Galatians 3:10
Hermen. Probs.: “Works of Law” #2. “Righteousness” #1
Pastor Martin continues his critique of the New Perspective on Paul, focusing on its misinterpretation of "works of the law" and "righteousness." He argues that Paul's polemic against "works of the law" in Galatians and Romans refers to perfect obedience to the ethical demands of the law, which fallen humanity is unable to render, leading to condemnation. Martin then begins to dismantle the New Perspective's redefinition of "righteousness" as mere covenant faithfulness or membership, demonstrating from the Old Testament that righteousness refers to conformity to God's objective moral standard for all creatures, and justification is a forensic declaration of that righteousness, not a subjective transformation or covenant status.
Primary Texts
Topics
Outline 12 sections · 74 min
- Critiquing the New Perspective on 'Works of the Law': Paul's Reasons for Condemnation 0:00
- Galatians 3:10: The Law's Demand for Perfect Obedience and the Curse 3:08
- Romans 3:20: Universal Sin and the Law's Role in Revealing Guilt 7:40
- Romans 7: The Law's Aggravation of Sin Due to Depravity 9:30
- Refuting Legalistic Obedience and Other Attempts to Include Works in Justification 12:57
- Paul's Other Epistles Confirm the Traditional View of Works 18:03
- Transition to Righteousness Terminology: Old Testament Background 20:32
- Critiquing the New Perspective's View of Old Testament Righteousness Language 30:19
- Righteousness in the Old Testament: Beyond Covenant Membership 37:41
- Justification in the Old Testament: A Forensic Declaration 46:34
- Discussion: The Standard of Righteousness Before the Mosaic Covenant 50:06
- Righteousness in Pauline Epistles: Active Righteousness and Contrast with Sin 64:37
Key Quotes
“Every rule whatsoever requires perfect conformity to itself. It is a contradiction to suppose otherwise. For to say that there is a law that does not require perfect conformity and perfect obedience to itself is to say that there is a law that does not require all that it requires.”
“His concern is not merely with the boundary markers of the law or its social function of excluding Gentiles from the people of God. When he says that no flesh will be justified by the works of the law, he is talking about obedience to the demands of the law as a whole, particularly with reference to its ethical claims upon mankind.”
“Why? Because to be justified on that basis we must be sinless and have rendered a perfect obedience to all that the law requires. This according to Paul and according to the scriptures as a whole is what no one has done or is able to do.”
“The fact that God and His righteousness is faithful to His covenant is not the same as saying that righteousness is faithful to His covenant. This is equivalent to His faithfulness to His covenant.”
“At root, however, the biblical concept of kingship, conception, bears a universal dimension. In biblical thought, righteousness has to do with what he calls creational theology. It is not just rooted in covenant with Israel. It is rooted in creation and God's relationship to man as his creature.”
“So, the word does not refer to a subjective transformation but to an objective judicial forensic declaration. It refers to righteousness not merely in the sense of declaring someone to be a loyal covenant member.”
“What's the standard on the basis of which they're wicked and they're sinners? What's the standard upon which Cain is condemned as a wicked man for murdering his brother Abel? The thoughts of the pre-flood generation being only evil continuously according to what standard?”
Applications
All listeners
- Christians are still obligated to obey the ethical demands of the law, and their obedience should be an evangelical obedience flowing from faith.
A full transcript is available on the tab. 194 paragraphs, roughly 74 minutes.
Critiquing the New Perspective on 'Works of the Law': Paul's Reasons for Condemnation
Okay, and then as we return to our study of the new perspective and our attempt to critique the new perspective and some of its major tenets, we are in a section where we are giving exegetical responses to some of the tenets of the new perspective, having pointed out some of the historical problems yesterday and some of the hermeneutical problems. We've taken up with exegetical problems, the first being this understanding of the works of the law in Paul when set opposite to justification by faith, this idea that the works of the law refer merely to Jewish boundary markers
or the social function of the law in separating Jew from Gentile. And so what we did yesterday, we got so far as to looking at the works of the law in Romans, and then we began to look at the works of the law in Galatians, and just looking at the context of the use of the term and how it is used in those letters to demonstrate that the traditional Reformed understanding is the correct understanding. And we're still doing that now. We come to Roman numeral three under this heading of exegetical problem number one, the works of the law.
Having looked at the works of the law in Romans and in Galatians, our third argument now, we want to look at the reason, the reasons Paul gives for why the works of the law cannot justify. So I'm not sure what page that is in your notes, but okay, page 64.
Why did Paul insist that by the works of the law, no flesh will be justified in his sight? What is the problem with the works of the law? According to the new perspective, the works of the law again refer to Jewish boundary markers, the social function of the law separating the Jew from the Gentile. So, of course, according to Wright and Dunn, when Paul argues that justification is not by the works of the law,
his problem with the law is its misuse to promote Jewish exclusivism. The law in terms of its boundary markers were being used as an instrument of Jewish exclusivism. But is that really the main problem that Paul finds when seeking to be justified by the works of the law? The Reformers, on the other hand, argue that the inadequacy of the works of the law for justification was rooted in the fact of human failure and the inability to keep the law.
They argue that rather than providing a means for justification, one of the purposes of the law is to condemn men as sinners, both Jews and Gentiles. It exposes and aggravates sin and shows men their need of Christ and of justification by faith in him and in his work alone. Were the Reformers right or is the new perspective right? Well, since we're already, or we're already in Galatians, let's begin there.
Galatians 3:10: The Law's Demand for Perfect Obedience and the Curse
What reasons does Paul give as to why no flesh will be justified by the deeds of the law in Galatians? I point you back to Galatians 3.10.
Galatians 3.10.
Here is one reason why.
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse. For it is written, Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.
The law in terms of its commands requires perfect, universal, perpetual obedience to all things that the law commands. And those who fail to render that obedience are under a curse apart from the gospel of justification by faith alone. Therefore, all who rely on the works of the law for justification are under the curse. Why?
The implication is that the reason is the failure and inability of anyone's faith. It is the failure of anyone to do what the law requires. Now, someone may say, Oh, but the law never requires perfect, perpetual obedience. It only requires sincere or evangelical obedience, the sincere believing effort to obey all that it requires.
But that's not what the text here says. Cursed is everyone who does not continue perpetual obedience in all things, universal obedience, which are written in the book of the law to do them actual obedience. Not merely to intend to do them or to sincerely try to do them, but to do them. This is not just the teaching of this text.
God has always required from his creatures perpetual obedience. See, for example, Ezekiel 18, 24, and 26. Universal obedience. One of many texts that comes to mind that I just stuck in my notes here is James 2.10.
