamentum 22 (1972): 46975. Whybray, R. N. Isaiah 40–66. New Century Bible. London: Oliphants, 1975. Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Römer. 2 Vols. Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1978. Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.

408

Bibliography

Williams, Sam K. “The ‘Righteousness of God’ in Romans.” Journal of Biblical Literature 99 (1980): 241-90. Willis, Timothy. The Elders of the City. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Wilk, Florian. Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches für Paulus. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 179. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. –. “Paul as User, Interpreter, and Reader of the Book of Isaiah.” Pages 83-99 in Reading the Bible Intertextually. Edited by Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009. Wilson, Walter T. The Mysteries of Righteousness: The Literary Composition and Genre of the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 40. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,1994. –. The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides. Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005. Winninge, Mikael. Sinners and the Righteous: A Comparative Study of the Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Letters. Coniectanea biblica: New Testament Series 26. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1995. Winston, David. The Wisdom of Solomon. The Anchor Bible 43. Garden City: Doubleday, 1979. Witherington, Ben, III. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Wright, Benjamin G. “The Septuagint and Its Modern Translators.” Pages 103-14 in Die Septuaginta – Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten: Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.-23. Juli 2006. Edited by Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/219. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Wright, N. T. “The Paul of History and the Apostle of Faith.” Tyndale Bulletin 29 (1978): 61-88. –. “The Messiah and the People of God: A Study in Pauline Theology with Particular Reference to the Argument of the Epistle of Romans.” Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Oxford, 1980. –. “A New Tübingen School? Ernst Käsemann and His Commentary on Romans.” Themelios 7 (1982): 6-16. –. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. –. The New Testament and the People of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 1. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. –. “On Becoming the Righteousness of God.” Pages 200-8 in Pauline Theology, Vol. 2: 1 & 2 Corinthians. Edited by David M. Hay. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. –. “Romans and the Theology of Paul.” Pages 30-67 in Pauline Theology, Vol. 3: Romans. Edited by David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. –. What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. –. “The Law in Romans 2.” Pages 131-50 in Paul and the Mosaic Law. Edited by James D. G. Dunn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. –. “The Letter to the Romans.” Pages 393-770 in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 10. Edited by Leander E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 2002. –. Paul in Fresh Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005.

Bibliography

409

–. “New Perspectives on Paul.” Pages 243-64 in Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges. Edited by Bruce L. McCormack. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. –. Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision. London: SPCK/Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009. –. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Books I and II. Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 4. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013. Würthwein, Ernst. “Bemerkungen zu Psalm 51.” Pages 381-88 in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung: FS W. Beyerlin. Herders biblische Studien 1. Edited by Klaus Seybold and Erich Zenger. 2nd Edition. Freiburg: Herder, 1995. Yinger, Kent L. Paul, Judaism, and Judgment According to Deeds. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Young, E. J. The Book of Isaiah. 3 Vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. Zahl, Paul F. M. “A New Source for Understanding German Theology: Käsemann, Bultmann, and the ‘New Perspective on Paul’.” Sewanee Theological Review 39 (1996): 413-22. Zänker, O. “Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ bei Paulus.” Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie 9 (193132): 398-420. Ziesler, John A. The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Enquiry. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. –. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. TPI New Testament Commentaries. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989. –. Pauline Christianity. Revised Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. –. “Justification by Faith in the Light of the ‘New Perspective’ on Paul.” Theology 94 (1991): 188-94.

Index of Ancient Sources A. Hebrew Bible and Septuagint Genesis 2:10–14 255 4:2 71 4:12 71 6:9 124 6:12 306 n96 8:21 71, 302 n84 9:15 187 n184 9:16 187 n184 12:1–3 173 13:10 70 13:14–17 173 14:23 71 15:5 173 15:6 32 n96, 118, 119, 167, 215, 304, 305, 312, 324, 339, 377 15:7–20 173 16:5 117 n19 17:4–8 173 18 166 18:19 118 n20, 122, 375 18:22–33 159–160, 163 18:23–25 166 18:25 160 n113 18:29 71 19:4–11 163 19:19 33, 129 n46, 157 n101, 158, 159 20:5 129 n52 20:13 33, 129 n46, 157 n101, 160 21 158–159 21:23 33, 129 n46, 157 n101, 158–159 21:25–27 158 n109 21:31–32 158 n109 22 215 22:16–18 173 24:3 170 n139, 217 n43

24:12 24:14 24:26 24:27 24:49 26:1–5 27:46 27:46–28:2 28:1 28:3 28:13–15 30:33 31:53 32:10 33:1 35:22 37:4 37:5 37:8 37:11 37:18 37:20 37:26 38:1 38:2–5 38:6 38:7 38:8 38:9 38:9–10 38:10 38:11 38:12–19 38:20–23 38:24 38:26 42:24 44:16 49:10

159 n111 159 n111 159 n111 33, 129 n46, 157 n101 129 n49, 159 n111 173 170 n139 217 n43 170 n139 173 173 379 117 n19 33, 129 n46, 157 n101 70 240 240 n111 240 n111 71, 240 n111 240 nn110 and 111 240 n111 240 n111 240 n111 170 170 170–171 171, 173 171, 172 171, 172 171 173 171 171 171 170, 171, 174 71, 76 n52, 169–170, 171, 175, 176, 176–177 240 n111 76 n52 241

411

Index of Ancient Sources Exodus 2:24 187 n184 6:5 187 n184 9:27 135 12:40 302 n84 15:13 33, 129 n46, 157 n101 15:20–21 186 17:11 184 n173, 310 n103 18:16 113–114 n14 23:7 76 n52, 77, 309 25:17 75 n48 25:18 75 n48 25:19 75 n48 25:20 75 n48 25:21 75 n48 25:22 75 nn48 and 49 29:18 302 n84 31:7 75 n48 32:32–33 169 n136 34:7 33, 129 n46, 157 n101, 160 35:12 75 n48 38:5 75 n48 38:7 75 n48 38:8 75 n48 Leviticus 5:6–13 292 16:2 75 n48 16:13 75 n48 16:14 75 n48 16:15 75 n48 19:15 112, 121, 344 19:35–36 257, 356 19:36 122, 128 n32, 139, 163, 356 26:42 187 n184 26:45 187 n184 26:46 302 n84

1:35 71 4:19 70 5:5 174 n156 6:24–25 377 6:25 119 n22, 128 n42, 157, 377 9:4–6 371 16:18 110, 122, 128 n32, 163, 259, 345 16:18–20 201 16:19–20 346 16:20 128 nn34 and 36, 346 17:8–13 114 n14 24:10–13 119, 377 24:13 118, 119, 128 n42, 157, 208, 377 25:1 76 n52, 121 25:6 172 25:6–7 172 25:13–15 257 25:15 128 n32, 156, 163, 356 32:4 124, 151–152, 279 32:5 152, 302 n84 32:16 247 n137 32:43 309 33:7 141 33:15 122 33:19 357 33:20 358 n35 33:20–21 180, 363 33:21 42, 47, 180, 363 Joshua 24:14

129 n49 186 36, 47, 49, 180, 363, 381, 382 180 180 117 n19 186

Numbers 7:89 32:11

75 n48 71

Judges 5:1–31 5:11 5:19 5:31 11:27 11:34

Deuteronomy 1:12–17 1:16 1:16–17 1:17

113 121, 128 n36, 163, 345 345 257

1 Samuel = 1 Kgdms 2:9 184 n173 12:7 36, 47, 49, 180, 358 n35, 364, 382 12:7–8 364

412 12:8 12:8–9 12:9–11 12:12 13:15 18:6–7 24:11–15 24:12 24:14–15 24:15 24:17 26:21–23 26:23

Index of Ancient Sources 364 n44 180 364 n44 180 63 186 184 117 184 n172 117, 140 n76, 141, 176 176 371 151, 371

2 Samuel = 2 Kgdms 8:15 110, 122, 358 11:23 184 n173 15:4 76 n52 19:28 128, 370 19:44 177 n165 22:21–25 371 22:21, 25 371 1 Kings = 3 Kgdms 2:32 3:6 3:16–28 3:28 7:7 8:31–32 8:32 10:9

176 155, 371 116 116 n18 116 377 76 n52, 121, 377 122, 359

2 Kings = 4 Kgdms 12:16 151 22:7 151 1 Chronicles 16:15 18:14 29:17

187 n184 122, 358 129 n51

2 Chronicles 6:22–23 6:23 9:8 12:1–6 12:5 31:12

166 377 122, 359 135 260 151

31:15 34:12

151 151

Ezra 9:15

136

Nehemiah 2:20 370 4:4–5 168 9:8 136 n71, 154 n97, 196, 296, 338 9:32–33 126 n28, 136 Job 4:17 6:29 6:29 8:3 8:6 9:2 9:15 9:20 9:32 10:15 11:2 13:16 13:18 15:14 22:4 25:4 27:2 27:5 27:5–6 27:6 27:6 29:14 31:6 32:2 33:12 33:26 33:32 34:5–6 34:5 35:2 35:6–8 35:7 35:8 36:3 37:23 40:8

175 350 128 n32 128 n34, 347 354 76 n53 76 n53 76 n53 190 n191 76 n53 76 n53 302 n84 76 n53 76 n53 190 76 n53 204 76 n53 371 371 302 n84 117, 350 128 n32, 163, 356 76 n53 76 n53 377 76 n52 204 76 n53 128 n32, 355 372 76 n53 372 128 n32 128 n33, 362 76 n53

Index of Ancient Sources Psalms 1 163–164 1:5–6 65, 163–164 1:6 125 4:1 27, 350 4:5 357 5:8 27, 179, 364 7 182–183 7:1 181 7:3–5 182 n169 7:6 179, 181 7:8 140, 351 7:8–10 348 n10 7:8–11 181–182 7:9 166, 351 n20 7:10 165 7:11 351 n20 7:11–12 137 7:11–16 348 n10 7:17 179, 181, 348, 351 n20 9:3–8 346 9:4 112, 121, 140, 191–192 n196, 204, 346 9:7–8 152 9:8 112, 121, 155, 346 11:2 165 11:4–7 137, 372 11:7 155, 166, 355 n28, 372, 382 15:1–2 352 15:2 352 17:1 357 17:2 140, 191–192 n196, 204 17:15 166, 355, 372 n56 18:20 355 18:20–24 118, 355, 371 n54 18:24 355 19:9 76 n52 22:16–21 179 22:30–31 364 22:31 179, 364 23:3 220 n59, 354 24:3–5 377–378 24:5 128 n42, 156, 157, 377–378 25 189–190 25:1–3 189 25:7 189–190 25:8 124

