Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: NIDNTTE (New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis)

  1. #11


    The NIDNTTE is the ONE resource module I wish BW had. I have the books, but can't carry them on the plane with me very easily.
    I just haven't wanted to dish out the cash for the logos version if there's the slightest chance of BW ever making it available.

    David Spear
    Calvary Chapel of Manassas
    Manassas, Va. 20110
    KJV Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without (apart from) the deeds of the law.

  2. #12


    Quote Originally Posted by Rokas View Post
    What you have is engine. You actually may upgrade for free to Logos 6 engine, if you want (and I'd recommend that).
    I did not know that it is possible to upgrade Logos Bible Software 4 to a later version for free. Does anyone know how to do that?
    Last edited by Vlad Kotenko; 01-06-2016 at 10:12 AM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2009


    Quote Originally Posted by Vlad Kotenko View Post
    I did not know that it is possible to upgrade Logos Bible Software 4 to a later version for free. Does anyone know how to do that?
    I would like to suggest that this conversation, or at least this aspect of it, move to the Non-BibleWorks Discussion forum. It doesn't seem quite appropriate to discuss the purchase of competing software here in the BW support forum.
    David Rensberger
    Atlanta, Georgia

  4. #14


    I agree, I would like to see NIDNTT on BW short list. I have the first addition and like it better than Little Kittles. It is good to hear it NIDNTT has been updated but I’m not going to buy another hard copy. How does EDNT compare to it?

  5. #15


    Quote Originally Posted by Chas View Post
    How does EDNT compare to it?
    Charlie, just tell me, and I'll paste for you a few entries of your liking from EDNT, and then you can compare them with what you have.

  6. #16


    Sorry for the late response but thank you for offering the comparison. Here are tree word ptwcos episkopoj dikaiosunh Feel free to choose just one or two of these.

  7. #17

    Default Ptwchos

    I'll paste all three, enjoy!

    πτωχός, 3 ptōchos poor
    πτωχεία, ας, ἡ ptōcheia poverty
    πτωχεύω ptōcheuō become poor

    1. Occurrences in the NT — 2. The influence of the OT and Jewish writings — 3. The Gospels — a) Luke 6:20 par. Matt 5:3; Luke 7:22 par. Matt 11:5 — b) Mark 10:17–22 par. — c) Mark 12:41–44 par. — d) Mark 14:3–9 par. — e) Luke 14:12–14, 21; 16:20, 22; 19:8 — 4. Paul — 5. James — 6. Revelation

    Lit.: B. ANTONINI, A. M. BELLIA, et al., Evangelizare pauperibus. Atti della XXIV settimana Biblica (1976) (1978). — J. BOTTERWECK, TDOT I, 27–41. — H. BRAUN, Spätjüdisch-häretischer und frühchristlicher Radikalismus (BHT 24, 21969) esp. I, 77–80; II, 73–80. — A. CRONBACH, “The Social Ideas of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” HUCA 18 (1944) 119–56. — DUPONT, Béatitudes. — J. DUPONT, “Les πτωχοὶ τὶ πνεύματι de Matthieu 5, 3 et les ‘nwj rwch de Qumran,” FS Schmid (1963) 53–64. — H.-H. ESSER and C. BROWN, DNTT II, 821–29. — D. FLUSSER, “Blessed Are the Poor in Spirit … ,” IEJ 10 (1960) 1–13. — A. GELIN, Les Pauvres de Yahvé (31956). — A. GEORGE, DBSup VII, 387–406.—D. GEORGI, Die Geschichte der Kollekte des Paulus für Jerusalem (1965). — E. GERSTENBERGER, THAT I, 20–25. — J. G. GOURBILLON, Der Gott der Armen im Alten und Neuen Testament (1961). — P. GRELOT, “La pauvreté dans l’Écriture Sainte,” Christus 8 (1961) 306–30. — F. HAUCK and E. BAMMEL, TDNT VI, 885–915. — K. HOLL, “Der Kirchenbegriff des Paulus in seinem Verhältnis zu dem der Urgemeinde,” idem, Gesammelte Aufsätze (1928) II, 44–67. — T. HOYT, The Poor in Luke-Acts (Diss. Duke University, Durham, NC, 1975). — J. JOCZ, “God’s ‘Poor’ People,” Judaica 28 (1972) 7–29. — H.-J. KANDLER, “Die Bedeutung der Armut im Schrifttum von Chirbet Qumran,” Judaica 13 (1957) 193–209. — L. E. KECK, “The Poor among the Saints in the NT,” ZNW 56 (1965) 100–129. — idem, “The Poor among the Saints in Jewish Christianity and Qumran,” ZNW 57 (1966) 54–78. — L. E. KECK, J. MAIER, and D. MICHEL, TRE IV, 72–85. — G. KRETSCHMAR, “Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem Ursprung frühchristlicher Askese,” ZTK 61 (1964) 27–67. — E. KUTSCH, RGG I, 622–24. — S. LÉGASSE, “Les pauvres en esprit et les ‘volontaires’ de Qumran,” NTS 8 (1961 / 62) 336–45. — J. LEIPOLDT, “Jesus und die Armen,” NKZ 28 (1917) 784–810. — E. LOHSE, “Das Evangelium für die Armen,” ZNW 72 (1981) 51–64. — J. MAIER, Die Texte vom Toten Meer (1960) II, 83–87. — R. MARTIN-ACHARD, THAT I, 341–50. — F. MUSSNER, Jas (HTKNT, 31975) 76–84. — K. F. NICKLE, The Collection (1966). — W. SATTLER, “Die Anawim im Zeitalter Jesu Christi,” Festgabe für Adolf Jülicher (1927) 1–15. — J. SCHMID, LTK I, 878–81. — L. SCHOTTROFF and W. STEGEMANN, The God of the Lowly. Socio-Historical Interpretations of the Bible (1984). — idem, Jesus and the Hope of the Poor (1986). — M. SCHWANTES, Das Recht der Armen (BEvT 4, 1977). — W. STEGEMANN, The Gospel of the Poor (1984). — G. THEISSEN, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity (1982). — P. TRUMMER, “Was heißt ‘Armut um des Evangeliums willen’?” idem, Aufsätze zum NT (1987) 7–37. — F. ZEHRER, “Arm und Reich in der Botschaft Jesu,” BiLi 36 (1962 / 63) 148–63. — For further bibliography → πλούσιος; see TWNT X, 1254–56.