If a man is guilty at one point, he is guilty of all. James says, Perfect obedience, the very fact that any violations of the law in thought, word, or deed are defined as sin, which makes men subject to punishment, demonstrates this, and actual obedience. For anyone to say that the law requires anything less than perfect actual obedience to what it requires, now just even think about that statement. That the law requires anything less than perfect actual obedience to what it requires is the same as saying that the law does not require what it requires.
When God says you shall not murder, really he means you shall sincerely endeavor not to murder.
You shall not murder too often. When he says you shall not steal, he really means it should not be your habit to steal. It should be your sincere desire and intention to not steal. And even though you may sometimes steal, that's okay if it is generally not your habit to do it and it's your desire and intent to follow God.
But no, when God says you shall not do something, he means you shall not do it at all, ever. And when he says that you must do something, he means that you must do it at all, ever. And you must never fail to do it when duty requires it. For example, when God says that you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, to ever fail to do that is sin.
And it is never okay to sin. The soul that sins shall die. The wages of sin is death. Listen to Edwards commenting on this.
I quoted this yesterday. Every rule whatsoever requires perfect conformity to itself. It is a contradiction to suppose otherwise. For to say that there is a law that does not require perfect conformity and perfect obedience to itself is to say that there is a law that does not require all that it requires.
Well, I would argue that this is the very point Paul is making. Justification cannot be by the works of the law because the law, in terms of its commands, requires perfect obedience and curses those who do not render it apart from sinners being justified by faith alone in Christ. The law simply curses those who do not obey it. Perfectly.
Since no man has or is able to render a perfect obedience to the law, those who rely on the works of the law for justification are under the curse. So the problem lies in the failure and inability of anyone to do what the law requires.
Romans 3:20: Universal Sin and the Law's Role in Revealing Guilt
We have the same emphasis back in Romans 3. We'll turn back there.
Just giving you some examples.
Romans 3.20, which we looked at yesterday, Paul says in verse 24, by the deeds of the law, no flesh will be justified in his sight. Why?
Well, remember the preceding context back up in verse 9. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. No flesh can be justified by the deeds of the law because all have sinned. We've already blown it.
Verse 10, there is none righteous, no, not one. And then Paul goes on quoting from different passages of Old Testament Scripture to prove his point that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Not just Gentiles, but the Jews as well. Notice again, the imagery that he uses in verse 19.
It's the imagery of the law court. The imagery is that of the whole world standing in the courtroom of God. And who is the prosecutor in the courtroom? The prosecutor is the law, the ceremonial law.
Merely? No, the law in terms of its ethical claims upon all mankind. And so compelling and unanswerable is the prosecutor's case that every mouth is stopped or silenced and the whole world becomes guilty before God. So, Paul says, in verse 20, that by the deeds of the law, no flesh will be justified in his sight.
And then he adds, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. One purpose of the law is to define sin and to show men that they are sinners. It cannot serve as a means of justification. It serves to condemn us and to cause us to see our guilt and our lost condition.
And then Paul goes on to explain in the verses that follow that the only way we can find forgiveness and justification is through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and the work of God. And the work that he has done on behalf of sinners.
Romans 7: The Law's Aggravation of Sin Due to Depravity
Well, if the reason we cannot be justified by the deeds of the law is our failure and inability to keep the law and the fact that the law condemns us and shows us our sin, the deeds of the law in these references cannot be reduced to the social function of the law in terms of Jewish boundary markers. Furthermore, Paul goes even further in Romans 7. Let's turn over to Romans 7. Again, I can't take the time to read this.
Open all this up in detail, but at least point you in the right direction.
Romans 7. He tells us here that though the law itself is holy and good, yet due to human depravity, it is completely powerless to produce what it commands. In fact, it only aggravates human sin and only stimulates men to further sinfulness. Notice what Paul says beginning in verse 7 of Romans chapter 7.
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not. On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law.
For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said you shall not covet. But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law, sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.
And the commandment which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me and by it killed me. Therefore, the law is holy and the commandment holy and just and good. Has then what is good become death to me?
Certainly not. But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good. That is the law. So that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful.
And here Paul tells us that the law in and of itself is good and holy. But due to the depravity of the human heart, its demands only serve to expose sin and even to stir up the passions of our hearts to even more sin. And in that way, the law of God kills us. It leaves us lost, dead, condemned, and helpless to deliver ourselves from its guilt and power.
And he specifically highlights here the command, you shall not covet, which certainly is not a boundary marker issue there. And thereby also underscores that the demands of the law extend further and deeper than just the outward actions they extend to the desires of the heart. So why will no flesh be justified by the works of the law? We've considered some of the reasons that Paul gives, all of which prove again that the new perspective's understanding of Paul's polemic against the works of the law is completely off the mark.
His concern is not merely with the boundary markers of the law or its social function of excluding Gentiles from the people of God. When he says that no flesh will be justified by the works of the law, he is talking about obedience to the demands of the law as a whole, particularly with reference to its ethical claims upon mankind. And the reason no man will be justified by the deeds of the law is that the law condemns us all as sinners in God's sight, both Jews and Gentiles. Furthermore, such is our lost condition that not only have we failed to obey the law, we are morally unable to do so.
Refuting Legalistic Obedience and Other Attempts to Include Works in Justification
And even if we could, our future obedience could never remove the guilt of our past transgressions. Now, some argue that it's only a legalistic obedience to the law that Paul excludes from being the ground of justification, particularly one of the men we considered this week, Daniel Fuller, and some of that's already been opened up. It's only an obedience that's out of a sinful motive of seeking to bribe God, as it were. However, they argue that evangelical obedience or believing obedience is not excluded from being either the ground of our justification or from, in some sense, being the condition of our justification, while I trust that that view has been satisfactorily and even above
satisfactorily destroyed really in our minds. I do want you to just look at the footnote at the bottom. I comment a little bit about Daniel Fuller.
And if you skip down past where it says Westminster Theological Journal,
so Fuller argues that works of the law refer to legalism or a legalistic attempt to bribe God to show one's favor, not to the attempt to obey the law in and of itself. This is a position different from the new perspective, but also different from the traditional Reformed understanding. Paul opposes works of the law not merely with respect to an attempt to bribe God from a legalistic mindset, though he would and does oppose that, but simply on the basis of the fact of the sinful failure and inability of men to do what the law requires. Fuller's idea, in effect at least, would allow for a justification at least partly based on works so long as those works were believing works and not legalistically minded works.