413

25:10ff 164 25:11 189–190 25:18 189–190 31:1 33, 114, 179, 364 31:4 179 31:8 179 31:11 179 31:13 179 31:15 179 31:18 165 32:11 165 33:4–5 362 33:5 122, 128 n42, 157 n99, 158 n106, 362 35 185 35:1 179, 184 n172 35:3 184 n172 35:4 179 35:11 179 35:16 179 35:19 179 35:23 140, 141, 204 35:23–24 184 n172 35:23–28 183–184, 348–349 35:24 121, 128 n41, 179, 184, 348, 350 n16 35:26 179 35:27 117, 184 n171, 350 35:28 179, 184, 348, 350 n16 36:1 165 36:1–4 179 36:5–6 364 36:6 27, 122, 179, 364 36:10 33, 142, 155, 179, 364 36:11–12 179 37:5–6 350 37:6 350 37:30 140 38:20 129 n50 39:1 164 39:8 164 40:5 350 n18 40:9 350 40:9–10 350, 364 40:10 27, 153, 179, 364 40:13 350 n18 40:14–15 179 40:17 350 n18 43:1 140 n76, 141

414

Index of Ancient Sources

43:21 247 n137 45:4 156, 346 45:6 345 n3 45:6–7 263, 351 45:7 351 47 186 48:10 347 50:1–6 126 n28 50:3–7 137, 349 50:6 27, 155, 181, 349 50:16–22 181 51 184–185 51:1–5 179 51:4 45, 76 n52, 185, 223 n66, 275–277 51:7–9 185 n177 51:8 185 n176 51:9 185 51:10 124, 185 n177 51:13 185 51:14 33, 179, 184, 185, 205, 270, 304, 310 n102, 365, 367 n46, 368 n49 51:19 357 52:1–3 356 52:3 356 58:1 345 58:11 166 64:10 165 65:3 184 n173, 310 65:5 310, 347 67:4 123, 130 n55, 345 n3 68:24–27 186 68:35 302 n84 69:4 179 69:14 179 69:18 179 69:26 179 69:27 33, 167, 169, 179, 365 69:27–28 169 69:28 166, 169 71:2 33, 179, 365 71:10 179, 180 71:12–16 365 71:13 179, 180 71:15 33, 155, 179, 365 71:16 33, 179, 365 71:18–19 156 71:19 179, 365

71:23–24 365 71:24 179, 180, 365 72:1 178, 365 72:1–2 345 72:1–4 115, 139–140, 360, 365–366 72:2 122, 345 72:3 156, 360 72:4 178 72:7 129 n48 76:9 139–140 80:10 247 n137 82:1 45 82:3 76 n52 85:10–13 357 85:10 357 85:11 27, 357 85:13 357 86:4 189 88:11–12 366 88:12 156, 180, 366 89:7 302 n84 89:9–10 178 89:14 122, 347, 348 n7 89:14–16 366 89:16 156, 178, 366 89:22–23 178 89:42 178 89:49 151 89:50–51 178 92:15 124 93 186 94:15 165, 346 95–97 186 95:11 71 96:13 112, 121, 152, 279 n19. 346 97:2 122, 347, 348 n7 97:3 178 97:6 27, 178, 349 97:7 178 97:10 178 97:11 165 98 186–188, 304, 305, 308–310, 339 98:1–3 178, 186–188, 366 98:2 155, 156, 178, 186–187, 192, 301, 366 98:2–3 33, 59 n224

Index of Ancient Sources 98:3 151, 308 98:6 187 98:7–9 309 98:9 112, 123, 152, 163, 187, 346 99:4 112, 122, 152, 360 101:1 140 103:6 36, 49, 112, 122, 128 n42, 139, 140, 157, 180, 206, 207, 360, 382 103:10 164 103:17 33, 180, 366 103:17–18 164, 366 105:8 187 n184 106:3 122, 375 106:30–31 217 n41 106:31 217, 378 106:45 187 n184 109:13–14 169 n136 111:1–10 126 n28 111:2–3 366 111:3 178, 366 111:5 187 n184 111:6 178 111:7 140 111:9 178 112:1–10 381 112:3 381 112:9 381 117:1 309 118:19 354 118:19–20 354 119:7 353 119:21 180 119:23 180 119:39 180 119:40 180, 367 119:42 180 119:51 180 119:53 180 119:62 353 119:75 353 119:106 353 119:112 250 n146 119:121 122, 352 119:123 353 119:136 179 119:138 353 119:139 179

415

119:141 27 119:142 156, 179, 357, 367 119:144 353 119:150 179 119:154 141 119:160 353 119:164 353 119:172 354 129:1–4 137 129:3–4 33 132:9 351 140:12 140, 191–192 n196 140:13 124 143 113 n13, 188–190, 304–308, 310, 339 143:1 27, 31, 33, 59 n224, 67, 114, 142, 156, 180, 307, 365 n45, 367 143:1–2 153–154, 188–190, 367 143:2 32 n96, 76 n52, 190, 301, 304–309, 339 143:3 180, 189 143:7 189 143:9 180, 189 143:11 28, 33, 114, 180, 365 n45, 367 143:11–12 188–190, 367 143:12 180 145:6–7 367 145:7 178, 367 145:12–13 367 145:19–20 178 145:21 306 n96 146:7 139, 140 149:9 140 Proverbs 1:1–3 1:3 1:22 2:9 2:20 4:11 8:8 8:15–16 8:16 8:18 8:18–21 8:20

351 122, 351 130 n57 122, 351 129 n48 220 n59 119, 356 345 121 372 372 122, 128, 220 n59, 372

416

Index of Ancient Sources

10:2 10:2–3 11:4–6 11:18 11:19 11:21 11:30 12:17 12:28 13:6 14:34 15:6 15:9 16:8 16:11 16:12 16:13 16:31 17:14 17:15 17:23 20:7 20:28 21:3 21:16 21:21 22:22–23 23:10–11 25:5 29:14 29:26 31:1 31:4–5 31:8–9 31:9

372 372 372 128 n33, 372–373 128 n33, 372–373 129 n48 129 n48 128 n32, 153, 356 373 373 373 129 n48 373 373 129 n47, 139 360 128 n32, 155, 356 373 130 n56 76 n53, 125 129 n47 129 n48 33, 129 n46, 157 n101 122, 128 n33, 375 129 n53 167, 373, 378 116 116 346 115, 153, 307 n100 116 345 115 115 110, 121, 128 n36, 345

Ecclesiastes 3:16 3:16–17 5:8 7:15

128 n32, 347 347 122, 347 128 n32, 351

Isaiah 1:17 116 1:21 147, 351 1:25 362 n42 1:26 354, 362 n42 1:27 122, 128 n42, 140, 157, 362

1:27–28 362 2:10 302 n84 2:19 302 n84 2:21 302 n84 3:8 67 3:14 140 4:3 169 n136 5:7 122, 147, 360 5:15–16 138, 362 5:16 122, 140, 362 5:22–23 309 n101, 370 5:23 76 n52, 128 n35, 147, 309, 370 8:14 324 9:7 122, 128 n40, 361 10:22 362 10:22–23 138 11:1–5 152–153, 345 11:3–4 123 11:4 121, 128 n39, 155, 345 11:4–5 163 11:5 351 16:4–5 347 16:5 153, 347 19:20 141 22:13 302 n84 26:2 129 n48, 156 26:9 140 26:9–10 351 26:10 147 28:16 324 28:17 122, 128 n42, 138, 157 n99, 158 n106, 362 29:13 219 29:16 302 n84 30:18 140 32:1 128 n32, 345 32:16 373 32:17 141 n78, 213–214, 373 33:2 363 33:5 122, 363 33:5–6 363 33:14–16 373–374 33:15 373–374, 382 34:5 140 38:19 129 n49, 205 39:8 129 n49 40–55 57, 58 n219, 296 n72 40:5–6 306 n96

417

Index of Ancient Sources 40:27 204 41:2 357 41:10 128 n32, 354 41:21–29 45 42:3 140, 153, 307 n100 42:6 126 n28, 357 42:13 184 n173, 310 n103 42:21 128 n37, 181, 349 42:21–25 138 42:24–25 181 42:25 349 n13 43:3 145 43:9 76 n52 43:26 76 n52 45:8 33, 144, 348, 363 45:13 155, 357 45:19 119, 356 45:21 33, 145–147, 147 n88, 150 45:21–25 304 45:22–23 146 45:23 380 45:24 49, 156, 382 45:24–25 146, 378 45:25 27, 146 n86, 147, 382 45:26 76 n52 46:12 374 46:12–13 147, 148, 374 46:13 33, 151, 180, 367 47:1–15 180 48:1 219, 380 48:18 140–141, 378 48:22 141 n78 49:4 204 50:8 76 n52 51:1 128 n34, 352 51:4 140 51:4–8 349–350, 367–368 51:5 33, 140, 148, 149, 180, 349 51:5–8 156, 180 51:6 33, 140, 148, 180, 367– 368 51:7 128 n39, 149, 180, 352 51:8 33, 140, 148, 180, 367– 368 51:9 180 51:13 180 51:23 180

53:8 140 53:11 76 n52, 147, 149 54:13 154 54:14 363 54:17 27, 128 n33, 214 n32, 369 55:10 302 n84 56:1 27, 33, 122, 128 n43, 142, 156, 157, 180, 301, 368, 375 57:1–2 124 57:12 147, 374 57:21 141 n78 58:1–2 348, 375 58:2 122, 128 n32, 147, 348, 375 58:8 156, 355 59:1–15 147 59:4 128 n32, 153, 356 59:9 378–379 59:9–17 378–379 59:11 140 59:14 155, 378–379 59:16 128 n42, 157, 180, 368 59:16–20 180 59:17 33, 117, 155, 234, 370 60:17 141, 361 60:17–18 361 61:3 354 61:8 129 n47, 152 61:8–11 126 n28 61:10 128 n44, 129, 155, 214, 232, 370 61:10–11 355 n32, 370 61:11 156, 381 62:1–2 355 62:2 156 63:1 33, 380 63:7 33, 129 n46, 157 n101 64:4–5 353 64:5 128 n34, 353, 382 64:6 147, 374 Jeremiah 1:16 2:23 2:25 2:29 2:35

140 175 247 n137 175 175

418

Index of Ancient Sources

3:11 76 n52, 175 3:13 247 n137 4:1–2 380 4:12 140 5:1 153 9:23–24 360 9:24 112, 122, 360 11:19–20 346 11:20 112, 121, 128 n32, 155, 346 14:21 187 n184 16:13 247 n137 18:6 302 n84 18:23 168–169 21:12 140 22:3 115, 122, 359 22:13 347 22:15 122, 359 22:15–16 115 22:15–17 359 23:5 110 n7, 122, 359 23:5–6 27, 359 23:6 129 n45, 348, 359 n37 31:23 128 n32, 354 31:31–33 294 n68 31:33–34 154 33 348 n8, 359 n37, 361 n40 33:15 110 n7, 122, 359, 361 33:15–16 27, 359 n37 33:16 348 37:8 247 n137 48:21 140 48:47 140 50:6–7 354 50:7 354 50:34 141 51:8–10 369 51:10 128 n40, 369, 382 51:36–37 142 Lamentations 1:16 1:18 3:58–59 3:59