    1. Of these three words, the adj. occurs most frequently in the NT: 34 times, with 20 in the Synoptics and the other occurrences distributed in John (4), Paul (4), James (4), and Revelation (2). The noun occurs twice in 2 Corinthians and once in Revelation. The one NT occurrence of the vb. is in 2 Corinthians. The word group is entirely absent from the Epistles of John, Acts, and the Pauline antilegomena.

    2. In Greek πτωχός (in contrast to → πένης, which designates dearth of possessions) designates the person wholly without possessions who must acquire the necessities of life through petition, hence those “poor as beggars.” In the NT, however, one must consider above all the semantic components influenced by the OT and Jewish history of the idea. The following elements are important: According to OT and broader oriental understanding the poor person stands under the special protection of the deity. The poor (Heb. dal, ’eḇyôn) person is one deprived of his inherited rights (land! cf. the social criticism of the older prophets). Since the land itself stands under Yahweh’s legal possession V 3, p 194 and has been given by him to the whole people, enduring poverty in Israel is not really allowed (covenantal law). Deuteronomy, according to which there should be no poor people in Israel, makes comprehensive provisions for the poor. Esp. in the Psalms the poor (‘ānî, ’eḇyôn) person, who in crying out in his own defense is simultaneously pleading God’s case, becomes the self-identification of the person in prayer; this religious component dominates the concept of the ‘anāwîm, the “humble pious ones.” The tribulations of the exile resulted in the entire people collectively appearing as the poor (‘anîyîm, ‘anāwîm, ’eḇyônîm), to whom is given God’s saving promise (deutero- and trito-Isaiah). In early Judaism the concept in this eschatological shading served above all opposition groups (the idea of the “remnant”) in formulating their own self-understanding as an collective elect (cf. Qumran). The conceptual proximity to “righteous” and “holy” is characteristic (cf. Psalms of Solomon).
    The understanding of the poor (rāš) in the wisdom literature is less theological. In the rabbinic literature, too, any intimations of an ideology of the poor remain on the fringes, though almsgiving for the poor does occupy an important position (cf. Billerbeck IV / 1, 536–58).

    3. a) Luke 6:20 par. is based on a saying of Jesus: “Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of God” (on the reconstruction of this text see Schulz, Q 76f.). The context in Luke 6:21 suggests that actual poor people are meant. The blessing follows the line of OT and Jewish thinking, according to which the poor stand under God’s special protection, though it hardly intends to carry forth the prophetic social criticism directly. It is, rather, a proclamation that exposes the insufficiency of any earthly system of values for the presently commencing eschatological events. Against the background of Judaism of the time it is noteworthy that in this salvation proclamation Jesus neither mentions conditions (as is usually the case in apocalyptic blessings; cf. E. Schweizer, NTS 19 [1972 / 73] 121–26) nor does he qualify the poor religiously (cf., e.g., the “poor” as “those who keep the law”: 1QpHab 12:2ff.; 4QpPsa 2:9ff.; cf. T. Jud. 25:4). This complete lack of conditions manifests itself in an exemplary fashion in this offer of salvation, by which God through Jesus’ proclamation overcomes Israel’s failure to keep the law, a failure that cannot be lessened by recourse to any previous salvation identity or titles (→ μετάνοια 4).
    Hence Jesus can understand his entire proclamation, with reference to Isa 61:1f., as good news for the poor: so Luke 7:22 par. With this “application of the typology ‘poor’ to the elected collective” (Maier, TRE IV, 81), which was common from the time of the exile, Jesus is nonetheless not establishing any sort of “remnant Israel,” but rather includes all Israel in its complete dependence on God’s salvation activity.
    The logia source takes up both of these sayings of Jesus. The redactional fourth blessing in Luke 6:22f. par. (second person!) suggests the agenda of identifying one’s own group with the “poor.”
    In Luke this blessing of the poor then directs itself in 6:20 straightforwardly (second person) to the disciples or the Church, to whom eschatological consolation is given in time of tribulation. It is not, however, a matter of simple consolation; rather, salvation is already historically and visibly given in view of the time of Jesus himself, who proclaimed the good news to the poor (7:22). The allusion to Isa 61:1 in 7:22 can thus be used in Luke 4:18f. to characterize Jesus’ entire ministry.
    Matthew interprets the poor in the first blessing (5:3) as “poor in spirit.” This expression (as in 1QH 14:3; 1QM 14:7; cf. 1QH 18:14f.) might be influenced by Isa 61:1; 66:2 (Maier, Texte II, 85). It refers to those who know themselves to be completely dependent on God’s mercy. Matthew thereby takes the edge off Jesus’ blessing, but at the same time secures it against the misinterpretation that external poverty by itself guarantees salvation. Matthew’s interpretation articulates precisely the attitude already indirectly addressed in the saying of Jesus (Q) taken up in 11:5.
    b) The exhortation in Mark 10:21 expands the demand Jesus makes of some of those called to follow him to leave their possessions; it now demands that they sell their possessions and give the proceeds to the poor (alluding to the traditional Jewish idea that alms secure a treasure in heaven). The goal here is to clarify paradigmatically (following or imitatio becomes a paradigm for faith in the post-Easter community) just how radically and definitively one’s decision of faith in Jesus will tear one away from other commitments and to show what one must be prepared to do in a given concrete case, or just how difficult it is for a rich person to realize such an exclusive commitment to Jesus.
    Luke 18:22 underscores the radical nature of this demand by emphasizing “sell all that you have and distribute to the poor.”
    Matt 19:21 requires only the sale of one’s possessions (τὰ ὑπάρχοντα; cf. K. Bornhäuser, Der Christ und seine Habe nach dem NT [1936] 30–43). “If you would be perfect,” on the other hand, represents no restriction regarding “a higher stage of morality” (so E. Bammel, TDNT VI, 903; but cf. Matt 5:48!).
    c) The story of the poor widow (Mark 12:41–44 par.) shows that the value of a gift depends on its significance for the giver (vv. 42, 43 par. Luke 21:[2]3).
    d) Mark 14:7 (par. Matt 26:11; John 12:8) does not mean to “depreciate almsgiving” (contra E. Bammel, TDNT VI, 903), but rather to protect anointing from misinterpretation as a violation of the unquestioned obligation to care for the poor (Mark 14:5; Matt 26:9; John 12:5) and to confirm it as a duty of love in view of the burial of Jesus, which was also understood as a duty of love (cf. Billerbeck IV / 1, 578ff.; Mark 14:8 par.). The redactional insertion in Mark 14:7b questions the sincerity of the objection in v. 5 and seeks to counter any sense V 3, p 195 that service to Christ and service to the poor are opposed to each other (on the subsequent history of the passage cf. R. Storch, FS Jeremias [1970] 247–58). In John 12:6 Judas Iscariot is the one who objects, and he uses care for the poor only as a pretext. The mention of Judas’s money box furnishes the prerequisite for the later misunderstanding that Jesus had commissioned him to give something to the poor (13:29).
    e) Luke 14:12–14 (material from Jewish Christian tradition reworked by Luke) questions the idea of works done for the sake of what others might do in return. It is because they are not able to return favors that “the poor, maimed, lame, and blind” should be invited (v. 13). It is questionable whether the criticism implied in this tradition, i.e., of the custom of denying access to certain people because of their defects (cf. 2 Kgs 5:8; 1QSa 2:2–10), is still at work here in Luke. In any case he maintains this perspective in that in the parable of the banquet (14:21) he again mentions “the poor, maimed, blind, and lame,” now as a metaphor (for sinners and tax collectors?), in the course of a universally expanding salvation history.
    The parable of poor (16:20, 22) Lazarus (= Eleazar: “God has helped,” possibly a reference to a religious understanding of the poor) and the rich man illustrates the Lukan understanding of the abrupt contrast in 6:20, 24 (→ πλούσιος). Zacchaeus, who according to 19:8 (redactional?) wants to give half his goods to the poor (cf. the rabbinic maximum percentage of twenty percent: Billerbeck IV / 1, 547), is an example of correct dealing with fortune.