But not only are the works of the unregenerate excluded as being any part of the basis of our justification, the works of the regenerate are as well. See Ephesians 2, 8-10. Also Romans 4, where Abraham is spoken of regarding God's declaration concerning him which was made in Genesis long after he was regenerate, believing man, yet respecting his justification, he was declared righteous apart from works and as ungodly. And then I reference some different things that address that.
I reference Pastor Waldron's at that time unpublished dissertation. But what I want you to notice is what I say about the works of John Owen.
John Owen addresses and refutes the following three related arguments in the context of addressing other attempts to get around Paul's exclusion of works. This is a quote, so these sub-points are his sub-points and you know how they can be kind of confusing. Three. Some have laid among ourselves and they want not them who have gone before them affirm that the works of the law which the apostle excludes from justification are only the outward works of the law performed without an inward principle of faith, fear, or love of God.
He then proceeds to give four arguments of refutation. Five. Some say that it is works with a conceit of merit that makes the reward to be a debt and not of grace that are excluded by the apostle. He then gives five arguments of refutation.
Six. Some contend that the apostle excludes only works wrought before believing in the strength of our own wills and natural abilities without the aid of grace. To this he gives ten more arguments and refutation. Just a reminder that there is nothing new under the sun and it might do some of our moderns much good to read the oft-forgotten Puritan theologian par excellence John Owen.
There is no reference to Owen in either the bibliography or index of names in Fuller's book Gospel and Law Contrast or Continuum perhaps in others of his works that I have not looked at. He does interact with Owen. One other comment that is interesting that in defending his view of the works of the law in Westminster Theological Journal referenced above Fuller expounds Galatians 3 10 through 12 with no mention of verse 13. The same is true of his book Gospel and Law Contrast or Continuum.
Now Dr. Walter would know if there is at some point where he does take up verse 13 probably in his teaching but he doesn't in those books. I couldn't find it. Okay.
So it's not merely legalistic obedience that Paul excludes. That of course is excluded but Paul excludes obedience to the demands of the law period.
Now this is not to say that Paul excludes Christians from the obligation to obey the ethical demands of the law. Reformed theology has argued that the law in its ethical and moral demands is still the rule of life for the Christian. Likewise the Christian's obedience is to be an evangelical obedience flowing from faith. But obedience to the law of any kind for whatever reason or motive will never justify before God has no part as the basis by which God justifies sinners.
Why? Because to be justified on that basis we must be sinless and have rendered a perfect obedience to all that the law requires. This according to Paul and according to the scriptures as a whole is what no one has done or is able to do. In God's sight we are all sinners and under wrath and a sinner is someone who has not lived up to the ethical claims of God upon men which are given their most focused expression in his law.
Paul's Other Epistles Confirm the Traditional View of Works
So the reformers were right and the new perspective is wrong. And now I draw your attention to one final line of evidence. Fourthly, the statements Paul makes about works in his other epistles.
There are especially three passages that are relevant to our discussion of what Paul means when he excludes works with respect to justification. All of them support the traditional view. One is Ephesians 2, 8 and 9. You can probably quote that yourselves.
For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God not of works lest any man should boast. The second is 2 Timothy 1, 9 who has saved us and called us not according to our works but by grace but according to his own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began and the third is Titus 3, 5-7 not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us. He goes on to say that having been justified by his grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Now without taking the time to open up each of those texts let me remind you that Dunn argues that works of the law
does not mean good works performed in order to have or achieve salvation or to achieve righteousness but he is at least honest enough to concede that the three texts I just quoted support the traditional viewpoint. He does concede that. The way he and some other new perspective scholars not all but the way some of them get around that is by denying or seriously questioning whether the Apostle Paul is the real author of those three epistles. Ephesians is a special text and sometimes it's not even considered in these discussions about the Apostle Paul's doctrine of justification because they cast doubt on the authorship Paul's authorship
of Ephesians and also 2nd Timothy and Titus. Well for those of us who have no such dispute by Dunn's own confession those three texts undermine his interpretation of Paul. Well we've considered the first exegetical problem with a new perspective its interpretation of Paul's revelation to the works of the law. Now we're ready to consider a second exegetical problem the new perspective's interpretation of the righteousness terminology of the Bible.
Transition to Righteousness Terminology: Old Testament Background
Any comments before we move on? Yes. The other day Eddie asked me to comment on how the exposition of the covenant of works that he gave in his paper is relevant to that covenant between Paul and God. Well one of the ways which is relevant is that it bears witness to the demand of God for perfect and perpetual obedience.
The test of the test of the probation regarding the tree was not meant to annul the other demands that God made on Adam to the law written in his heart. It was simply made to bring that obedience that he was generally obliged to give to focused expression in a consecrated way that would allow the probation not to last for an excessively long time or forever. And so clearly the covenant of works bears witness to this demand for perpetual entire exact and complete obedience. Because one transgression brought death and brought the violation of the covenant.
What strikes me too is that that's relevant to the Mosaic covenant because even though the Mosaic covenant provides means for the forgiveness of sins of the sacrifices that point to the work of Christ the backdrop and assumption of those sacrifices and means is the demand for perfect perpetual exact and entire obedience. And that demand is something that does descend from the original demands made on Adam. Even though the specific concentrated test or probation that was placed upon Adam is of course no longer relevant to us.
So I just I didn't feel like I gave a response to that question the other day as I would like to have but I think this helps us to see what it is.
Questions, comments? Well, and let me just say that this is why that in Galatians I think the direction that I know you and I think I would like to go in terms of understanding the way Paul refers to the law in Galatians as the Mosaic covenant is required perfect for perpetual obedience is that that hypothetical demand for perfect perpetual exact and entire obedience was always there in the Mosaic covenant but was mollified by the existence of the shadowy sacrifices that pointed to Christ. Well, once however that covenant is embraced after Christ is come and in the context of rejection of Christ all that's left of that covenant is the hypothetical or backdrop
demand for perfect obedience that was there the whole time. And so I think that is really helpful in understanding how Paul is using the Mosaic covenant and why he can't use it the way he does against the Judaizers in Galatians.
If you take justification by faith alone out of the Mosaic covenant and all you have are demands and commands you're left with the necessity of perfect obedience to those commands in order to be justified.
It strikes me that that was really easy to say but it's been very hard for me to come to be able to see that in the context of this.
I do think that that's substantially what you have done.
It's kind of a you know there's a distinction that has to be made between what evidence is a person to be a faithful member a faithful to the covenant and a perfect perpetual sinless obedience is not a necessary evidence of one being faithful to the covenant.