184 n173, 310 n103 136 142 140

Ezekiel 3:17–21 3:20 5:8 11:19 14:13–20 14:14 14:20 16:38 16:51–52 16:52 16:60 18:5 18:5–9 18:17 18:19 18:19–28 18:19 18:20 18:21 18:22 18:24 18:26 18:27 20:41 23:24 23:45 33:12 33:12–19 33:13 33:14 33:15 33:16 33:18 33:19 34:17 34:20 34:22 36:26–27 39:21 43:14 43:17

352, 375 121, 352, 375 140 294 n68 374 374 374 140 76 n52, 175 76 n52, 175 187 n184 122, 376 376 129 n47 33 n99, 122, 128 n43, 129 n47, 157 n100, 158 n106, 376 376 376 374 33 n99, 122, 128, 129 n47, 157 n100, 158 n106, 376 376 121, 374, 376, 382 121, 374 122, 376 302 n84 140 140 374 376–377 121, 374, 382 122, 376–377 121 122, 376–377 121, 374 122, 376–377 117 n19 117 n19 117 n19 294 n68 140 75 n48 75 n48

419

Index of Ancient Sources 43:20 45:9 45:10

75 n48 122, 359 128 n32, 163, 356, 359

Daniel 4:27 128 n42 6:22 129 n54, 130 7:9 220 n55 7:13 220 n55 8:12 129 n49 9 58 n219, 212 9:4–7 126 n28 9:4–19 213 9:7 136, 213, 363 9:13 129 n49 9:14 136, 213 9:16 36, 49, 128 n42, 181, 365 n45, 367 n46, 368, 382 9:18 374, 382 9:24 357 12:1 169 n136 Greek Additions to Daniel Prayer of Azarias 3:28 307 n100

5:24 6:12 9:1

122, 361 122, 361 75 n48

Micah 5:15 6 6:2 6:4 6:4–5 6:5 6:8 6:13 6:16 7:7–9 7:9 7:10

181 191 181, 191 181 368 36, 47, 49, 181, 368, 382 140 191 192 190–192, 304 140, 142, 192, 369 192

Habakkuk 1:12 140 1:13 176 2:4 32 n96, 165, 166, 167, 300, 304, 305, 322, 324, 330, 339 Zephaniah 2:3 3:5 3:8 3:15

Hosea 2:16–20 2:19 2:19–20 2:19–21 6:5 10:12 12:6

126 n28 122, 140, 155, 196, 358 154, 218, 232, 262, 296 338 140 355, 374 140

Joel 2:23 3:2

369 45

Zechariah 7:9 140 8:7–8 154, 380 8:8 155, 196, 218, 232, 262, 338, 380 9:9 147 n88, 296 13:7 260 n190

Amos 5:6–7 5:7

361 122, 361

Malachi 2:6 2:17

140, 352 121, 140 140 140

345 n3 129 n47

420

Index of Ancient Sources

B. New Testament Matthew 3:15 264–265, 269, 270–271 5:6 264, 265, 267 5:10 263, 264 nn198 and 200, 267 5:20 264, 267 5:25 114 n15 6:1 263, 264 n198, 267 6:33 42, 264 nn198 and 200, 265, 266–267, 269 11:10 73 n42 21:32 220 n59, 263, 264 nn198 and 200, 265 26:31 260 n190 Mark 1:2 8:12 14:25 14:27

73 n42 71 n31 71 n32 260 n190

Luke 1:6 1:72 7:24 7:27 7:29 9:52 10:20 12:57 12:58 18:1–8 18:14 19:11 20:11–12 23:40–41

164 187 n184 73 n42 73 n42 45 n162 73 n42 169 n136 263 n196 114 n15 114 177 n165 71 n32 71 n32 263 n197

John 5:20 6:57 7:24

263 n196 282 n30 263 n196

Acts 6:1 7:38 8:1–3 9:11

80 n66 64 79 n61 78

9:28–30 9:29 10:35 12:3 13:10 15:23 15:41 17:31 20:28 21:20 21:39 22:2 22:3 23:12–14 23:34

80 n66 79–80 263 71 n32 263 235 n94 235 n94 263 28 215 n34 78 295 77, 78, 81 215 n34 78

Romans 1:1 298 1:2 298 n76 1:5 326 1:15–18 299 1:16 39, 42, 289, 297, 308, 318 1:16–17 57, 279, 297 n73, 301, 308 1:16–18 148 1:17 4, 8 n22, 11–12, 12‑13, 14, 15 n21, 16–17, 18, 20, 22–23, 24 n57, 25, 26–27, 32 n96, 44, 53, 57, 59 n224, 60, 194 n1, 282, 297, 300, 304, 308, 310,321, 322–323, 325, 328, 330, 334 n146, 335, 336 1:18 39, 51, 278, 297, 300, 343 1:18–32 163 n126, 299–300 1:18–2:29 277 1:18–3:20 279 1:19 298 1:23 298 1:25 278 2:2 277, 278 2:2–3 298 2:3 277 2:4 298

Index of Ancient Sources 2:5 263, 277, 298, 300 2:6–11 246 n132 2:9–10 289 2:12–15 163 n126 2:13 91 n20, 248 n139, 275, 300, 312, 339, 343 2:16 300 2:17–24 275 2:17–29 275 2:28–29 275 3:1 275 3:1–3 275, 277 3:1–8 273–279, 323 3:2 277 3:3 274, 275, 276, 295, 297, 338 3:4 45, 185, 274, 276 3:4–8 277 3:5 8, 43, 45, 194 n1, 274, 275, 276, 277, 295, 298, 304, 310, 312, 321, 323, 324, 328, 336, 338 3:5–6 277 3:7 274, 278, 297, 298 3:9 289 3:10 7, 300, 343 3:18 165 3:19 279, 289 3:20 32 n96, 59 n224, 190, 248 n139, 301, 304–305 n92, 306, 307, 308, 312, 324 n123, 343 3:20–21 190, 306, 307 n97 3:21 4, 8 n22, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21–22, 23–24, 32, 194, 280, 282, 301, 303, 307, 308, 321, 324 n123, 325, 328, 335, 336 3:21ff 4, 323 3:21–22 15 n21, 27, 44, 60, 304, 310, 323–324, 325, 328, 330, 332 n140, 334 n146, 335–336, 343 3:21–26 279–289 3:22 8 n22, 18, 22, 24 n58, 27, 194 n1, 289, 321, 322 n120, 323, 325, 328, 329, 333

421

3:23 298, 323, 343 3:24 316, 323 3:24–25 17, 321 3:24–26 309 3:25 8 n22, 28, 75, 194 n1, 280–282, 284, 293, 311, 321, 325 3:25–26 8, 53, 273, 280, 284, 287, 288, 289, 295, 304, 309 n101, 310, 312, 321, 324–325, 328, 336, 339, 340 3:26 8 n22, 194 n1, 280, 281, 287, 289, 321, 325, 332 n140 3:28 324 n123 4:1–25 341 4:3 304, 313 4:3ff 32 n96 4:3–5 118 4:5 50, 313 4:6 313, 324 n123 4:9 313 4:11 313, 315 4:13 313, 315 4:16 289, 295 4:20 298 4:20–21 295 4:22 313 4:25 268 n209, 288 n50, 291 5:1 341 5:1–11 342 5:2 298 5:8 290 5:9 300 5:10–11 341 5:12–21 343 5:15 298, 316 5:16 316 5:17 44, 300, 313, 316, 317 5:18 300 5:21 313 6 40, 190 6–8 342 6:1–2 342 6:4 298 6:23 298, 316, 317 7:7–8 237–238 n100 8:3 292

422

Index of Ancient Sources

8:9 298 8:10 282 n30, 313 8:18 298 n77 8:20 282 n30 8:30 59, 298–299 8:39 298 9–11 45, 277 9:6 295 9:11 298 9:14 282 9:20 282, 302 n84 9:21 302 n84 9:24 289 9:30 313, 315, 325, 328, 335 9:30–10:6 323–324, 334 9:30–10:13 325 9:30–10:17 321 9:31 91 n20, 314, 315, 335 9:32 325, 328 9:33 326 10:1 325 10:2 298 10:3 8 n22, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 42, 44, 194 n1, 304, 310, 321, 325, 327, 328, 334–336, 341 10:3–4 27 10:4 289, 300, 314, 321, 325, 326, 328 10:5 27, 314, 315, 335 10:5–6 11, 335 10:6 314, 315, 325, 328, 329 n129, 335 10:6–11 300 10:10 300, 314, 315, 325, 328 10:12 289 10:13 325 10:16 326 11 275, 296, 339 11:22 298 11:29 295 12:10–13 268 n209 14:15 290 15:8 275, 278, 295, 298 15:10–11 309 1 Corinthians 1:9 1:18

295 299

1:21–24 1:30 4:4 5:7 10:13 15:3 15:32 15:43

299 10, 146, 314 302 n84 293 295 290 302 n84 298 n77

2 Corinthians 1:18 295 1:19 291 1:19–20 291 1:20–21 295 3:1–6 294 n68 3:5 318 3:9 294, 314 3:18 299 4:1–6 318 4:7 317, 318 4:7–6:13 290 n53 5:10 44 5:14–15 290 5:17 50, 292, 294, 327 5:17–6:2 321 5:18 290 n53 5:19 290 n53, 294, 342 5:19–21 342 5:20 290 n54, 292, 327, 342 5:21 8, 13, 15 n23, 28, 53, 146, 194 n1, 273, 290-295, 304, 310, 321, 327, 328, 336, 342 6:1 327, 342 7:10 267 n206 9:10 302 n84 12:7 73 n42 Galatians 1:4 290 1:13–14 215 n34 1:21 235 n94 2:15–16 58, 331 2:16 3, 21 n44, 32 n96, 190, 304 n92, 331–332 2:17 146 2:20 27, 290 2:21 91 n20, 314, 315 3:6 32 n96, 304, 314

423

Index of Ancient Sources 3:11 32 n96, 248 n139, 304, 312 3:13 293 n66 3:15 72 n39 3:17 295–296, 302 n84 3:19 302 n84 3:21 314, 315, 343 3:26 280 n21 5:5 314