    4. In Rom 15:26 (“the poor among the saints at Jerusalem”) one can no longer really decide whether “saints” is epexegetical or partitive gen. But absolute use of “poor” in Gal 2:10 does suggest that the term was a self-designation of the primitive community in Jerusalem (Holl 59; Georgi 23; E. Bammel, TDNT VI, 909). One should not, however, understand this as an honorific title that makes a claim to be God’s eschatological people over against the rest of Israel. Rather, recalling Jesus’ own understanding of his mission (→ 3.a.1), it is a confession in view of Israel that with the events occurring in and around Jesus God’s eschatological work with Israel has commenced.
    The collections with which Paul responds to the levies in Gal 2:10 (eagerly!) are not a sign of any legal subordination of the mission churches. Even from the perspective of Jerusalem such levies probably had theological motives in addition to their social motives: The collections aided the understanding of the mission to the Gentiles as part of the eschatological events concerning Israel (in the sense of the trito-Isaianic pilgrimage of nations? [Isa 60:5, 11; 61:6, etc.]; Acts 24:16f. appears to exclude the conclusion that “the collection has partly come into the hands of the Jewish leaders” and is “designed to alleviate the widespread suffering in the primitive church” [contra Bammel, TDNT VI, 909]).
    In 2 Corinthians 8 Paul solicits generous participation in the collection by referring to the exemplary behavior of the Macedonian churches (in view of their own profound poverty [v. 2]). The antithesis with which v. 9 develops the idea of Christ’s self-effacement is characterized by this context: He who was rich became poor for your sake (ἐπτώχευσεν) so that you might become rich through his poverty. The apostle is himself characterized by a similar antithesis, since he who is poor nonetheless makes many others rich (2 Cor 6:10). The charactization of the pseudo-divine elements in Gal 4:9 (with language borrowed from Jewish mission polemics) as “weak and poor” underscores their inability to make salvation available.

    5. The “case” mentioned in Jas 2:2, namely, that in the church assembly the well-to-do rather than the poor get the better seats, is hardly a documentation of actual practice. It belongs rather to the rhetorical style of the Epistle (cf. M. Dibelius and H. Greeven, Jas [Hermeneia] 130–32). James is attacking a status-oriented model of interaction that has arisen (again) in the Church and is irreconcilable with faith (2:1). The supporting arguments in 2:5–13 are of varying theological importance.
    James 2:5 varies the theme of blessing (→ 3.a): “Has not God chosen those whom the world regards as poor (πτωχοὶ τῷ κόσμῳ) to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him?” The eschatological promise of salvation in the blessing is developed according to both its future and present (rich in faith) dimensions. The reference to love as the human characteristic corresponding to the divine act of election does soften the paradox of the original blessing, but it is theologically appropriate: God’s election cannot be coerced through (external) poverty, and yet his freedom shows itself precisely in the election of the poor. Hence any dishonoring of the poor (2:6) is also to be disqualified theologically.

    6. Revelation always uses “poor” and “poverty” in opposition to → πλούσιος (7). The literal sense is intended in 2:9, where the poverty of the church in Smyrna is mentioned, and in 13:16, where in an enumeration of social classes “the rich and the poor” are mentioned with others. The usage is fig. in 3:17: The church in Laodicea, which thinks itself rich and prosperous, is characterized as “wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked” (the last three adjectives anticipate v. 18).
    H. Merklein

  8. #18

    Default episkopos

    ἐπίσκοπος, ου, ὁ episkopos bishop (overseer)

    Lit.: E. LOHSE, “Episkopos in den Pastoralbriefe,” Kirche und Bibel (FS E. Schick, 1979) 225–31. — idem, “Die Entstehung des Bischofsamtes in der frühen Christenheit,” ZNW 71 (1980) 58–73. — G. SCHÖLLGEN, “Monepiskopat und monarchischer Episkopat. Eine Bemerkung zur Terminologie,” ZNW 77 (1986) 146–51. — B. E. THIERING, “Mebaqqer and Episkopos in the Light of the Temple Scroll,” JBL 100 (1981) 59–74. — For further bibliography → ἐπισκοπή. V 2, p 36

    1. This noun appears 5 times in the NT. It refers to Christ in 1 Pet 2:25 and elsewhere to individuals who have a function or an office in the Christian community (Acts 20:28; Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:7).