A man who was a righteous man a faithful Mosaic covenant person to God was a man who was resting in God's mercy alone for justification and acceptance with God while at the same time flowing out of that faith was a sincere endeavor to obey God's commandments even though he did not do so perfectly but that obedience to God's commandments was not the basis of his justification. If you take that out justification by faith alone out of that equation and you're left with the necessity of rendering a perfect obedience in order to be accepted that's what you're saying right?
Does that make sense to you guys? Do you understand that? Yeah? I thought I'd know if it's clear enough but has anybody done any work to just look in the Old Testament to different examples of God helping in judgment in the context they may have been fulfilling the boundary markers perfectly but I'm thinking like Eli's sons were there or something like that.
Well there's certainly a strand of thought in the prophets where they'll make these strong statements as though God never even established any ceremonial law. As I said God doesn't care about your sacrifices and all these things what God desires is and then they speak of ethical demands of God's law. And I still am old fashioned enough to believe that you can demonstrate from the scriptures that there's a three-fold division of the Old Testament law and I believe you can demonstrate from the Old Testament that even in the mind of the Jew he recognized that there was a peculiar importance attached to the ethical demands of the law. I think that's even there's many texts that come I think of David's prayer
when his prayer of repentance in Psalm 51 sacrifice and offering you do not require but a broken spirit and a contrite heart oh God. And he recognized that there's a distinction between that which is ceremonial and that which is ethical and moral.
Okay. Let's move on. I said old fashioned enough but the reason I said that is because that whole idea is really just not very popular anymore today and if you believe that you're almost viewed as like a relic of you know the dark ages or something if you believe in the three-fold distinction and division in the law. Okay.
Problem two righteousness terminology and here I'm talking about those words which have the Greek root dick. Righteous righteousness justify obviously in Greek justify is related to righteousness has the same root but unfortunately that's not obvious in English. Perhaps we should come up with a new word the word rightified or the word justified. I guess not but at any rate I don't think that would probably ever go over but at any rate these are the words that I'm describing righteousness terminology righteous righteousness justify justified now as we saw earlier according to the advocates of the new perspective such as N.T. Wright
the righteousness terminology of the New Testament is to be understood against the background of God's covenant relationship to his people. The righteousness of God it is argued refers to God's covenant faithfulness to his covenant promises. When speaking of the righteousness of men it refers to covenant membership righteousness is covenant member status as it relates to justification to be justified is therefore to be declared or recognized as a member of the covenant or to be counted or recognized as one who is faithful to one's covenant relationship with God. Now this understanding of the righteousness terminology of the Bible is in contrast with the reformation understanding.
According to the reformed view God's righteousness in the first place refers to his moral character and actions as one who always and actively does what is right and requires that his creatures conform to what is right. It refers to his moral character by which he demands that conduct from his creatures that conforms to the standard of his holy law and by which he rewards or punishes accordingly. When it comes to the justification of sinners who are by definition unrighteous God's righteousness sometimes refers to that gift of a right standing or gift of righteousness that he gives to sinners who believe on Christ. Because the perfect obedience and sacrifice of Christ fully satisfy the demands of God's righteousness those who believe on Christ receive the free gift
of God's righteousness in Christ. They are justified which according to Reformation theology means they are declared righteous in the sense of having fully met the objective norms and demands of God for men on the basis of an alien righteousness that is external to them and counted theirs. Thus when it comes to men righteousness refers to conformity to what God requires of men as creatures created in his image. So, which view is correct?
How do we understand the righteousness terminology of the Bible the New Testament? Is it true that the righteousness of God refers to his covenant faithfulness as the New Perspective argues? And is it true that righteousness of men and justification mean nothing more than covenant membership? Well, here's the outline you see the outline that I'll be following and we begin with the Old Testament background of the terminology.
Critiquing the New Perspective's View of Old Testament Righteousness Language
The New Perspective presents its understanding as being more consistent with the Old Testament roots of the New Testament language. The Hebrew words translated righteous, righteousness are generally translated in the Septuagint by the same Greek words translated that way in the New Testament. So, let's consider the language of righteousness in the Old Testament both with reference to God and man. First, righteousness language in general.
When you look at the Old Testament it is true that there are a number of texts in which God's righteousness is spoken of in a context in which it is connected with His faithfulness to His people. Certainly, because God is righteous He is faithful to His covenant promises. But that's not the same thing as saying that God's righteousness means covenant faithfulness. Do you understand what I'm saying?
Because He's righteous certainly He's faithful. But that doesn't mean that righteousness equals covenant faithfulness. The fact that God and His righteousness is faithful to His covenant is not the same as saying that righteousness is faithful to His covenant. This is equivalent to His faithfulness to His covenant.
Likewise, those of God's people who are faithful to His covenant may sometimes be spoken of as righteous. Righteous in a qualified sense though not sinless. However, that does not mean that righteousness is only used in that way or that it means nothing more than covenant membership. It would take us well beyond the time allotted for our study to look carefully at all the relevant texts or to survey all the studies that have been done on this which refute this broad brushed definition of God's righteousness.
Mark Seifert gives a very detailed study of the righteousness language in the Hebrew Scriptures in Volume 1 of Justification and Variegated Gnomism. He has gone into some detail demonstrating the righteousness word group in the Hebrew Scriptures bears the idea of accordance with a norm. And he seeks to demonstrate and does very well demonstrate the inadequacy of righteousness in the Old Testament being understood merely as God's covenant faithfulness or as covenant membership. Others have done the same.
Let me briefly summarize some of the chief arguments against the new perspective understanding of the Old Testament language. First of all,
the idea that the word group always has reference to a covenant relationship is contradicted by its application at times to inanimate objects. For example, in Leviticus 19.36 we read of just or honest scales. In our English translations actually we have there the Hebrew word righteous, tzadak.
We read of just of righteous scales, righteous weights, a righteous ephah, and a righteous hen. There the term righteous clearly has nothing to do with faithfulness to a covenant relationship. The references to scales and weights, et cetera, which meet up to the divine standard of honesty and integrity.
Secondly, references to righteousness and the word covenant are rarely found in close proximity to each other. The word covenant, barith, is found 28 times in the Old Testament and righteous terminology is found some 524 times yet making every generous allowance in only 7 passages do the terms come into any significant semantic contact.
That's what? What did I say? I'm sorry, it's 284. Yeah, thank you for pointing that out.
That's what I have in my notes too. I don't know why I said that. 284 times in the Old Testament. Righteousness terminology 524 times but only 7 passages do they come into any significant semantic contact.