1 Timothy 2:6 3:13

290 280 n21

2 Timothy 1:13 2:13 3:15 4:8

280 n21 295, 331 280 n21 263 n196

Ephesians 1:15 2:8 5:2 5:6 5:23 5:25

Hebrews 1:8–9 3:11 4:3 4:5 5:13 7:2 9:15–17 11:33 12:11 12:19

263 71 n31 71 n31 71 n31 263 263 72 n39 263 263 71 n32

James 1:10 1:20 2:25 3:18

42 28, 266, 267–268, 269 73 n42 263

1 Peter 2:23 3:14 5:8

263 n197 263 114 n15 266, 268–269 28 269 263 220 n59, 263 264 63 263 263 263

280 n21 318 290 300 64 290

Philippians 1:11 263 1:19 302 n84 1:28 318 2:8 27 2:15 302 n84 3:6 91 n20, 164, 215 n34 3:8–9 327 3:9 8 n22, 27, 44, 58, 91 n20, 146, 164, 194 n1, 214, 304, 310, 315, 317, 321, 327–329, 334–336 4:18 302 n84 Colossians 1:4 3:6

280 n21 300

1 Thessalonians 1:10 5:24

300 295

2 Peter 1:1 1:4 1:16–18 2:5 2:21 3:13

2 Thessalonians 1:5–6 1:9 1:10 3:3

263 n196 302 n84 302 n84 295, 330–331

1 John 2:15 2:29 3:7 3:10

424

Index of Ancient Sources

Jude 14–15

221 n60

Revelation 3:5 6:10 11:13 12:11 13:8

169 n136 114 45 n162 282 n30 169 n136

13:14 15:3 16:5 16:7 19:2 19:11 20:12 20:15 22:11

282 n30 246 n135, 263 n196 263 n196 246 n135, 263 n196 246 n135, 263 n196 263 169 n136 169 n136 263

C. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Baruch 1:1–14 1:1–3:8 1:15–18 1:15–3:8 2:6–9 3:9–4:4 3:9–5:9 4:8 4:12 4:13 4:15–5:9 5 5:2 5:4 5:9

212 212 nn29 and 30 213 212, 213 213 212 212 n29 213 213 213 212 214 214, 232, 270 213 214, 232

1 Enoch 1:9 5:4 37–71 46:1–2 46:3 46:4–8 47:3 71:14 91–105/7 99:6–9 99:10 99:11–16 101:1–3 101:3 101:4–9 102:1–3 108:3

221 n60 221 n62 219 n53 220 n55 220 220 169 n136 48, 219, 220 219 n53 220–221 48, 219, 220–221 221 221 48, 219, 221 n63 221 221 n63 169 n136

Epistula Aristeas §18 §§35–50 §43 §131 §144 §§147–48 §§168–69 §209 §§218–19 §259 §267 §306

248 249 249 248–249 249 249 249 249 250 n149 249–250 250 249 n143

4 Ezra 3–14 5:11 7:33–36 7:105 7:114 8:20–36 8:31–36 8:36

227 227 227–228 228 228 228, 229–230 229–230 48, 229–230, 286 n45

Joseph and Aseneth 15:4 169 n136 Jubilees 20:9–10 21:4 22:15 22:16–17 22:20 23:21 30:7

216–217, 231 219 218, 232 217 n44 217 nn43 and 44 219 217

425

Index of Ancient Sources 30:17–20 30:18 30:21 30:22

217–218, 231 215 218 n47 169 n136, 218 n48

Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 3:10 226–227 9:8 225 n71 11:15 225 n71 12:2 225 n71 19:7 225 n69 19:9 225 n71 26:13 225 n69 30:2 225 n71 48:5 225 n71 51:5 227 54:5 225 n71 62:5 225–226 62:9 226 Life of Adam and Eve 20:1 230, 231 20:2 230 21:6 230 27:1–5 231 1 Maccabees 2:23–26 2:27 2:29 2:52 8:1–16 14:35 16

215 215 215 215, 231 214 n33 215–216 214 n33

2 Maccabees 3:5 4:4

235 n94 235 n94

4 Maccabees 1:1 1:3–4 1:6 1:15 1:17 1:18 1:33–35 1:34 2:1–6

236 237 237 237 237 237 237 236 237

2:7–8 2:8 2:8–9 2:9 2:14 4:19 4:21 4:23 4:24–25 4:26 5:2–3 5:14 5:16 5:23–24 5:24 5:25–27 5:33 5:36 6:30–31 6:35 7:15 8:7 8:14 8:22 9:1 9:9 9:29 9:32 11:3 12:12 16:16 18:5 18:22





237 n98 236–237, 238 237–238 237 237 239 239 236, 238 236 236 236 236 238 238 237 n99 236 236 238 236 236 238 236 239 239 236 239 236 239 239 239 236 236, 238 n103 238 n103, 239

Paraleipomena of Jeremiah (= 4 Baruch) 3:14 247 n136 3:21 247 n136 5:22 247 n136 5:35 247 n137 7:24–25 248, 262 7:25 247 n137 7:26 247 n137 7:29 247 n137 9:3 247 n137 9:6 247 n137 9:22 247 n137 Psalms of Solomon 2 223, 225

426 2:1 2:10 2:15 2:15–16 2:17–18 2:25–27 2:32–33 3:5 3:5–8 4:8 4:24 5:1 8:7 8:8 8:23 8:26 9 9:2 9:4–5 9:5 9:6–8 9:10 10:4 10:5 15:13 17 18

Index of Ancient Sources



222 n64 222 223 223 222 222 n64 223 223 224 223 222–223 222 223 222 223 223 223, 225 223 224, 231 222 224 224 224 222 224 222 222

Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides Line 1 253, 254 Line 2 253 Lines 3–227 254 Line 228 253 Line 229 253, 254 Line 230 253 Sibylline Oracles 3 3.1–96 3.192–93 3.218–34 3.248–54 3.256–60 3.314–18 3.580 3.584 3.586–600 3.608–10 3.624–30

251 n150 251 n150 251 n150 251 251 251 251 n150 251 252 252 251 n150 252

3.702–3 3.716–20 3.776

252 252 251 n150

Sirach 16:7 16:8 16:9 16:10 16:12–14 16:17 16:18–19 16:21 16:22 16:23 23:1–6 23:2 23:2–3 24:23 24:27 26:28 45:26 50:1–21

211 211 211 211 211 211 211–212 212 211, 212 212 285–286 285 286 n43 254 n163 254 n163 211 211 210 n26

Testament of Asher 1:3–8 1:3–9 2:5–10 2:9 3:1–2 4:1 4:2–5

241 244 n122 244 n125 244 n125 244 245, 262 245

Testament of Dan 6:1 6:8 6:9 6:10

243 243 243 42, 48, 49, 243, 244–245

Testament of Gad 5:2 5:2–3

245 244

Testament of Issachar 6:1 244 Testament of Job 4:7–11

246

427

Index of Ancient Sources 43:13–14

246

Testament of Judah 20:1–2 244 n122 22:1–2 241, 262, 270 Testament of Levi 18:1–14 19:1

239 n104 44 n127

Testament of Reuben 4:8 240 n109 4:11 240 n109 Testament of Zebulun 9:8 242, 262, 270 Tobit 1:3 2:14 4:5 4:5–6 4:6 4:8 12:8 12:8–9

209 208 n21, 209 209 209–210 197, 209 197 209 208 n21

12:9 13:1–17 13:5 13:6 14:7 14:8–9 14:11

209 210 210 209, 210, 231 209 208 n21, 209 208 n21, 209

Wisdom of Solomon 1:1 1:5 1:15 5:6–7 5:15–16 5:17 5:17–20 5:19 5: 23 6:1ff 8:7 9:2–3 9:12 12:3–6 12:12–13 12:15–16 15:1–3

232 235 235 235 235 234 117, 234 234 234 234 235 234 234 234 234 234 235

D. Philo De Abrahamo 208

256

De migratione Abrahami 89–93 237 n97

De animalibus 58

255

De plantatione 122

De cherubim 25

75 n49

De posteritate Caini 128 255

De fuga et inventione 100 75 n49 101 75 n49 De Iosepho 5 17 175–77

240 n110 240 n110 240 n111

257

De Providentia, frag. II (apud Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 8.14.386–399) 2.2 257–258 2.3–6 258 2.22–26 258 De specialibus legibus 1.54–55 215 n34 1.277 257

428

Index of Ancient Sources

2.63 2.204 2.253 4.55–78 4.56 4.57 4.71 4.143 4.194 4.230–31 4.238

256 257 215 n34 257 257 256 257 256 257 257 257

De virtutibus 220–22

171 n140

De vita Mosis 2.9 2.95 2.97

256 75 n49 75 n49

Legatio ad Gaium 85

257

Legum allegoriae 1 1.63–65 1.72 1.73 1.87

255 n168 255 255 255–256 n169 256

De praemiis et poenis 143 282 n31 145 282 n31 Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 162 257 166 75 n49 Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat 168 282 n31

E. Josephus Antiquitates Judaicae 1.53 258 1.75 258 1.99 258 2.10 240 n110 2.108 259 3.67 260 4.214 259 4.215 259, 260 4.216 260 4.216–17 259 4.254 172 6.18 259 7.110 260 7.328 260 8.21 260 8.26–34 116 n18 8.121 259 8.256 260 8.314 259 9.16 259 9.240 282 n31 10.50 259

11.55 11.236 11.268 12.11–118 12.56 13.173 13.289 14.283 15.48 15.375 16.42 18.116 18.117

261 282 n31 261–262 248 n140 259 318 258 259 284–285 259 259 261 258–259

Bellum Judaicum 7.323

261

Contra Apionem 2.293

258

Vita 7

258

429

Index of Ancient Sources

F. Qumran 1QS I, 1–6 I, 21 III, 13–IV, 26 X, 23 X, 25 X, 25–26 XI, 2–17 XI, 2 XI, 3 XI, 5 XI, 10 XI, 12 XI, 14 XI, 15 XI, 3 XI, 5 XI, 12 XI, 14 XI, 15

201 197, 198 240 197, 198 43, 49, 198 48 202–204 202 204 202, 204 202 202, 204 202, 204 204 197, 198 198 43, 48, 49, 198 198 199

1Q14 8–10, 6

201 n5

4Q173 1, 4 2, 2

201 n5 201 n5

4Q176 1–2 I, 1

199

43, 48, 49, 199 169 n136

4Q200 2, 6 2, 8

197 197

201 n5 201 n5, 206 206 201 n5 201 n5 201 n5 206 206 201 n5 201 n5 206

4Q258 XIII, 3

199

4Q260 V, 5

197, 199

4Q287 2, 13

199

CD I, 1 I, 11 I, 14 VI, 11 XX, 15 XX, 32

201 201 n5 206 201 206 201 n5

1QH IV, 17 IV, 20 IV, 37 VI, 15–16 VI, 16 VII, 14 VII, 19 IX, 23 XI, 17–18 XI, 30–31 XII, 37 XIII, 16–17 XV, 14–15 XV, 19 XV, 19–20 XVI, 2 XVI, 10 XIX, 31 XXI, 2 XXIII, 2 I, 5