    2. In Greek, ἐπίσκοπος can be a designation for a variety of offices (Beyer 611–614). Frequently it refers to secular activities (Karpp 395ff.). A religious concept stands behind this term when it has the meaning “guardian, watchman, and protector.” Even if the more precise definition of the office designated by ἐπίσκοπος is often difficult, it almost always relates to oversight or administration (J. Gnilka, Phil [HTKNT] 38). The question of the origin of the ἐπίσκοπος in the NT — whether from Greek associations, from temple overseers in Judaism, from synagogue overseers, or from the Qumran sect — receives differing answers in the scholarship (see Adam, Dibelius and Conzelmann, Nauck, Karpp).
    In the NT ἐπίσκοπος appears in two passages in a close association with the image of the shepherd. According to 1 Pet 2:25 Christ is the shepherd and overseer of souls. This passage stands at the end of the slave parenesis, in which Christ has already been portrayed, with an allusion to Isaiah 53, as the model of suffering without retaliation. Of course vv. 24–25 no longer have the particular situation of the slave in view. Instead, the statements about redemption in the hymn from v. 22 refer to Christ and leave the exhortation to slaves in the background.
    In Acts 20:28 the presbyters of the church are called the overseers who should tend the flock of God, i.e., the church (cf. Schnackenburg). Here apparently bishops and presbyters are equated: the presbyters who lead the local church at Ephesus are addressed as “bishops.” Of course this speech does not reflect the organization of the Pauline mission churches, but presupposes rather the offices in Christian congregations at the time of the origin of Acts — at the end of the first century.
    Likewise the Pastorals do not reflect the organization of the Christian churches in the last years of Paul’s life, but that of the period when the deutero-Pauline writings came into existence — at the end of the first century. In both passages in the Pastorals ἐπίσκοπος appears in the sg. (1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:7). At the same time both Titus 1:7 and Acts 20:28 equate presbyters and bishops, for in Titus 1:5 “Paul” has commissioned Titus to install elders in the cities of Crete. Then in the qualifications that follow, which are derived from the tradition, the requirements that an ἐπίσκοπος should bring to the office are given (likewise in the qualifications for the office from 1 Tim 3:2ff.). In both cases one is not to conclude from the sg. that already a single bishop is assumed as a monarchical leader at the head of the community. The sg. is rather to be understood generically (so, among others, Brox 148f. contra von Campenhausen 107).
    In 1 Clem. the identity of presbyters and bishops is still presupposed. The monarchical bishop appears first as the only leader of the local church first in Ignatius. It is not certain, however, whether Ignatius describes existing conditions or sets up ideal requirements that do not yet correspond to reality (Bauer 61f.).
    The earliest NT passage in which the title of ἐπίσκοπος appears is Phil 1:1. Here the ἐπίσκοποι (pl.) and the διάκονοι (deacons) are addressed in the prologue of the letter along with the other members of the congregation. This is the only passage in the authentic letters of Paul in which function-bearers of the church are designated with terms later associated with offices. However, the ἐπίσκοποι and deacons of Philippians cannot be identified with those of the Pastorals. As in secular Greek, ἐπίσκοπος can also be the term for officers who have financial responsibilities. Consequently the thesis is sometimes represented (by Fitzer and Harnack among others) that the passage is concerned with people commissioned to collect the contribution for Paul, to whom the imprisoned apostle is thus especially grateful. However, only the end of the letter mentions the collection and there Paul offers his thanks to the whole congregation (4:10–19).

    J. Rohde

  9. #19

    Default dikaiosune

    the last one is in two posts, since it's too long

    δικαιοσύνη, ης, ἡ
    dikaiosynē righteousness, justice

    1. Occurrences in the NT — 2. Basic meaning — 3. In Paul — 4. Δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Paul — 5. In Matthew — 6. Elsewhere in the NT

    Lit.: K. BERGER, “Neues Material zur ‘Gerechtigkeit Gottes,’.” ZNW 68 (1977) 266–75. — M. BRAUCH, “Perspectives on ‘God’s Righteousness’ in Recent German Discussion,” in E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977) 523–42. — R. BULTMANN, “ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ,” JBL 83 (1964) 12–16. — A. DESCAMPS, Les Justes et la Justice dans les évangiles et le christianisme primitif hormis la doctrine proprement paulinienne (1950). — A. DIHLE, RAC X, 233–360. — M. J. FIEDLER, “Δικαιοσύνη in der diaspora-jüdischen und intertestamentarischen Literatur,” JSJ 1 (1970) 120–43. — E. GRÄSSER, “Rechtfertigung im Hebräerbrief,” FS Käsemann, 79–93. — W. GRUNDMANN, “Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit von Qumran und die Frage nach der Glaubensgerechtigkeit in der Theologie des Apostels Paulus,” RevQ 2 (1960) 237–59. — idem, “Zur gegenwärtigen Diskussion um das Verständnis der ‘Gerechtigkeit Gottes’ im neutestamentliche Verständnis,” ThJb(L) 13 (1970) 99–117. — E. GÜTTGEMANNS, “.‘Gottesgerechtigkeit’ und structurale Semantic,” Studia linguistica neotestamentica (BEvT 60, 1971) 59–98. — G. HEROLD, Zorn und Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (EHS 23, 14, 1973). — H. HÜBNER, “Existentiale Interpretation der paulinischen ‘Gerechtigkeit Gottes,’.” NTS 21 (1974/75) 462–88. — E. KÄSEMANN, “The Righteousness of God in Paul,” idem, NT Questions of Today (1969) 169–82. — idem, “Zum Verständnis von Römer 3, 24–26, ” idem, Versuche I, 96–100. — K. KERTELGE, ‘Rechtfertigung’ bei Paulus (NTAbh N.F. 3, 21971). — G. KLEIN, “Gottes Gerechtigkeit als Thema der neuesten Paulus-Forschung,” VF 12/2 (1967) 1–11 = Rekonstruktion und Interpretation (1969) 225–36. — K. KOCH, “Die drei Gerechtigkeiten. Die Umformung einer hebräischen Idee im aram. Denken nach dem Jesajatargum,” FS Käsemann, 245–67. — O. KUSS, Der Römerbrief I (1957) 115–21. — B. LINDARS, “Δικαιοσύνη in Jn 16:8 and 10, ” FS Rigaux, 275–85. — E. LOHSE, “Die Gerechtigkeit Gottes in der paulinischen Theologie,” Einheit des NT (1973) 209–27. — C. MÜLLER, Gottes Gerechtigkeit und Gottes Volk (FRLANT 86, 1964). — M. OSSEGE, “Einige Aspekte zur Gliederung des ntl. Wortschatzes (am Beispeil von dikaiosýne V 1, p 326 bei Mt),” LingBibl 34 (1975) 37–101. — A. PLUTA, Gottes Bundestreue (SBS 34, 1964). — E. PLUTTA-MESSERSCHMIDT, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (HUT 14, 1973). — SCHELKLE, Theology III, 178–92. — H. SCHLIER, Grundzüge einer paulinischen Theologie (1978) 48–54. — H. H. SCHMID, Gerechtigkeit als Weltordnung (BHT 40, 1968). — G. SCHRENK, TDNT II, 192–210. — G. STRECKER, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit (31971). — P. STUHLMACHER, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (FRLANT 87, 1965). — idem, “Recent Exegesis on Romans 3:24–26, ” idem, Reconciliation, Law, and Righteousness (1986) 94–109. — U. WILCKENS, Der Brief an die Römer I (EKKNT, 1978) 202–33. — D. ZELLER, Juden und Heiden in der Mission des Paulus (FzB 1, 21976) 163–188. — J. A. ZIESLER, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul (SNTSMS 20, 1972). — H. ZIMMERMANN, “Jesus Christus, hingestellt als Sühne—zum Erweis der Gerechtigkeit Gottes (Röm 3, 24–26),” FS J. Kardinal Höffner (1971) 71–81. — For further bibliography see Kertelge, Schmid, Wilckens, DNTT III, 374–77. — M. ADINOLFI, “La giustizia nel terzo Vangelo,” RivB 27 (1979) 233-60. — C. H. COSGROVE, “Justification in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Reflection,” JBL 106 (1987) 653-70. — J. D. G. DUNN, “.‘Righteousness from the Law’ and ‘Righteousness from Faith’: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture in Rom 10:1-10,” FS Ellis 216-28. — R. Y. FUNG, “Justification by Faith in 1 & 2 Corinthians,” FS Bruce 1980, 246-61. — H. GIESEN, Christliches Handeln. Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung zum δικαιοσύνη-Begriff im Matthäus-Evangelium (EHS 23/181, 1982). — E. GRÄSSER, “Rechtfertigung des Einzelnen — rechtfertigung der Welt. Neutestamentliche Erwägungen,” The NT Age (FS B. Reicke; 1984) I, 221-36. — A. LINDEMANN, “Die Gerechtigkeit aus dem Gesetz. Erwägungen zur Auslegung und zur Textgeschichte von Röm 10,5” ZNW 73 (1982) 231-50. — W. POPKES, “Die Gerechtigkeitstradition im Matthäusevangelium,” ZNW 80 (1989) 1-23. — B. PRZYBYLSKI, Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought (1980). — J. REUMANN, J. A. FITZMYER, and J. D.Q UINN, “Righteousness” in the NT (1982). — Spicq, Notes Supplement 128-39. — S. K. WILLIAMS, “The Righteousness of God in Romans,” JBL 99 (1980) 241-90.