Thirdly, in Old Testament terms, one generally does not act righteously or unrighteously with respect to a covenant. Instead, the scripture speaks of keeping or remembering or establishing a covenant or a covenant is spoken of as something one breaks, transgresses, forsakes, despises, forgets, or profanes. Charges of covenant unfaithfulness are sometimes found in the form of family metaphors. In contrast, the righteousness language appears a few times with reference to social relations and I give some examples there.
Yet, as Seyfried comments, it is more frequently found in parallel with terms for rectitude or in opposition to terms for evil expressing approbation or condemnation. 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 and I give a long list of scripture references and confirmation of this at footnote 186.
Fourthly, divine righteousness is often spoken of in punitive terms and each time in a judicial context. God is described as righteous in His role as judge who rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked. In other words, righteousness is not merely a reference to the saving activity of God with reference to His covenant. It is often used with reference to retributive justice in terms of the covenant.
In other words, in terms of His judgeship over all mankind. And again, I give a list of scripture references and confirmation of this. Fifthly,
righteousness language in the Old Testament has to do in the first place with man and his relationship to God as creator, not merely to God in covenant. For example, while it is relatively rare to find righteousness mentioned together with covenant, it is very common to find it associated with the vocabulary of ruling and judging. They occur in close proximity, that is, within five words of each other and 142 contexts. Making this observation,
Seyfried then comments that since kingship obviously includes the making of covenants, it is not surprising that ruling and judging sometimes has to do with the covenant with Israel and with David in particular. At root, however, the biblical concept of kingship, conception, bears a universal dimension. In biblical thought, righteousness has to do with what he calls creational theology. It is not just rooted in covenant with Israel.
It is rooted in creation and God's relationship to man as his creature. Venema comments on this connection of righteousness language to the ordering of the affairs of creation and to God's activity as judge. He says, When God acts righteously, he does more than act in accord with a general kind of covenant faithfulness or saving intention. He rules and orders the affairs of his creation and of his human image bearers, particularly, in a way that is right and that accords with his own righteous character.
Thus, it is in righteousness that God punishes the wicked and secures the salvation of the righteous. God's righteousness is an expression of his kingly and judicial dominion over the creation and all its creatures. Because God is righteous, in this sense, he rules and administers the circumstances of his creatures in a way that is just.
Righteousness in the Old Testament: Beyond Covenant Membership
Sixthly, the fallacy of the reductionistic understanding of righteousness advocated by the new perspective is further indicated as we move over now to righteousness with reference to men by the Old Testament descriptions of righteousness to human beings prior to or unassociated with any covenant that he has made with them. Now, remember, we're dealing with this language as it's in the Old Testament right now. We're going to move over to the New Testament in a moment. For example, both Noah and Abraham are described as righteous prior to God's establishing a covenant with either of them.
Before God makes a covenant with Noah, he is described in Genesis 6-9 as a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Also, before God actually formally makes a covenant with Abraham, we read in Genesis 15-6 that Abraham believed in the Lord and he credited it to him for righteousness.
Notice the footnote. Though God made promises to Abraham prior to this, as far back as chapter 12, there's no mention of God making a covenant with him until chapter 15, verse 8. Now, it must be acknowledged that neither Abraham nor Noah were righteous in the sense of being sinlessly perfect. However, the language in referring to Noah assumes that righteousness was the basic orientation of his life.
With Abraham, we are told that righteousness is credited or imputed to him. Perhaps the reference to Noah is speaking of imputed righteousness as well, or it may contain both ideas, perfect righteousness imputed to him and righteous living as the basic orientation of his life. Regardless, the point for now is that the righteousness ascribed to these men was prior to God's establishing any covenant with either of them. Therefore, righteousness cannot be reduced to mean nothing more than covenant faithfulness or covenant membership.
Likewise, God told Abraham that if he could find just a few righteous men in Sodom and Gomorrah, he would spare the cities. Abraham's prayer for Sodom in Genesis 18, 23 and following was based upon the appeal, would you destroy the righteous with the wicked? God had declared that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was great. The inhabitants were wicked.
Abraham prays that God would spare the city if he could find 50 righteous in it or 40 or 30 or 20. And then his final appeal is that God would spare them if he could find 10 righteous persons. Now, notice several things here.
First, as is repeatedly the case in the Old Testament, being righteous is contrasted with being sinful and wicked. Two, the concepts of sin and wickedness, those concepts predate God's covenant with Israel.
Of course, we see that throughout the book of Genesis. The wickedness of the inhabitants of those cities involves sin against an objective norm of what is expected by God of men as creatures, not merely in terms of any special, his special covenant relationship with Israel. Three, the assumed possibility of there being righteous persons in Sodom also, had nothing to do with faithfulness to any special covenant relationship they sustained to God. The finding of righteous men in Sodom and Gomorrah was at least assumed in principle to be possible, assumed in principle, even though the people of those cities were never party to any covenant God made with Israel.
Furthermore, neither Job nor Noah were Israelites. They are named along with Daniel as righteous men in Ezekiel 14, 14 and 20. Clearly, their righteousness is not referring to covenant membership or to being faithful to the covenant God established with Israel. Daniel in Daniel 4, 27 can call upon Nebuchadnezzar to break off his sins by being righteous.
However, Nebuchadnezzar was no party to God's covenant with Israel. Thus, there again, being righteous does not mean being faithful to the covenant or covenant membership. Then there is the running contrast between the righteous and the wicked throughout the book of Proverbs. Over and over we see this contrast.
In fact, there is no book in the Bible which uses the language of righteousness more frequently than the book of Proverbs. Yet, it could be argued at least, it has been argued that the book of Proverbs is tied to creational, universal wisdom rather than merely to a covenant with Israel. Now, that's debatable and I'm not willing to necessarily say to determine that question dogmatically, but it's another argument for consideration. And that's some, one of you guys could write a paper on that.
The use of righteousness language in the book of Proverbs.
Seventhly, the Old Testament clearly indicates that a person may be a covenant member and yet not be righteous. Look at Deuteronomy 9 as an example of this.
Here we see that being a party to the covenant and a legitimate member of God's covenant people does not mean that one is righteous and is in fact distinguished from being righteous. Notice in verses four and five how God underscores that Israel's reception of covenant privilege and blessing and fulfillment of God's covenant with their fathers was not based on the fact that they were righteous. Do not think in your heart after the Lord your God has cast them out before you saying because of my righteousness the Lord has brought me in to possess this land but it is because of the wickedness of these nations. Now, let me just point out that you have a contrast here between righteousness and wickedness.