197, 198 198 43 n149 202 198 43 n149 43 n149 201 43 n149 43 n149 198 43 n149 43 n149 198 204 198 43 n149 198, 205 199 199

1QM IV, 6 XII, 2–5 1QpHab I, 13 II, 2 II, 3 V, 10 VII, 4 VIII, 3 VIII, 16 IX, 9 IX, 10 XI, 5 XII, 2, 8

430

Index of Ancient Sources

4Q372 1, 28

199

4Q381 33+35, 6

199, 204

4Q418 Frg. 214

201

4Q423 Frg. 6

201

4Q424 3, 9–10

197 n3

4Q428 19, 6

200

4Q443 1, 12

200

4Q511 20 I, 1 48–49 + 51, 2 63 III, 1

199 200 200

4Q521 7+5 II, 7

197, 199 197, 199

11Q5 (= 11QPsa) XIX, 1–17 XIX, 1 XIX, 2–3 XIX, 3 XIX, 5 XIX, 6 XIX, 7 XIX, 7–8 XIX, 8 XIX, 9 XIX, 9–10 XIX, 10 XIX, 11 XIX, 13 XIX, 13–14 XIX, 15–16 XIX, 17

205–207 207 207 199, 207 197, 199, 206, 207 207 197 206 207 207 206 206 197, 199, 206, 207 207 206 206 207

11Q6 (= 11QPsb) 4–5, 5 4–5, 7

199 197, 199

11Q19 LI, 11–17 LVII, 19–20

201 201

G. Greek and Latin Literary Sources Aesopica Vita Aesopi Westermanniana 75.8 250 n146 Aesopus Fabulae 45.11

250 n146

Andronicus Rhodius De passionibus 2.7.3 97 n55 Antiphon, Diels-Kranz, frag. 87.44 85, 90–91, 107

Appian Basilica, frag. 13 283 Mithridatica 15.104

103, 106

Ariston of Chios Arnim, frag. 375 96, 105 Aristotle Ethica Nicomachea 1096a11–18 1129a24–30 1129a34 1129b12

93 n32 94 95, 107 95, 107

431

Index of Ancient Sources 1129b25 95, 105 1129b30 86, 95 1130a9–10 95, 107 1130a34–1130b7 94–95 1130b30–34 95 1131a1–9 95, 105 1131b17–18 95, 106 1131b25–1132a25 95 1144b17–20 93 n32 1161b6–7 95 Ars Rhetorica 1366b

96, 106

Arius Didymus Liber de philosophorum sectis 67.2.21 97 n55 Chrysippus Arnim, frag. 326 96, 107 Columella De re rustica 2.10.18

235 n94

Demosthenes In Aristogitonem 2 §25 94, 107 Dio Chrysostom Orationes 2.54 13.32 30 30.19 62.3 69.1 75.5–6

100, 105 100 n70 283 n35 283 100, 105 100, 107 100, 107

Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca historica 1.2.2 97 1.2.8 97, 107 1.71.4 97–98, 105 1.92.5 97 5.71.1 98 5.71.11 105 5.79.2 98, 105 Dionysius of Halicarnassus

Antiquitates Romanae 1.7.2 98 2.26.1 98, 105 2.74.1 98–99, 105 2.74.2–5 99 2.74–75 106 2.75.1 99, 105 2.75.2 99 2.75.3 99 2.75.4 99 4.9.9 99, 105 7.37.2 283–284 7.46.2 284 n38 10.57.2 99–100, 105 Epictetus Dissertationes ab Arriano digestae 2.23–25 103, 107 3.14.11–13 103, 106 Euripides Troiades 915

250 n146

Herodotus Historiae 1.96 2.147 2.151 6.86α 7.164 7.52

87, 105 87 87, 106 88, 95 n41, 105 88, 105 88–89, 106

Hesiod Opera et dies 219–21

254

Isocrates De pace [= Oration 8] §34 92 §35 92 §§34–35 107 Nicocles [= Oration 3] §2 92

432

Index of Ancient Sources

Panathenaicus [= Oration 12] §124 91–92, 107 §204 91–92, 107

Comparatio Thesei et Romuli 6.2 101 6.2 105

Phalaris Epistulae 81.1

De defectu oraculorum 423D 102, 105, 107

283

Philoxenus of Alexandria Frag. 95 104 Plato Leges 767d–e Phaedrus 246a–254e



De virtute morali 440F–441A

96

De Stoicorum repugnantiis 1035C 96

254

Dion 5.1

101–102, 107

255–256 n169

Lycurgus 28.1 28.1

101 107

Numa 16.1

99 n64, 106

Polybius Historiae 6.6.5–7

96–97, 105

Protagoras 331b

97 n55

Respublica 331b 331c 331e 338c 353e 360b–c 362c 363d 369a 434d–435a 443a 443d–e

97 n55 94, 105 94, 106 91 93 94, 105 94, 97 n55, 105 94 93 93 94, 105 93

Pliny the Elder Naturalis historia 8.160-61 18.122

255 n168 235 n94

Plutarch Aristides 6.1 6.1 6.3

101 105 102, 107

Comparatio Dionysii Bruti 2.3 282–283

Ps.-Callisthenes Historia Alexandri Magni 1,37,4 177 n165 Severus Iatrosophista De instrumenti infusoriis seu clysteribus ad Timotheum 28.19 250 n146 Sextus Empiricus Adversus mathematicos 9.126 97 n55, 104, 107 9.131 104, 107 Tacitus Annals 2.58

235 n94

Theognis 131–32 145–48

254 n165 86

433

Index of Ancient Sources Thrasymachus Diels-Kranz, frag. 85.8

91, 107

Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War 3.59 90 3.63 89, 90, 106 3.64 90 Xenophon Cyropaedia 1.6.27–34 1.6.27

1.6.29 1.6.31 1.6.33 1.6.34



92 92 92–93 93

Hellenica 1.4.2

72 n41

Hipparchicus 7.10

284

105 92

H. Early Christian Literature Clement of Alexandria Paedagogus 1.8 332 n140

Clement of Rome 1 Clement 31.2 32.3–4

I. Rabbinic Literature m. Sanh. 9.6

215 n35

332 n140 332 n140

Index of Authors Abbott, T. K. 69 Abelard, P. 16, 18 Achtemeier, E. R. 37–38, 55, 170 n137 Achtemeier, P. 37 n121 Adamson, J. B. 268 n211 Aejmelaeus, A. 108, 131 Aitken, J. K. 78 n58 Allen, L. C. 188 n186, 192 n198 Alon, G. 215 n34 Alter, R. 66, 143, 155, 184 n171 Ambrosiaster 13–14, 18, 292 n64 Amstutz, J. 244 n122 Anderson, H. 236 n96 Aquinas, T. 18, 292 n64 Assel, H. 21 n44 Augustine 4, 7, 13, 15–16, 20–22, 23, 26, 60, 194, 292 n64, 333 Badenas, R. 326 n127 Baer, D. A. 158 n107 Barclay, J. M. G. 79–81 Barnett, P. 291 n59, 294 n71 Barr, J. 6, 54, 55, 56, 64–65, 69, 70 n29, 132 n59, 150, 278 Barrett, C. K. 293 n65, 294 n70 Barth, M. 2 n2 Baumgartner, W. 38 n123 Beekman, J. 64 n10 Berlin, A. 67 n18 Beyschlag, W. 268 n211 Bickerman, E. 235–236 n94 Bird, M. F. 5, 170 n137 Black, M. 201 n6 Boehme, A. J. 21 n44 Borgen, P. 78 n58, 255 n168 Bornkamm, G. 44 n155 Bousset, W. 79–80 n65 Boyd-Taylor, C. 74, 233 n91 Brauch, M. T. 6 n20, 38 n123

Braun, H. 223–224 Bray, G. 13–14 Briggs, C. A. 168 n134, 188 n187, 189 n188, 190 n192 Broyles, C. C. 187 n181 Bruce, F. F. 290 Bucer, M. 23–24 Buitenwerf, R. 251 n150 Bultmann, R. 38, 41, 43–44, 53, 280 n21, 287, 293 n67, 337 Burke, D. G. 212 Burrows, M. 171 n143, 172 n144 Callow, J. 64 n10 Calvin, J. 24, 27, 40, 194, 292 n64, 312 n106 Campbell, D. A. 59 n224, 282 n31, 296–297, 297 n73, 301 n81, 304, 305, 330 Caragounis, C. C. 248 n140 Cassiodorus 16 Cazelles, H. 268 n212 Charles, R. H. 217 n40, 229 n85, 239, 243, 245, 247 n137 Chrysostom 11–12, 26, 333 Clark, G. R. 159 n110 Clark, R. S. 21 n44 Coats, G. W. 172 Cocceius, J. 27 Collins, J. J. 78 n58, 220 n53, 251 n150 Conzelmann, H. 44 n155 Cotterell, P. 61–62, 64, 65 Craigie, P. 182 Cranfield, C. E. B. 17 n34, 29 n74, 272–273, 276 n10, 278 n17, 280, 288, 298 n76, 306 n95 Creed, J. M. 283–284 Cremer, H. 5 n18, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 18, 32–36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46–47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 58,

Index of Authors

59 n224, 60, 61, 65, 67, 72–73 n41, 73, 74, 82–83, 89, 95–96, 106, 108–109, 112, 125, 131–135, 139–140, 142–144, 148, 149–150, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 162, 164–165, 167, 167–168 n132, 169–170, 177, 178, 182, 183, 193, 194, 196, 213, 228, 232, 271, 273, 287, 296, 305, 319, 322–323 n122, 337, 338, 339–340, 348 n10 Croft, W. 120 n25, 126 n29 Cross, F. M. 201 n6 Cruse, D. A. 120 n25, 126 n29 Dahl, N. A. 2 n2 Dahood, M. 168 n134 Das, A. A. 5 n16 Davids, P. H. 269 n213 Davies, E. W. 171 n141, 171 n143 Davies, W. D. 81 n69 Davila, J. R. 212 n30, 233 n92 Deines, R. 78 n59, 266 nn202 and 203 Deissmann, A. 69, 75 n47 de Jonge, M. 230 n88, 239 n106, 239–240 n107, 240 n111, 243, 244 n122, 245 Delitzsch, F. 187 n181, 277 n14 Delling, G. 247 n137 Denis, A.-M. 247 n137 Descamps, A.-L. 268 n212 deSilva, D. A. 208 n22, 210 n26, 214 n33, 217 n43, 234 n93, 236 nn94 and 95, 238 n102 Dibelius, M. 268 nn209 and 211 Diels, H. 90 n19 Diestel, L. 9, 29–30, 31, 32, 33, 132, 133, 167–168 n132, 338, 340 Di Lella, A. A. 210–211 n26, 211 n28 Dillmann, C. F. A. 247 n137 Dodd, C. H. 77 n54, 93–94 Dunn, J. D. G. 1 n1, 2 nn2 and 4, 3, 4, 6, 7, 37, 55, 56–58, 59 n224, 152 n96, 162 n125, 170, 273, 274 n4, 275 n9, 280 n21, 296, 298 n76, 319, 322–323 n122, 329, 334, 337 Edwards, J. 28 Eichrodt, W. 37 Elliott, M. W. 332 n140 Evans, C. A. 225 n69