    1. The subst. δικαιοσύνη appears in the NT 91 times, of which 57 are in the Pauline literature and 33 in Romans. Δικαιοσύνη belongs to the “preferred words” of the Pauline letters. Thus the word represents one of the most important theological concepts; consequently it is important to examine to what extent the Pauline usage has influenced the occurrence of the word in the later NT literature either directly or indirectly (→ esp. 6). The usage in Matthew (7 occurrences, and 17 occurrences of the adj. δίκαιος) appears alongside Paul and is independent of him. Also having significant usage are the Pastorals (5 occurrences), Hebrews (6), James (3, and 3 occurrences of δικαιοῦν and 2 of δίκαιος), and 1 John (3, and 6 of the adj.).

    2. The meaning of δικαιοσύνη corresponds to Greek usage. In the NT righteousness takes on its concrete meaning within the variety of usages. The OT and Jewish meaning as “gift of salvation” (Cremer/Kögel 311) competes with the Greek meaning “righteousness, legality, honesty … , correct condition, especially equality” (Passow I, 688), righteousness as iustitia distributiva, δικαιοσύνη as an ἀρετή. In several passages both strands influence the history of the meaning of the NT δικαιοσύνη.
    However, in most passages in the NT the meaning is determined by the OT and Jewish history of the concept. Repeatedly the Greek OT is explicitly referred to, e.g., Gen 15:6 in Rom 4:3–22; Gal 3:6; and Jas 2:23; Ps 111:9 LXX in 2 Cor 9:9; Ps 44:8 LXX in Heb 1:9. In addition the use of OT associations of δικαιοσύνη is exhibited in Acts 17:31 (cf. Pss 9:9; 95:13; 97:9 LXX); 2 Cor 9:9 (cf. Hos 10:12); Eph 6:14 (cf. Isa 59:17; 11:5) and Rev 19:11 (cf. Ps 95:13 LXX). The OT and Jewish background can also be noticed elsewhere, thus esp. in Matt 5:20 (cf. Ps 118:19f.; Isa 26:2); Luke 1:75 and Eph 4:24 (cf. Wis 9:3; Deut 32:4; Ps 144:17 LXX); Rom 1:17 (cf. Ps 98:2; Isa 56:1); Phil 1:11 (cf. Amos 6:12). For the elevation of the basic meaning of δικαιοσύνη in the NT, it follows that the meaning of the word “righteousness” as a concept of relationship, which was shaped in a peculiar way in the OT and Jewish tradition, is to be given precedence over the Greek meaning of “righteousness” as a category within the teaching about virtue.
    According to the OT and Jewish understanding, “righteousness” (Heb. ṣeḏeq/ṣeḏāqâ) connotes the “right” conduct of God and of humans, not within a view of an ideal norm of what is right, but rather within the perspective of the concrete life relationships of partners to each other. In this sense righteousness is characteristic of God in his conduct toward his people (cf. Rom 3:5) in conformity with his covenant. On the other hand, he demands the performance of righteousness, which allows humankind to stand before God (Jas 1:20). In the latter sense the concept is characterized more by the dominant Greek use of ethical uprightness than by the OT usage (Acts 10:35; 13:10; 24:25; 1 Tim 6:11; 2 Tim 2:22; 3:16; 4:8; 2 Pet 2:5). Of course for the entire NT usage the fundamental idea is that of “righteousness” in the original sense of God as the Judge and Redeemer of his own (these ideas are in permanent tension) and of righteous conduct of humans, which finds its “norm” in the righteous conduct of God.
    Δικαιοσύνη becomes in the phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ esp. in Paul (→ 4) an expression for the unity of the eschatological judging and redeeming acts of God. The righteous conduct of God in 2 Pet 1:1 is perceived differently: “the “righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ,” which represents the basis for the “equally precious faith” of Jews and Gentiles, is here apparently to be understood as an attribute of God, with which he “distributes the same to all” (K. H. Schelkle, Die Petrusbriefe [HTKNT] 185). This meaning, corresponding to the Greek idea of virtue, is to be distinguished from the basic meaning derived from the OT and Jewish history of the concept.
    The NT concept of δικαιοσύνη receives a certain elaboration by juxtaposition with opposing and parallel terms. Opposites include (ἀσέβεια and) ἀδικία (Rom 1:17f.; 3:5; 6:13, cf. 4:5; 5:6f.; Rev 22:11), ἁμαρτία (and θάνατος; Rom 6:16, 18, 20), and (ἀκαθαρσία and) ἀνομία (Rom 6:19; 2 Cor 6:14; Heb 1:9 = Ps 44:8 LXX). Parallel to δικαιοσύνη are βασιλεία (τοῦ θεοῦ; Matt 6:33), ὁσιότης (Luke 1:75; Eph 4:24), ἐγκράτεια (Acts 24:25), εἰρήνη and χαρά (Rom 14:17), σοφία and ἁγιασμός (1 Cor 1:30), ἀγαθωσύνη and ἀλήθεια (Eph 5:9), and εὐσέβεια, πίστις, ἀγάπη, ὑπομονή, and πραϋπάθεια (1 Tim 6:11; cf. 2 Tim 2:22). A survey of the usage confirms the assumption of a twofold dimension in the NT usage of δικαιοσύνη: as a major theological-soteriological concept and as an expression of ethically correct human conduct.