The wickedness of those nations. Wait a minute, I'm getting ahead of myself. I'll get to that. Sorry.
I'll just look down my nose and say I'm getting ready to say that anyhow so just wait. But it's because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is driving out from before you. It is not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you go in to possess their land but because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord your God drives them out from before you and that he may fulfill the word which the Lord swore to your fathers to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Okay, notice here first that the term righteousness is contrasted again in these verses with the term wickedness.
More specifically and importantly it is contrasted with the wickedness of the heathen nations who by the way were parties to no covenant with Israel. Thus, righteousness is behavior that is not wicked, behavior that is not evil and sinful. It is the opposite of wickedness as defined apart from any reference to God's covenant with Israel. You see what I'm saying there?
Notice secondly that covenant privilege for Israel was not based on their righteousness and being in covenant did not convey righteousness to them. Though parties to the covenant and members of the covenant they were on the whole unrighteous. Furthermore, and therefore righteousness does not equal covenant membership. Indeed, God goes on to say that in contrast with being righteous Israel, his old covenant people, covenant members were a stubborn or stiff-necked people.
Verse 6, Therefore understand that the Lord your God is not giving you this good land because of your righteousness for you are a stiff-necked people. Eighthly,
while sometimes referring to men as righteous either in the qualified sense of the basic orientation of the life or in the sense of righteousness being credited to them, the Old Testament also affirms that ultimately no one is righteous. No one in themselves is truly righteous in God's sight. For example, Psalm 143.2 Do not enter into judgment with your servant for in your sight no one living is righteous.
Ecclesiastes 7.20 For there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin. See also the several scripture references that I list there for you. These reminders sprinkled throughout the Old Testament that ultimately no one is truly righteous before God certainly demonstrate again that righteousness by definition pertains to doing what one ought to do or conforming to God's objective standard for his creatures.
If it simply means faithfulness to one's covenant relationship to God or covenant membership it could not be said that ultimately no one in God's sight is truly righteous. All Israelites were covenant members and a few were indeed faithful to the covenant but ultimately the Old Testament affirms that in God's sight no one living is righteous. So my point in all of this has been to demonstrate that to be righteous or to have righteousness is not merely that which a person has who is recognized as being a member of the covenant people whether a faithful member or a faithful member of the covenant people. Righteousness is a matter of conforming to an objective norm established by God.
Justification in the Old Testament: A Forensic Declaration
Now let's look secondly and more specifically at the term justification or to justify in the Old Testament. What does it mean to justify in the Old Testament? Well, in Old Testament usage of that language. Let me give you some examples.
We read in Deuteronomy 25.1 if there is a dispute between men and they come to court that the judge may judge them and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked then it shall be and so on. Notice first that the context is a legal context, a forensic context. The context is one of the courtroom.
A judgment is to be rendered by the judges. Second, we are told that it is the duty of judges to justify the righteous and to condemn the wicked. So to justify is set in contrast with condemning. To justify is the opposite of condemning someone.
Also, the righteous are set in contrast with the wicked. To be wicked is to be guilty of behavior deserving of condemnation, behavior that demands punishment. To be righteous is to be free from wicked behavior and therefore free from condemnation. Third, to justify here clearly means to declare or judge someone as righteous.
Righteous in the sense of free from sin in the matter in question. The issue is one of doing what one ought to do, doing what is right over against doing what one ought not to do, doing what is wrong and wicked. Furthermore, justification here clearly does not mean to make someone righteous. The judge does not make the accused righteous or wicked.
He declares him to be either righteous or wicked. If justify means to actually make righteous, why would it be the judge's duty to condemn the wicked? Why not make them righteous too? That would be an even more wonderful thing to do.
No, this is not the function of judges nor do they have the ability to make men righteous. The meaning is simply that the judges were to give a just and true judgment. They were to declare righteous and not guilty those who were in fact righteous and they were to condemn the wicked.
Another example, consider Proverbs 17, 15. He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord. They are an abomination to the Lord. They are an abomination to the Lord.
What does it mean there to justify the wicked? Does it mean to make him righteous? Well, if so, would God say that it's an abomination to do that? Surely not.
To make a criminal into a righteous man, that would be a great thing if he could do that. What is an abomination is to declare a criminal righteous when he's not. The abomination in view is to render a judicial decision, to make a judicial judgment and declaration that is contrary to the truth. Notice also here that to justify is set forth as the opposite of condemn.
These are just some examples. What we find is that justification is set forth as a legal judgment and declaration and as the opposite of condemnation. I give several other references. So, the word does not refer to a subjective transformation but to an objective judicial forensic declaration.
It refers to righteousness not merely in the sense of declaring someone to be a loyal covenant member. We've also seen but in the sense of declaring someone to be not guilty of wicked behavior deserving of punishment, behavior that is judged on the basis of an objective norm and standard that God has established for his creatures. Yes? May I add something?
Discussion: The Standard of Righteousness Before the Mosaic Covenant
Yes. It's interesting you're justifying that's in the context also of Solomon praying for wisdom, the knowledge of good and evil that he might judge accordingly. This touches back with the conversation the other night of the book The Knowledge of Good and Evil is the judicial power not only to discern good and evil in the sense of ethical discernment but rather with a view to making them a judicial pronouncement. This is evil, you're condemned, this is good, you're right.
That's good. I have a problem with that. Yes? I have a question.
I mean, this is excellent stuff in terms of showing that righteousness is not the bond of covenant category. But I do have a question about page 73 with regard to Noah and Abraham. Okay. This is attributed to them.
And you make the point that they're described as righteous prior to God's establishing covenant. You doubt that. Aren't,
but don't we have, clearly they're not righteous in terms of the strict demands of the law.
And the term righteous begs the question I think, and I'm asking if you would agree on how you would answer this. Righteous, begs the question, righteousness in terms of what?
How would you answer that question? How, Noah and Abraham, what were they righteous in terms of? Because it certainly wasn't in terms of the strict demands of the law.
No, when you say it wasn't in terms of the strict demands of the law, are you meaning that you're saying that they were not perfectly righteous? Or do you mean that there was some other standard other than the law? No, what I'm saying is that you make the point that your other statement is the ultimate, that no one is righteous in terms of the strict demands of God's law. But you have Noah and Abraham where righteousness was attributed to them.
And we can't say that that was righteousness in terms of the Abrahamic covenant.
So we have to ask, so to me it's natural to ask righteousness in terms of what then? Right. Yeah, well what I would say, I kind of brushed by that really quickly, but I made the comment that Abraham's righteousness is imputed.