435

Even-Shoshan, A. 109 n4 Fahlgren, K. H. 110 n5 Falk, D. 224 n68 Fee, G. D. 342 n2 Feldman, L. H. 258 n179 Fillmore, C. J. 120 n25 Fitzmyer, J. A. 56 n213, 80 n66, 203, 208 n22, 280 n21, 326 n128, 341 n1 Fokkelman, J. P. 66, 113, 143 Foster, P. 333 n144 Fredricks, C. J. 170 n139 Freeman, K. 90 n19 Futato, M. D. 66 nn14 and 17 Garvie, A. E. 31 n90, 32 n91, 33 n101 Gasque, W. W. 78 n56 Gathercole, S. J. 5 n16, 223 n67 Gennadius of Constantinople 13 Gesenius, W. 162 Godet, F. L. 28 n74 Goldingay, J. 183, 190 n191 Gomarus, F. 26–27 Gordon, R. P. 158 n107 Grabbe, L. L. 78 n58 Green, L. C. 21 n44 Grundmann, W. 203 n11, 204 Güttgemanns, E. 50 n183, 52 Hadas, M. 250 n148 Hagner, D. A. 264 n200, 266 nn201 and 202, 267 n205 Haimo of Auxerre 17 n34 Haimo of Halberstadt 17 n34 Haldane, R. 28 n74, 326 n128 Hamilton, V. P. 171 n140, 173 n150 Häring, T. 31–32 Harrington, D. J. 208 n22, 211 n26, 225 n69 Harris, J. R. 247 n137 Harris, M. J. 292 nn60 and 64 Harrisville, R. A. 332 n140 Harvey, J. 191 n193 Hatch, E. 68, 69, 128 n38, 129, 157 Haußleiter, J. 329 n130 Havelock, E. 86, 87, 104–105 Hays, R. B. 4–5, 7, 59 n224, 170 n137, 273,

436

Index of Authors

274, 301–304, 305, 307–308, 329 n130, 330, 333 n145, 334 Headlam, A. C. 275 n9 Hendriksen, W. 29 n74 Hengel, M. 77, 78–79, 80 nn67 and 68, 81 n70, 210–211 Herzer, J. 247 n137, 248 n138 Hill, D. 5–6 n18, 54–55, 60, 68, 69, 71, 73– 74, 161, 274 n5 Hillers, D. R. 191 nn193 and 194, 192 n197 Hodge, C. 28 n74 Holl, K. 20–21 n44 Hollander, H. W. 239 n106, 239–240 n107, 240 n111, 244 n122 Horst, F. 38 n123, 136 n72, 138 n73 Hossfeld, F.-L. 185 nn174 and 175, 187 n181 Huffmon, H. B. 191 n193 Hultgren, A. J. 342 n2 Isaac, E. 220 n53 Jacobson, H. 225 n70 Jellicoe, S. 248 n140 Jepsen, A. 110 n6 Jeremias, J. 203 Jewett, R. 44 n156, 274 n4, 276 n10, 280 n21, 342 n2 Jobes, K. H. 72 n37 Johnson, B. 38 n123, 110 n6, 139 nn74 and 75 Kalmin, R. 171 n143, 174 n155 Kant, E. 30 Karlberg, M. 25 n60 Käsemann, E. 4–5, 7, 9, 11, 38, 39, 40–43, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59 n224, 60, 65, 195, 204, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 280 n22, 281, 282, 283, 286–287, 288, 296, 319, 322–323 n122, 325, 337, 339 Kautzsch, E. 34 n105, 37, 162, 177

Kee, H. C. 239 n104, 240 n108, 244 n122 Keener, C. S. 291 n56 Kelly, J. N. D. 269 n214 Kertelge, K. 38 n123, 48–50, 51 Kidner, D. 189 n189 Kim, S. 5 n16, 272, 280, 318 Kittel, G. 54, 57, 64, 132 n59, 329 n130 Klein, G. 44 n155 Klijn, A. F. J. 229 n85 Kline, M. G. 173, 191 n194 Kneucker, J. J. 212 n30 Koch, K. 38 n123, 50 n181, 52, 138 n73, 162, 167–168, 170 n137, 175 n159, 192 n199 Koehler, L. 38 n123 Koole, J. L. 150 n95 Kopesec, M. 64 n10 Kranz, W. 90 n19 Kraus, H.-J. 187–188 n185, 188 n186 Kugel, J. 66, 143, 155 Kümmel, W. G. 281–282, 283, 284, 286, 287, 288, 339 Lambrecht, J. 290 n54 Lane, W. L. 223 n67 Langacker, R. W. 120 n25, 126 n29 Lattke, M. 222 n64 Lee, J. A. L. 70 n30, 71 nn33 and 35 Leggett, D. A. 171 n143 Lenski, R. C. H. 28 n74 Levine, L. I. 78 n58 Levison, J. R. 230 n88 Lohse, E. 44 n155, 252–253 n157 Lombard, P. 17 Longman, T. 186, 187 n182 Louw, J. P. 38 n123, 120–121, 125 n27 Lowth, R. 65–66, 143, 150, 156, 187 n185 Lührmann, D. 222 n65 Luther, M. 4, 16 n25, 20–23, 24, 25, 40, 53, 194, 312 n106, 326 n128 Lyonnet, S. 292 n64 Lyons, J. 63 n6

Index of Authors Marsden, G. M. 28 n72 Marshall, I. H. 177 n165 Martin, R. P. 292 n64 Mason, S. 258 n179 Matera, F. 294 Matlock, B. 331–332, 333 Mays, J. L. 181 n167, 184 n172, 185 nn177 and 178, 187 n183, 191–192 n196, 192 nn200 and 201 McGrath, A. E. 19, 40 n133 McKenzie, J. L. 148 n90 Melanchthon, P. 21 n44, 23, 24, 326 n128 Mendenhall, G. E. 191 n194 Metzger, B. M. 227 n79 Meyer, H. A. W. 28 n74 Michael of Ephesus 86 Michel, D. 110 n6 Milligan, G. 85 Mitchell, C. 120 Moo, D. J. 267 n208, 268 n210, 274 n5, 276 n10, 279 n20, 280 n21, 288, 289 n51, 325 n124, 326 n128 Moore, C. A. 208 n22 Morris, L. 29 n74, 278 n18 Motyer, J. A. 144–145, 149 Moule, C. F. D. 297 n75 Moulton, J. H. 85 Mowinckel, S. 186 Mueller, D. L. 31 n87 Müller, C. 45–46 Muraoka, T. 128 n44, 130 n57 Murray, J. 29 n74 Myers, J. M. 229–230 n86 Neuer, W. 39 n126 Nicklesburg, G. W. E. 219–220 n53, 221 Nida, E. A. 38 n123, 70 n28, 120–121, 125 n27 Niditch, S. 172 n145 Nygren, A. 29 n74

437

Oberman, H 21 n44 O’Dell, J. 222 n65 Oepke, A. 42, 49, 53, 204 Ogden, C. K. 62 n4, 63 n6 Onesti, K. L. 6 n20, 38 n123 Origen 7, 9, 10–11, 332 n140, 333 Oswalt, J. N. 141 n78, 144, 148, 219 n51, 357 n33 Otto, E. 38 n123 Parker, T. H. L. 23 n53, 24 n55 Perkins, W. 25–26 Philippi, F. A. 28 n74 Pietersma, A. 73 Piper, J. 59 n223, 276 nn12 and 13, 277 Porter, S. E. 302, 306 n94, 342 n2 Przybylski, B. 201 n7, 264 n199, 267 n204 Purintun, A.-E. 247 n137 Quinn, J. D. 56 n213 Rajak, T. 72 n40, 78 n58 Redpath, H. A. 128 n38, 129 Reimer, D. J. 38 n124, 163, 175 Reumann, J. 56 n213 Rhoads, D. 215 n34 Rhyne, C. T. 326 n128 Richard, E. J. 269 n213 Richards, I. A. 62 n4, 63 n6 Ritschl, A. 9, 10, 30–31, 32, 33–34, 35, 36, 132, 133, 167–168 n132, 337, 338, 340, 348 n10 Robinson, S. E. 247 n136, 247 n137 Rollock, R. 25 Ropes, J. H. 268 nn210 and 211 Sabourin, L. 292 n64 Sakenfeld, K. D. 158 n107, 159 n112, 160 nn114 and 115 Saldarini, A. J. 212 n29 Sanday, W. 275 n9

438

Index of Authors

Sanders, E. P. 1 n1, 2–3, 81 n69, 204, 224, 340 Sarna, N. M. 173 n152, 174 n155 Sawyer, J. F. A. 67, 145, 150 Schenck, K. 255 n168 Schlatter, A. 9, 38, 39–41, 43, 50, 53, 56, 195, 297, 317 Schleiermacher, F. 30 Schmid, H. H. 50 n181, 52, 110 n6 Schreiner, T. R. 274 n5, 276, 279 n19, 280 n21, 289 n51, 324 n123, 334–335 Schrenk, G. 38 n123, 113 n12, 268 n210 Schultz, H. 31, 33, 132 Schulz, S. 203 n11 Scullion, J. J. 110 n5 Segal, A. 81 n69 Seifrid, M. A. 5 n17, 21 n44, 56, 65, 67, 78 n56, 106 n93, 126 n28, 136 n71, 143, 154 n97, 176 nn163 and 164, 223 n67 Seitz, C. R. 144, 149 Seland, T. 215 n34 Shedd, W. G. T. 28 n74, 326 n128 Shklovsky, V. 66 Silva, M. 61, 62 n5, 64, 72 nn36 and 37, 306 n95, 320 n119, 330 nn134 and 135, 331, 332 n139, 336 n148 Skehan, P. W. 211 n28 Smith, R. L. 191 n195, 242 n116 Southall, D. J. 329 n129 Speiser, E. A. 171 n140, 172 n147 Spicq, C. 268 n212 Spittler, R. P. 245 n129 Stamm, J. J. 38 n123 Stayer, J. M. 21 n44 Stegman, T. 291–292, 294 n68 Stendahl, K. 1, 2 n2 Sterling, G. E. 255 n168 Stone, M. E. 227 nn79 and 81, 229 n85 Stowers, S. K. 275 n8 Strecker, G. 44 n155 Stuart, M. 28 n74, 326 n128 Stuhlmacher, P. 5 nn16 and 18, 7, 10 n1, 32 n95, 38, 40–41, 43, 46–48, 49, 50,