    3. For Paul δικαιοσύνη stands in close relationship to the central salvific event, which has its historical place in the death and resurrection of Jesus. In agreement with OT and Jewish tradition, Paul sees in the righteousness not only an ethical attribute of God and/or of mankind; V 1, p 327 instead, with reference to humans, it is an essential characteristic of that which allows Paul to be what he should be in relation to God and mankind. Paul is now able to affirm such “rightness”—because of the knowledge granted to him (Gal 2:16)—of the one who “lives by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (2:20). The righteousness, which determines and interweaves the life of the Christian, is neither expected from nor produced by the law and the fulfillment of its demands, as in the Judaism described by Paul; rather it is a gift from the loving sacrifice of Jesus in his death (Gal 2:21).
    It thus becomes clear that the concept of righteousness belongs more to the subject of soteriology for Paul than to the subject of ethics. As a major soteriological term for the gift of salvation made available in Christ, it stands in a definite correlation with the concept of faith on the one side and with that of the law on the other side. Paul contrasts the righteousness which makes demands through the law and is based on the fulfillment of the law, i.e., the δικαιοσύνη ἐν νόμῳ (Phil 3:6) or ἐκ νόμου (3:9; Rom 10:5) or the ἰδία δικαιοσύνη (Rom 10:3; cf. Phil 3:9), with the righteousness of faith, the δικαιοσύνη ἐκ πίστεως (Rom 10:6) or the synonymous “righteousness from God,” τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην (Phil 3:9). “Righteousness by faith” means that God creates righteousness, not in the old way of the law, but from the new possibility of faith. In view of the event which has been fulfilled in the present, faith is defined as belief in Jesus Christ. The law cannot represent the life-giving power of God (cf. Gal 3:21). To the contrary: through the victorious power of faith, which is determined by Christ, the law has come to an end. Consequently the end of the law has come with the salvific work of Christ. The righteousness mediated by faith appears as the universal reality of salvation for Jews and Gentiles: Rom 10:4.
    Paul endeavors to demonstrate, especially to the Jews, that the correlation of faith and righteousness is in accordance with Scripture and thus to guarantee the character of δικαιοσύνη as grace. According to Gen 15:6, the faith of Abraham “our forefather according to the flesh” (Rom 4:1) is “reckoned as righteousness” (Gal 3:6; Rom 4:3, 5, 6, 9, 22). One is to draw from this: Abraham attained righteousness from faith, not from works of the law. Thus Abraham becomes an extraordinary example of the righteousness of faith, and his faith becomes a type of the Christian way of salvation.
    It corresponds to Paul’s proclamation of salvation when the concept δικαιοσύνη is used to show the eschatological dimension of salvation. Already the establishment of the δικαιοσύνη granted to mankind in the act of God and its mediation by faith indicates the basic eschatological determination of Paul’s concept of righteousness. Beyond that he emphasizes in Gal 5:5 the abiding eschatological character of δικαιοσύνη: the faithful await the gift of δικαιοσύνη through the (Holy) Spirit. In this perspective of faithful expectation it is and remains, indeed as already mediated in faith, an object of hope.
    The righteousness granted to the believer requires of him a total service of righteousness: Rom 6:12–23. The gift of δικαιοσύνη (5:17) provides the basis for a change of masters for the believer, transferring one into a new relationship of obedience toward God (6:13, 22) or toward the gift provided by God (6:18). In a metaphorical comparison Paul characterizes the service of righteousness by the justified one as a total engagement in a battle. As such, those who have died to sin and now live for God are to commit their members as “weapons [RSV “instruments”] of righteousness” (6:13; cf. 2 Cor 6:7). Δικαιοσύνης here is probably not only a descriptive gen.; it designates esp. the purpose and the direction of the engagement of the weapons in battle: in the service of and for the benefit of the power of righteousness, and for the victory of its power over sin. It is to be noted that the righteousness that is granted with the ethical demand addressed to believers in Romans 6 is not simply conveyed along with a humanly achieved righteousness. The eschatological-soteriological meaning of δικαιοσύνη continues to exist even where δικαιοσύνη is bound with the ethical imperative. However, there is still the expectation that Christians bring “fruit,” which consists in righteousness (Phil 1:11; καρπὸν δικαιοσύνης; cf. Rom 14:17; Eph 5:9), indeed a fruit made possible “through Jesus Christ.”
    Among the various phrases with δικαιοσύνη which occur in Paul, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ has a special theological place. Also one may mention δικαιοσύνη τῆς πίστεως (Rom 4:11, 13)—the “righteousness determined by faith” and thus not entirely synonymous with δικαιοσύνη ἐκ or διὰ πίστεως (9:30; 10:6)—and phrases with δικαιοσύνη in the gen. Besides καρπὸς δικαιοσύνης (see above), δωρεὰ δικαιοσύνης (Rom 5:17) is to be explained as epexegetical gen. Objective gen. appears in the following phrases: νόμος δικαιοσύνης (Rom 9:31: the law which demands and promises righteousness), ἐλπὶς δικαιοσύνης (Gal 5:5; see above), διακονία δικαιοσύνης (2 Cor 3:9: the service which is considered righteousness) and the corresponding διάκονος δικαιοσύνης (2 Cor 11:15). In 2 Cor 9:10 a subjective gen. may be present: γενήματα τῆς δικαιοσύνης; “with characteristic restriction of meaning” (BAGD ad loc. 2a) of the word, δικαιοσύνη is, in accordance with Ps 111:9 LXX, to be understood in this verse as “mercy,” “charitableness.” Γενήματα τῆς δικαιοσύνης are thus the “fruits” which charitableness yields to the Corinthians.