Right? And I think that righteousness there, speaking of a perfect righteousness that Abraham was credited with righteousness. Now when you go to Noah, it may be referring to the basic orientation of his life, but it could be referring, it could be a forensic reference to righteousness. I don't know.
I don't know. In the case of whoever doesn't have assumed some arrangement in terms of which they are righteous? Some. And so what is that arrangement with?
Some standard. Yeah. Yeah. Well, it's always been my understanding that the Ten Commandments are revealed in Scripture before you get to Moses.
And I believe you can trace that out through the book of Genesis, that there was, for example, I mean, just one thing that comes right off my top of my head is Cain. It was a sin for Cain to murder, but there were no Ten Commandments. And it was, there was the law created in the heart, the work of the law written in the heart. There were the creation ordinances that were established by God.
And God in his judgments throughout the book of Genesis reveals this. It's the same kind of question you run into when you get to Romans 5, too, when Paul can say that where there is no law, sin is not imputed, yet at the same time we see God destroying the whole world with a flood before the law was ever given because of their wickedness. So obviously there was some I don't understanding of God's objective standard of righteousness that men had before the Mosaic law was actually given and codified and the Ten Commandments were given in written form.
That's basically all I can say. It's a good question. What would you say to that? What's your thought about it?
Thank you. I was thinking about this in terms of this famous statement, too, about Zachariah. There was this in the New Testament. Yeah.
They walked on all the commandments of the law. Blameless, I think, as you can attribute, righteousness to them. I think everything they do with one-sixth does. But at any rate, but then I could say, well, their righteousness was in terms of being faithful keepers of the Mosaic covenant.
And then it becomes a redemptive form of righteousness or righteousness on the basis of some redemptive arrangement. Right? I guess what I'm trying to get at is it seems to me that we almost have to assume some sort of redemptive arrangement in terms of which they were righteous.
Because they weren't righteous in terms of the strict demands of God's law. that doesn't mean we have to think.
The reason is the question, is there some covenant in terms of which they're righteous if it was a redemptive arrangement? It could only have been a redemptive arrangement in terms of which they were righteous. Right? Because they weren't righteous in terms of the strict demands of God's law.
Right. Unless it's speaking of righteousness forensically. Well, even then, however, there has to be a standard. In other words, there's some redemptive arrangement, some status.
Do you follow me? Yeah. It's kind of the question that Alan was asking last night. We were talking at the house when he was preaching on Abraham and he got to the text in Genesis 15 and then you get to the question of what exactly was that righteousness that was credited to Abraham.
What was it?
Righteousness according to what standard? That's the question, right?
I think, you know, what I want to say is that there must be some redemptive arrangement. It must be the messianic administration or something. But then I'm confronted with a problem. It must be a righteousness in terms of the grace.
Well, what about the initial covenant? What about the initial promise in Genesis 3.15? Righteousness in terms of that.
The promise that the seed of the woman would crush the serpent's head. But again, you have the gospel promise there, but what's the standard by which one would be defined as righteous?
You get the answer? If you were to view a command in scripture as a promise and a promise,
if that would set an answer to that question, but then I would have to think you'd have to draw in a measure of obedience and that those who walk because of their obedience to the command given or to the promise,
then those who don't, there's a curse. So you have a cursed blessing.
So I'd wonder, has there been any work done to look at a relationship like that with regard to covenant in terms of you have a command given with a promise. Those who walk like Noah, God is pleased with and then gives them. Those who don't, you have a curse.
So then there would be this obedience.
I don't know if I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about but one thing that immediately comes to my mind is that Noah is referred to as a righteous man before any kind of covenant is made.
So according to some objective standard, Noah was righteous whether it was speaking of, imputatively or as basic orientation of life.
Obviously, would it be safe to say that Noah and Abraham knew upon what basis they were being counted righteous?
Sam, would the same question not be asked when men are called sinners and wicked before there's any covenant made?
What's the standard on the basis of which they're wicked and they're sinners? What's the standard upon which Cain is condemned as a wicked man for murdering his brother Abel?
The thoughts of the pre-flood generation being only evil continuously according to what standard?
And violence. The problem is not acute with regard to them being condemned because we all hold that there was a standard by which they could be condemned there the whole time as the law of God. The problem becomes acute for me when someone is said to be righteous and especially when Noah is said to be righteous I think at least partly in terms of his personal conduct and not just imputation. He was righteous as you pointed out and blameless in his time and I think the answer may be what you said that from the beginning then after the promise there was
this assumed redemptive arrangement between man and God in terms of which a man could be righteous not just imputatively but practically before God. See at the point of that practical righteousness and imparted righteousness that is accepted as such by God that the problem really becomes acute that you have to have some sort of redemptive arrangement that in terms of which he can be righteous and I think it may be that we have to assume that it was in the promissory arrangement going out of Genesis 3.15. If you have that if the question that I asked and we were talking Jeff and I were talking
last night what is the response that God is looking for when he issues a promise it's trust it's faith and there's I think you could argue Moses is not completely linear in the way in which he writes there's some recapitulation format to the way in which he writes that the statement that is made regarding Noah is in the context of the Lord's promise if you will although it's a threat that he's going to destroy mankind and it's in the context of that promised threat if you want to use that language that Noah evidently believed it by faith he built the ark he acted
by faith in that promise so wouldn't you call that like a covenant could you say that's a covenant stipulation to which people either obey or disobey well that's a good point the difference all do but what's interesting here is no covenant is mentioned and yet there seems to be and it really in a sense it is the direction I'm heading to now though after having asked the question is that this is again through just point that there is no there is no covenant and yet there is mention of righteousness and it's righteousness in terms
of this promissory arrangement this redemptive arrangement that God entered into with Adam and Eve after they sinned now what interesting thing that is that you have redemptive arrangement without the explicit mention of covenant and there's a condition in there though yeah there's like a conditional covenant
yeah I mean if it's the redemptive arrangement that if it's the redemptive arrangement then in that sense it's the instrumental activity of faith it's justifying faith and in terms of the practical righteousness referred to Noah it's the practical righteousness and general conformity evangelical conformity to God's law that flows out of that and that that's what's mentioned then with regard to Noah well we'll press on we'll have to come back to this this will be a good discussion at the dinner table today it's a good good question it's a
Righteousness in Pauline Epistles: Active Righteousness and Contrast with Sin