51–54, 56, 65, 106 n94, 195, 219–220, 221, 230, 243, 245, 267, 274 n4, 300 n79, 319, 322–323 n122, 334

Taber, C. R. 70 n28 Talbert, C. H. 5 n16 Theodore of Mopsuestia 12 Theodoret of Cyrrhus 12–13 Tobin, T. H. 275 n8, 330 n135 Toury, G. 70 n28 Tov, E. 212 n30 Trafton, J. L. 222 n64 Tromp, J. 230 n88 Turner, M. 61–62, 64, 65 Ullmann, S. 62 n4 van der Horst, P. W. 252 n156, 253 n158, 254 n167 VanderKam, J. C. 216 n38 VanDrunen, D. 163 n126 van Henten, J. W. 236 n94 van Mastricht, P. 28 von Rad, G. 36, 37, 52, 55, 82, 136 n72, 138 n73, 162, 170 n137 Wagner, J. R. 81, 108, 131, 303, 326 n126 Wallace, D. B. 315 n107 Wallis, I. 332 n140 Walter, G. 21 n44 Waltke, B. K. 170 n139, 171 n140, 173 n150, 174 n156, 175 n159, 191 n193, 192 n199 Walton, J. H. 171 n142, 174 n156 Watson, F. 318 n116, 322–323 Watson, W. G. E. 110 n5 Way, D. 41 n140 Weingreen, J. 201 n6 Weisberg, D. E. 171 n141, 171 n143, 174 Weiser, A. 167 n131 Wenham, G. 170 n139, 171 n140, 173 n150, 174 n157, 175 n159 Westerholm, S. 6, 104, 315–316, 339 Westermann, C. 148 n90

Index of Authors Wevers, J. W. 119 n22, 158 n108, 160 n116, 161 n117 Whitelam, K. W. 176 n163 Whybray, R. N. 148 n90 Wilckens, U. 50–51, 52, 53, 319 Wildberger, H. 138 n73 Wilk, F. 303–304, 311 Willet, A. 26 William of St-Thierry 16–17 Willis, T. 172 n144 Wilson, W. T. 252 n156, 254 nn163, 164, 167 Winninge, M. 224 n68 Winston, D. 233–234 n93 Wintermute, O. S. 216 n36 Witherington, B. 19

Wright, N. T. 1 n1, 2 n3, 3, 4, 6, 7, 55, 56–59, 60, 113 n11, 118, 170 n137, 176 n163, 273, 290 n53, 291–292, 294, 296–297 n72, 307 n97, 319, 322–323 n122, 334, 337 Wright, R. B. 222 nn64 and 65 Würthwein, E. 185 n176 Yarbrough, R. W. 39 n125 Young, E. J. 145 n85 Zenger, E. 185, 187 n181 Ziesler, J. A. 6 n18, 32 n92, 33 n100, 55, 56, 74, 111, 157, 158, 161 n119, 162, 170 n137, 268 n210

439

Index of Subjects Adam 13, 25, 198, 230–231, 343 Agency, divine and human 318 Allusion 75 Alms, almsgiving 119 n22, 197, 200, 207, 208, 209, 210 Angels 159, 202, 218, 231 Ansprüche 34 Antiochus Epiphanes 210 n26, 214, 236 Antonyms 120–125, 228, 245 Apocalyptic 41, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 50, 52, 60, 114, 219–222, 228, 241, 243, 245, 307, 325 Atonement 260 n190, 289–291 – Anselmic theory 280–281 – Atonement cover 75 – Atoning death of Christ 3, 8, 51, 55, 195, 232, 265, 280, 282, 289, 290, 324–325, 339 Base-profile analysis 120 n25, 125–126 Boundary markers 3 Bundesbegriff 135 Bundestreue 42, 48, 286 n45 Bundesverhältnis 165, 286 Calques 70–75, 83 Chiasm 67, 160, 293, 352 n25 Cognitive linguistics 125–126 Collocation 88, 103, 122, 145, 270, 301 Comparison of exclusion 175–177 Conflictual context (Psalms) 113 Contradictio in adiecto 36 Controversy (rîb) – God’s cosmic lawsuit 45–46 – judicial 176, 178, 185, 193, 264, 275–276 – terminology of 113–117, 121, 123, 141–142 – with enemies 113, 116–117, 123, 176, 183–184, 185, 189, 264 – with God 175 n162, 185 – YHWH’s lawsuit against Israel 191 and n193

Courts and legal procedures 109, 121–123, 125 Covenant faithfulness 2, 4, 8, 9, 19, 29, 35, 36, 37, 46, 48, 49, 51, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 n224, 75 n50, 83, 89, 106, 134, 142–143, 146, 148, 149, 151, 153, 154, 158, 159, 187, 188 n186, 195, 196, 204, 206, 207, 210, 213, 218, 221, 222, 225, 228 n83, 234, 246, 258, 262, 271, 272, 273–297, 304, 306–307, 311, 324, 329, 330, 334, 336, 337, 338, 339 Covenantal nomism 2, 5, 224, 340 Deposits of money 88, 90, 94, 95, 105, 257 Diatribe 275 Discourse concept 144, 145, 148, 150, 151, 169, 187–188, 264 n200, 265, 266, 270–271 Election of Israel 3, 277, 278 Endogamy 217–218 Enemies, oppressors 35, 75 n50, 112, 113, 114, 117, 133–134, 139, 144, 145, 150, 151, 154, 158, 178–182, 184–192, 195, 205, 207, 241, 264, 271, 272, 296, 307, 308, 310, 364 n44 – spiritualizing of 179, 181, 205–207, 270, 310–311 Equality, first principle of justice 95, 99, 256–257, 269 Eschatological – deliverance/salvation 221, 242, 264 n200, 265, 300 – glory 11, 16, 18, 214, 230–231, 298–299 – judgment 18, 29, 45 n162, 220–222, 226, 228, 239, 263, 265, 275, 300, 331 – life, eternal life 2, 7, 24, 26, 224–225, 235, 300, 340, 342 – reward 214, 224–226, 235

Index of Subjects Exile – captivity 1, 210, 212, 242, 247 – return from 150, 187, 210, 357 Faith 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26, 27, 33, 53, 57, 60, 91 n20, 166, 167, 173, 190, 194, 195, 215, 225, 232, 239, 268, 269, 280, 281, 286, 287, 289, 299, 300, 304–305, 309 n101, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 318, 320–336, 339, 341, 342 n2, 343 Forensic context/terminology 112, 116 n18 Gemeinschaftstreue 42 Genitive case – Genetivus auctoris (genitive of author or source) 9, 12, 22, 23, 24, 25, 38, 41 n139, 43, 49, 53, 194, 288, 298, 305, 312 n106, 316–318, 328–329, 334, 336, 337 – Objective genitive 23, 24, 245, 267–268, 298, 305 n93, 312, 316, 329, 330 n134, 331, 332, 333, 337 – Genitive of possession 39, 298 – Subjective genitive 9, 32, 36, 38, 39, 43, 49, 53, 54, 60, 112, 195, 268 n209, 296, 297–300, 301, 305, 317, 329, 330, 332, 333, 334, 337 Gerechtigkeit Gottes 38–54, 243 Gerichtsdoxologie 45 n162, 136 Glory 11, 16, 18, 45 n162, 146, 147, 155, 156, 178, 180, 182 n169, 199, 202, 211, 213–214, 221 n63, 230, 231, 269, 270, 273, 298–299, 314, 323, 343, 349, 355, 367, 373, 374, 378, 380, 382 Gospel 12–13, 14, 16–17, 18, 20–23, 275, 286, 298, 299–300, 308, 311, 316, 318, 322, 326, 327, 333, 341 Grace of God 2, 3, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 25–26, 29, 30, 31, 33, 40, 132, 144, 147, 155, 157, 159, 160, 162, 167, 169, 185, 189–190, 192, 194, 206, 224, 232, 265–266, 270, 280, 298, 309, 313, 314, 315 n110, 316, 317, 318, 323, 327, 333, 340, 341, 342 Greek thought/worldview 8, 42, 56, 57, 69, 77, 84, 95–96, 101, 106 Greek words with Hebrew meanings 68 Grundbegriff or root meaning 132

441

Hasmonean rulers 258, 285 Heavenly courtroom, as metaphor 182, 190 Hebraic/relational theory 6–8, 9–10, 19, 43, 54–55, 57–58, 60, 74–75, 84 Hebraic thought/worldview 6, 8, 42, 52, 56, 57, 69, 77, 84, 96 Heilsbegriff 52 Heilshandeln 35 Hellenism 77–78, 236 Hellenistic Judaism 72, 73, 78–82 – assimilation 79 – acculturation 79, 80 – accommodation 79, 80 Hellenization crisis 208 n22, 210 n26, 214, 216 n36, 236, 239, 248 n140, 340 Hendiadys 145, 156, 159 Herabdrückung 135 Herrschaftswechsel 42 homo iustificatus 194, 319, 321, 324, 328 Hyponyms 67, 143 Illegitimate totality transfer 63–65, 82, 93, 150, 169, 188 Immortality 102, 235 Intertextuality 59 n224, 146, 187, 190, 192, 301–319, 339 iustitia distributiva 16, 29, 36, 37, 43, 60, 84, 106, 133, 135, 152, 193, 196, 205, 207, 222, 232, 246 n132, 250, 255, 262, 271, 277, 278, 338, 340 iustitia Dei 14, 15–16, 17, 18, 20, 23–24, 27, 226, 333 iustitia salutifera 9, 36, 37, 43, 45, 75 n50, 83, 112, 132, 135, 144, 149, 150, 151, 157, 193, 196, 207, 232, 242, 262, 264, 265, 267, 268, 269, 271, 272, 301, 310, 311, 336, 338, 339, 340 Jewish literature – composed in Hebrew 77–78, 196, 270,  271 – composed in Greek 61, 74, 77–82, 83 Judge – human 87, 95, 111, 112, 114–115, 116, 130, 152, 163, 192, 233–234, 257, 259, 260, 344–345, 358–359 – divine 112, 114, 116–117, 124, 125, 133, 134, 136–137, 152, 165, 166, 167,