    4. For Paul the word δικαιοσύνη in the phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ becomes a comprehensive expression for his proclamation, a kerygmatic “brief formula.” In the gospel, which he proclaims on the basis of his calling by God, God’s righteousness is revealed (Rom 1:17; 3:21f.). V 1, p 328 This concept was already well known in Jewish Christianity before Paul as an expression of the salvation event, as is suggested by tradition-critical analysis of 2 Cor 5:21 and Rom 3:25f. Fundamental to the understanding of the concept is OT and Jewish usage. It was mediated and stimulated by early Christian preaching and then taken up by Paul, who gave to the phrase δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ his own distinctive emphasis and shape.
    In OT writings the “righteousness of Yahweh” is Yahweh’s conduct with respect to the covenant. In the “covenant” Israel experiences the righteousness of Yahweh as a condition of its existence, as Yahweh’s initiative in giving himself to his people, whom he continually confirms through his “demonstration of his righteousness” (in the pl.: Yahweh’s ṣiḏqôṯ, Judg 5:11; 1 Sam 12:7; Ps 103:6; Mic 6:5; Dan 9:16; cf. Isa 45:24, etc.). The Psalms extol the righteousness of Yahweh (Pss 22:32; 50:6; 71:24); it is demonstrated in concrete assistance with the necessities of life (40:11; 51:16; 112:9), as vindication for those who are deprived of legal rights, for the oppressed and the poor (35:24: “Vindicate me according to thy righteousness”; 5:9; 7:9; 9:5). Here the unity of the judging and redeeming activity of God is indicated. In the judgment God vindicates his own and brings salvation; this act includes the punishing righteousness of God (7:9, 12), but as an aspect of his vindicating righteousness. In deutero-Isaiah the righteousness of Yahweh becomes a comprehensive expression for the anticipated coming of salvation (Isa 45:8; 46:13; 51:5, 6, 8).
    A survey of the relatively numerous appearances of the word in the OT reveals that the expression “righteousness of God” has a considerable breadth of meaning: his covenant faithfulness, his vindicating deeds, the order of life given in the covenant, the dwelling-place granted by God, his saving intervention. The self-revelation of Yahweh in his “righteousness” requires the righteousness of Israel before Yahweh, right conduct in conformity with God, which excludes all “ungodliness” (Pss 1, 15, 24, 112).
    Judaism after the OT partially preserves the OT usage in literal agreement; i.e, in Qumran, where “righteousness [sg. and pl.] of God” designates God’s power of salvation, which he proclaims to his “elect” in the “demonstration of salvation” through the eradication of sins and the establishment of his “covenant” (1QS 1:21; 10:23, 25; 11:3, 5, 12, 14; 1QH 7:19, etc.). In apocalyptically oriented circles the righteousness of God becomes an expression of his eschatological judgment with the double effect of redemption and justification of the faithful and condemnation of and vengeance on the “unrighteous.” Paul is dependent on the eschatological-soteriological interpretation of Judaism. However, he does not employ the Jewish understanding without restricting the Jewish understanding of the righteousness of God with the catchword “one’s own righteousness” (Rom 10:3), which he makes the point of attack in his own interpretation. (On the development and different levels within the Jewish understanding of the concept, cf. Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes 145–84; Kertelge 24–45; Wilckens 212–22).

    The earliest Jewish Christian proclamation before Paul, which appears in 2 Cor 5:21 and Rom 3:25–26a, exhibits an orientation to the covenant idea, in agreement with the OT and Jewish tradition. God imparts to mankind the righteousness which forgives sins and renews the covenant. This gift of salvation from God, i.e., the “demonstration of his righteousness,” has been made possible by the vicarious atoning death of Christ. This view of the righteousness of God, which is both theological-christological and soteriological, was the impulse for a decisively more thoroughgoing interpretation by Paul.
    In agreement with OT usage, Paul underlines the initiating act of God with the term δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Romans. The question about God is given precedence over the question of human salvation; the theological-christological presupposition and basis is given precedence over the anthropological-soteriological aspect of the event of righteousness. The use of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ presupposes the question, Who is God? The God that Paul proclaims is the God who has revealed himself in abiding faithfulness to himself and to his people in Jesus Christ. His righteousness has become manifest “through faith in Jesus Christ” (Rom 3:21f.). Δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is thus to be interpreted as subjective gen. and not as objective gen. or as gen. of origin (so Bultmann, et al.) with an appeal to Phil 3:9. “Righteousness of God” does not mean the righteousness which the individual receives from God and which is thus valid before God; rather, it is the claim of God upon the individual, which God demonstrates in his act upon the individual when he exercises justice.
    Rom 3:21–26, which is esp. representative for the Pauline message of justification, indicates the close relationship between theological assessment and soteriological intention. Δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ thus designates the salvific act of God as his saving intervention to create something new in the context of the disaster of human history which stands under the power of sin. The righteousness of God takes on historical-eschatological character in the person and history of Jesus. It is thus brought into relationship with faith in Jesus Christ, indeed to such an extent that its revealing is made available (only) through faith in Christ and is itself grasped and “appropriated” through this faith. The righteousness of God is fully realized as a salvific power only by faith in Jesus Christ; thus it takes on universal validity in the unity of Jews and Gentiles under the grace of God which destroys unrighteousness. This righteousness, which effects salvation from faith, is refused by Israel, which fails to recognize the identity of the righteousness of God for Jews and Gentiles as his faithfulness to himself and his people, which has become manifest in Jesus Christ (Rom 10:3).
    The idea of the righteousness of God is not to be interpreted in an isolated way in Paul, but rather from the context of the entire Pauline proclamation. Thus it is clear that the individual has no other salvation than that which God imparts in his just judgment. Likewise Paul sees God’s deed of righteousness as insolubly bound with the cross of Jesus.