good it's a good good thing for us to think about I believe actually it's time for us what time are we supposed to well we still got we still got a while okay we're going to when are we going to about 30 okay all right all right let's begin to look at the use of righteousness terminology in the Pauline epistles okay now we're particularly concerned here with Paul's uses of righteousness language in his epistle to the Romans this is the place where by far the most references are made to the righteousness of God the righteousness or unrighteousness of men is also a major emphasis so we want to begin first with righteousness language as it's used
with reference to men now again it must be acknowledged that like we see in the Old Testament in the New Testament as well men are sometimes referred to as righteous in different ways while on the one hand we are told that there are none righteous no not one and all have sinned and are guilty of unrighteousness yet at the same time some men are referred to as being righteous sometimes men are spoken of as righteous we might say in a relative sense in the New Testament in terms of the basic orientation of the life and not in the sense of being perfectly righteous we have to make those distinctions at times depending upon the context but my focus right now is to look at the specific way Paul
uses the language of righteousness with reference to men in the book of Romans in a context in which he is setting forth the doctrine of justification by faith my purpose is not to give a detailed exposition of all the relevant text but I just want to give something of a survey Paul's use of the language in that context I believe can be put into two categories I like the language that was used by Luther perhaps not as precise as we might like for it to be but it's helpful active righteousness the righteousness that men themselves perform and passive righteousness the righteousness that God in his grace gives the sinners so let's consider the righteousness terminology in terms first of all of active
righteousness and we're back in the book of Romans again first in speaking of righteousness or using righteousness language Paul constantly contrasts righteousness with sin now you may want to follow along with me in your Bible starting at Romans 3 9 Paul asserts for we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin this claim in Romans 3 9 that all are under sin is further supported and followed verse 10 by the scriptural declaration that there is none righteous no not one clearly to be under sin is to be unrighteous sin and righteousness are set forth as opposites while sin and un righteousness are set forth as synonymous this is expanded in the verses following by detailed description of
what it means to be un righteous and that description is given in terms of sinful wicked behavior and attitudes verses 11 through 18 of Romans 3 in Romans 5 7 to 8 we are told for scarcely for a righteous man will one die yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die but God demonstrated his own love toward us and that while we were still sinners Christ died for us now notice again that being a righteous man is contrasted with being a sinner the amazing thing is that Christ died for sinners which is the opposite of his dying for a righteous man a sinner is someone who has done what he ought to do someone who has done what he ought not to
do excuse me he is a person who does or is what God forbids men to do or to be or a person who has failed to do or to be what God commands him to do or to be sin is the transgression of the law as Paul says up in chapter 3 verse 20 for by the law is the knowledge of sin well if that's what sin is and righteousness is the opposite of sin what is righteousness well righteousness is doing what God's law commands actually doing and being what God commands men to do and to be secondly notice how Paul defines what one ought to do he
speaks
of the wrath of God that is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men now he's not merely talking about Jews there as you know he's speaking of the unrighteousness of Gentiles or of all humanity God's wrath against all who do not do what they ought to do in accordance with the light of nature and conscience which is given to every man but now
in the description that follows well in Romans 1 19 to 32 unrighteousness is defined in terms of the violation of God's ethical claims as creature creator excuse me upon his creatures they suppress the truth they do not glorify God as God nor are they thankful they give themselves up to various forms of idolatry changing the glory of the incorruptible God into an image like corruptible man women exchange the natural use for that which is against nature and also the men leave the natural use of the woman and burn in their lust for one another they are filled with sexual immorality wickedness covetousness maliciousness full of envy murder strife and on and on the list goes man is a creature created in the image
of God is guilty of refusing to give his creator and sustainer the honor and
marriage and what is appropriate human sexual behavior he is guilty of doing evil to his neighbor having a heart that is full of envy and greed and malice and all of this is spoken of in mankind in general the human race Gentiles included not just the Jews in terms of God's covenant relationship with Israel and Paul assumes in verse 32 of chapter 1 that all humans at some level and to some degree both know what they ought to do and they know that God rightly condemns them for not doing it even if they do not have the law in written form by which it was given to Israel through Moses chapter 1 verse 32 who knowing the righteous judgment of God that those who practice such things are deserving of death not only do the same but also approve of those who
practice them now all of this wickedness and sin and evil that characterizes fallen humanity even those who do not have special revelation are not parties to the Mosaic covenant as the Jews were Paul describes all of that as unrighteousness thus unrighteousness and righteousness cannot be defined merely in terms of God's covenant with Israel it cannot be defined in terms of covenant membership or being recognized as one who is or who is not loyal to the covenant Paul goes on to emphasize in chapter 2 that men will be judged by God for their actions he speaks in chapter 2 verses 5 to 6 of the righteous judgment of God who will render to each one according to his deeds he says in verse
13 for not the hearers of the law are just or righteous in the sight of God but the doers of the law without giving a detailed exposition and interpretation of that verse in its context and its relationship to the justification of sinners right now one thing it makes clear is that righteousness has to do with being a doer of what the law requires one is found righteous at the judgment because he does what the law requires and then Paul in verses 14 to 16 goes
as the Jews do for even they show the work of the law written in their hearts righteousness in terms of doing what God's law requires is not merely a Jewish thing the Jews indeed had special guidance in these matters as they had the law in written form but it was special guidance with reference to the kind of behavior God requires of all men both Jew and Gentile righteousness is behavior that God requires of every member of the human race and that righteousness is defined in terms of the ethical demands of his law and as Paul goes on to emphasize in the first part of chapter three therefore all have sinned both Jew and Gentile all have fallen short of the glory of God there is none righteous no not one well we've looked at Paul's general use
of righteousness language in his ordinary sense or what Luther would call active righteousness but that is not the only way Paul uses this language in this epistle and elsewhere which leads us now to consider secondly we don't have time right now so we're going to stop but we're going to look at how he also uses righteousness to describe people who are sinners and are unrighteous he uses the language in that way
speaks righteousness in terms of that which God gives so we're going to see that in the next section we got three minutes any questions before we take a break
This transcript was generated by automated speech recognition and may contain errors. It is provided for study and reference only; the audio recording is the authoritative source.
Passages Expounded
This passage is central to arguing that the law curses those who do not perfectly obey, thus works of the law cannot justify.
This passage is foundational for demonstrating that no one can be justified by works of the law because all are under sin.
This passage is used to explain that the law, though good, exposes and aggravates sin due to human depravity, leading to condemnation.
Texts Expounded
Also Referenced
More from the archive
If this spoke to you, hear also…
-
-
-
-
How Shall a Man Find Forgiveness with God?
Romans 4:4-5
-
-