442

Index of Subjects



181–182, 184, 189, 192, 201, 205, 222–223, 259, 260, 272, 277–278, 279 n19 Judgments – holy 253, 254, 255 – judicial 125, 151, 186, 193 – just/unjust 123, 234, 254, 260 Just, righteous 121, 124–125 Justice – judge as fountain of 257 – judicial/royal context 87 – legal/political/judicial contexts 105 Law of maximal redundancy 332 n139 Law-court context/imagery 113, 115, 117, 118 n21, 178 Legalism 2, 223–224, 340 Levirate marriage 171–173 Lexical concept 144, 148, 150, 151, 169, 188, 264 n200, 265, 266, 271 Lexical meaning – reference 62–65 – sense 61–65 – symbol 62–63 Lexical vs. discourse concepts 61–65 Luther Renaissance 20–21 n44 Luther’s doctrine of justification 20–23 – development of 20–21 n44 – “Gates of paradise” passage 22–23 Maccabean revolt 214–215 Macht 52 – die eschatologische Heilsmacht 51 – die Macht des schaffenden Gotteswort 48 – der Machtcharakter der Gabe 42 Martyrdom 114, 236 Mercy of God 2, 7, 12–13, 14, 22, 31, 40, 48, 119 n22, 140, 142, 142, 154, 155, 157, 158, 159, 160–161, 180, 181 n166, 185, 188, 189, 197, 198, 199, 204, 205–206, 207, 210, 211, 213, 214, 216–217, 224–225, 228, 231, 247, 260, 280, 308, 358, 367, 374, 382 Merit, meritorious 3, 11, 25–26, 28, 224, 250 n149, 256, 330 Monergism 13, 317–318 Moral and ethical qualities (semantic domain) 109, 121, 123–125

Moral philosophy, Hellenistic or Greco Roman 81–82, 235–238, 240, 252, 255, 258 Mosaic law 81, 91 – ancestral 211, 236, 340 – and Greco-Roman moral philosophy 81–82 – commandments 3, 164, 209, 213, 220, 225, 237, 244, 248–249, 266 n202, 314, 354, 366, 378, 381 – law-keeping 2, 213, 224, 225, 239, 324, 326, 341, 343 – social function of 3 Näherbestimmungen 318–334, 336, 339 New Perspective on Paul (NPP) 7–9, 11, 29, 44, 54, 56–60, 65, 334, 337, 338 – dependence on Cremer 7, 10, 60, 143, 156, 271 – influence of Käsemann on 39, 56, 60, 195 – introspective conscience of the West 1 – origin of the label 1 n1 – three pillars of 2–5 Nomistic soteriology 266 n201, 340–341 Normbegriff 34, 139, 163, 167, 170, 192, 195, 337, 338, 340 Obedience of Christ 25–27 Ogden-Richards Triangle 62–63 Old Testament thought/worldview 33, 52, 82 Ordnungsbegriff 52 Parallelism 65–68, 142–156, 165 n130, 170, 188, 204, 207, 274, 332 – and genus-species relationship 67 – antithetical parallelism 65–66, 293, 307, 335 – Kugel-Alter theory of parallelism 66, 155 – nuanced nature of 150, 156, 187 – parallelism as stereo vision 66, 143, 207 – parallelismus membrorum 65, 143, 204 – referential vs. semantic parallelism 165 n130 – rhetorical parallelism 268 n209 – synonymous parallelism 65–66, 150, 151 – synthetic (constructive) parallelism 65–66 Passions 236–238, 255 n169

Index of Subjects Paul – as Diaspora Jew 78–82 – use of Old Testament in Greek versus in Hebrew 81 – anti-nomistic polemic of 340 Peace with God 341, 342 n2 Pistis Christou debate 1 n1, 291, 329–334 Platonic philosophy 93–94, 102, 106 n94, 255 Polysemy 319 Post-exilic 7, 31 n89, 242 Précising terms 194 n1, 317, 319, 328 Promises of God 14, 173 Propitiation, propitiatory sacrifice 75, 280, 288, 289, 311, 325, 340, 341 Prozeß 45 Ptolemy II Philadelphus 248 n140, 249–250 Punishment, punitive, penal 16, 17, 22, 30, 31, 34 n102, 35, 36, 58, 76, 77, 82, 95, 112, 122, 123, 132, 133, 134–135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 149–151, 152, 155, 158, 168, 169, 178, 179, 181 n166, 182, 183, 186, 191, 195, 202, 205, 207, 211, 213, 215 n34, 220, 223, 226–227, 228, 231, 232, 234, 236, 238, 239, 246 n135 250, 251, 256, 259, 260, 261–262, 270, 271, 272, 279, 280, 282–283, 284, 285, 286, 288, 289, 293, 296, 307, 340, 348 n10, 365 Qumran – community 206 – sectarian writings 43, 50, 201, 232, 270 – Yahad 201, 202, 206, 207, 270 Rechtfertigungslehre 32, 54, 55, 59, 60, 194, 239, 248, 309, 310, 312, 316, 338 Rechtsstreit 45 Reconciliation with God 290, 294, 327, 341, 342 Redemptive or salvation history 266, 279–280, 286, 289 Reformation, Protestant – adumbrated 17 – and medieval interpretational tradition 9, 18 – and Patristic interpretational tradition 9, 18–19 – doctrine of justification 19, 194

443

– essential features 19 – on righteousness 24 Relationship with God 40, 41, 55, 164, 166, 341–342 Repentance 164, 165, 212–213, 225, 242, 265, 267 n206, 340 Righteousness – clothed with righteousness 111, 117, 130, 200, 208, 230, 344, 350–351, 358, 370, 379 n62 – correctness 77, 111, 112, 119, 196, 198, 200, 216, 219, 232, 262, 270, 271, 272, 295, 296, 344, 356–357, 358, 380 – distributive 134, 135, 225 – divinely-approved 273, 312, 315 n108, 316, 317, 336 – ethical righteousness 112, 117–119, 130, 131, 144, 165, 167, 195, 200, 201, 208, 213, 214, 215, 216, 220, 222, 225–226, 227, 228, 230–231, 235, 244, 245, 248, 251, 255, 258, 262, 263–264, 265, 267, 270–271, 311–312, 316, 340, 344, 349 n14, 351–355, 358, 367 n47, 368 n48, 371–379 – God’s attribute of 13, 32, 269, 312, 336 – impartation of 20, 58 – imputation of 7, 9, 19, 20–21 n44, 23–24, 25, 40, 58, 194, 266, 312 – infusion of 7, 9, 20 n44, 194 – legal righteousness 111, 112–117, 118, 119, 130, 131, 200, 208, 226, 344–351, 358–370 – light of 235, 242, 262 – mysteries of 253, 254 – righteousness before God 4, 8, 111, 118–119, 130, 148, 167, 194, 200, 208, 210, 213, 214, 215, 218, 225, 230, 231, 235, 245, 248, 262, 263, 269, 271, 304–305 n92, 311–312, 316, 325, 326, 338, 340, 341, 344, 354–355, 358, 369 n50, 373 n57, 378 n60 – ordinary/extraordinary 6–7, 315–316, 339 – the righteousness of faith vs. of the law 6, 11, 231–232, 239, 300, 315, 317, 322, 323–324, 335–336, 340–341 – the righteousness of God 112, 130, 132, 134, 143, 144, 158, 167, 178–192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198–200, 202, 204–205, 207, 208, 210, 211, 213, 214, 219–222,

444

Index of Subjects

223, 224, 225, 226, 230, 241–243, 245, 249, 250, 255, 257–258, 261, 263, 264–265, 266–269, 270, 271, 272–336, 337, 338, 339, 341, 342, 344, 348–350, 358, 360 n39, 363–368, 369 n52, 379 n62 – saving/delivering 8, 11, 35, 35–36, 75–76 n50, 82, 112, 132, 135, 144, 157–158, 185, 205, 222, 234, 255, 265, 268 n212, 269, 270, 282, 304, 310, 312, 338, 340 – vindication 111, 113, 116, 117, 130, 133, 134, 140, 141, 142, 145, 166, 182, 183–184, 186, 189–190, 191, 192, 195, 200, 204, 205, 206, 208, 214, 241–242, 262, 265, 271, 304, 308, 311, 344, 349, 350, 358, 369, 378 n59, 382 Ritschlian school 7, 32 n91, 33 Roman legal thought 37 Salvation 2, 12, 20, 29, 30, 33, 35, 36, 37, 42, 52, 54, 59 n224, 60, 117, 133, 135, 139, 140, 142, 143, 144–151, 153, 155, 156, 157, 167, 169, 178, 179, 180, 182–183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 190, 192, 205, 214 n31, 224, 235, 241, 242, 258, 264 n200, 265, 267, 270, 294, 296, 299, 300, 301, 308–309, 310, 318, 336, 338, 347, 348, 349, 350, 353, 355, 361, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 370, 374, 375, 378, 379 Satan, devil 73 n42, 114 n15, 205, 206, 243, 244, 245, 270, 311 Saving power 51, 58, 220–221, 242–243, 245, 296–311, 325, 336 Schöpfertum 48 Second Temple Judaism 47, 340, 341 Semantic – analysis 120, 160 – range 6, 64–65, 69, 82, 83, 86, 101, 104, 106 n94, 109, 111–119, 120, 126, 131, 196, 272, 282, 288, 319, 338 Semantic domains 109, 120–126, 139, 140 Semitisms, Semitic interference 233 Septuagint – essential literalism of 130 – stereotypical rendering of Hebrew in 157, 159 n111

Septuagintisms 233, 239, 247 n137 Sitz im Leben 87, 105, 186, 262, 341 Solar deities 242 n114 Soteriology, Jewish 223, 224–225, 266 n201 Stereotyped equivalents 71–74, 76, 161 Stoicism 211 Synonyms 67 Syntagmatic relations 270, 319, 320 n119, 328 Terminus technicus 3, 8 n22, 41, 46, 47, 48, 52, 53, 64, 72 Thoroughly positive (durchaus positiver) 31, 34–35, 82, 132–34, 140, 145, 167 182, 194–95, 202, 213, 228, 338, 340 Torah 72, 79, 113, 203, 211, 215 n34, 236, 248, 249, 252 n156, 253, 266, 275 Transformation, moral 21 n44, 55, 154, 155, 195, 214, 294, 342 Transformational grammar 112, 330 Translation theory – dynamic vs. formal equivalence 70, 71 – source language 70, 71, 72 – target language 70, 71, 72 Two spirits doctrine 240–241, 244 n122 Verdicts 50, 110, 112, 113, 116, 121, 123, 124, 133, 134, 163, 176, 182, 189, 193, 204, 205, 207, 228 n83, 231, 254, 260, 291, 341 Verhältnisbegriff 32, 34, 45, 49–50, 56, 59 n224, 82, 83, 132, 139, 166, 170, 177, 194–195, 196, 337, 339–340 Virtues, the four cardinal 81, 100, 235, 237, 240, 253, 255 Weltregierung 133 Works of the law 3–5, 225, 280, 306, 323, 324 n123, 326, 332 Wrath of God 31, 39, 51, 140, 181, 221, 263, 265, 273, 277–280, 297, 299–300, 311, 343 Zeal, Jewish 215, 217, 218, 231, 268 34, 337