  10. #20

    Default dikaiosune cont.

    5. Outside the Pauline Epistles, the concept of δικαιοσύνη is a major theological motif in Matthew. In all V 1, p 329 the Matthean occurrences δικαιοσύνη is redactionally placed by Matthew (Strecker 153). Thus the Evangelist interprets the way of Jesus as the “way of righteousness” (21:32), which was already proclaimed by John the Baptist, who prepared the way of the Lord (3:3; 11:10), and represented in his demand for repentance. The “way of righteousness” becomes an expression for the righteous demand of God toward mankind.
    From the outset, already from the time of his baptism, Jesus’ mission is directed toward the “righteousness,” which is to be “fulfilled” (3:15). The “righteousness” becomes the program of Jesus. It is the content of the will of God. God wants righteousness as the salvation of mankind. This begins to be realized in the word and activity of Jesus. The righteousness is thus, on the one hand, an expression of the salvation of God, for which people “hunger and thirst” (5:6). On the other hand, it remains—in good OT and Jewish perspective—God’s demand to mankind, a condition for their realization of salvation (5:20). This double-sidedness characterizes Matthew’s use of the concept of δικαιοσύνη in contrast to Paul’s use. At the basis is, as in Paul, the OT understanding, the expectation that God will vindicate the oppressed (cf. Ps 146:7; Isa 61:11). The “poor” (Matt 5:3), who “hunger and thirst for righteousness” (5:6), may be sure that the justice due to them will not be forgotten in the midst of the injustice which they are suffering. At the appearance of Jesus God has already begun to vindicate them. Consequently they now grasp what God has made possible and, as far as they are concerned, they seek to bring it to realization in the fulfillment of the will of God. The demand of Jesus in 6:33, “seek first his [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness,” places the imperative within the larger context of his proclamation of salvation. The eschatological basileia of God comes to mankind as a gift, indeed in the form of righteousness. The demand for a “better righteousness” (5:20) is thus no excessive demand on the disciples, but is rather a direction determined by the concrete exposition of the will of God in the illustrative material of the antitheses in 5:21–48 and by the “abiding” presence of Jesus as teacher of his Church (28:18–20). Indeed, in the use of the δικαιοσύνη concept in the Sermon on the Mount there is an indication of the tension between the indicative of the divine promise of salvation and the imperative of the ethical demand for the disciples of Jesus.
    According to Matthew, what matters is the doing of righteousness (6:1). This is concretely realized in proper conduct of the disciples of Jesus, which consists of a relationship of brotherhood to each other and in the acceptance of the “brother” (perhaps according to 5:22–24; 18:15, 21–35) in his creaturely determination by God. One must endure persecutions (5:10) for the sake of this righteous conduct.
    Exegetically noteworthy are the very different approaches by Matthew and Paul in the use of the δικαιοσύνη concept. As a missionary proclaimer of the gospel, Paul proceeds from the persistent human need for redemption and proclaims God’s judgment over all unrighteousness and self-righteousness of mankind caused by the keeping of the law. He announces that it is a just judgment on the sinner. In Matthew, the unity of the demanding and redeeming will of God remains within the law, although the conduct of humans in the form of pharisaic self-righteousness fails to fulfill the law (ὑπόκρισις: Matt 23:28; cf. 6:2, 5, 16; 7:5). In the proclamation and activity of Jesus the true “way of righteousness” is opened, permitting the “righteous” to attain “eternal life” (25:46).

    6. Alongside the use of δικαιοσύνη which is particularly shaped by theological considerations in the Pauline Epistles and in Matthew, fully one-third of the relevant passages are to be found elsewhere in the NT. Here the precise connotation of δικαιοσύνη is not easy to determine; thus one has to decide from instance to instance whether OT and Jewish usage, perhaps mediated by Paul, or the Greek linguistic background, with a primarily ethical meaning, is determinative.
    It is evident that the Pauline contrast of righteousness based on works and righteousness based on faith has influenced Titus 3:5, probably in a conscious reception of the theological heritage of the apostle. However, on the basis of this isolated passage, one should not overlook the ethically oriented usage in other passages of the Pastorals (see below). 1 Pet 2:24 is reminiscent of the parenetic sequence “that we might die to sin and live to righteousness” in similar phrases in Romans 6. To be sure, the strictly soteriological antithesis of “sin” and “righteousness” from Romans 6 has been modified into ethical terms; “live to righteousness” has the meaning of “proper conduct of life.” The same understanding is to be noted in the phrase in 3:14, “suffer for righteousness’ sake” (identical with Matt 5:10). The influence of Pauline usage may be observed also in Heb 11:7. The righteousness that was Noah’s lot is determined by faith (τῆς κατὰ πίστιν δικαιοσύνης κληρονόμος). Despite these contacts, Hebrews does not stand directly in the tradition of Paul. It combines an ethical meaning from the Greek and Hellenistic history of the word with a “righteousness” based on God’s judgment of the “righteous” (11:4) and belonging to Noah as something promised because of his faith. The former is esp. evident in 11:33, when the deeds of righteousness are praised as characteristic of the extraordinary faith of the OT judges and prophets. The “peaceful fruit of righteousness” (12:11; cf. Jas 3:18), which is derived from ethical exertion, likewise indicates the basic ethical focus here of δικαιοσύνη.
    The secondary effect of the Pauline use of δικαιοσύνη V 1, p 330 in James may best be discussed in connection with the use of the vb. → δικαιόω. One may not overlook the fact that the citation of Gen 15:6 in Jas 2:23 is concerned with the affirmation of a righteousness before God (in contrast to the interpretation in Romans 4 and Galatians 3)—so also in the meaning of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in Jas 1:20. This righteousness is not based merely on “faith,” but on a faith that is demonstrated in moral conduct.
    The ethical meaning of δικαιοσύνη, in contrast to the “righteousness which is bestowed,” which is proclaimed in Paul, is in a number of passages associated with the phrase “do righteousness,” etc. (ἐργάζεσθαι, διώκειν, ποιεῖν δικαιοσύνην). According to Acts 10:35, “fear God” and “do righteousness” are phrases which can also be used of Gentiles. For the Gentiles, such “natural” virtues do not become the basis of salvation, but indicate instead a certain “disposition” for God’s acts. The content of righteousness in Acts 13:10 is defined as “appropriate piety,” which consists in the acceptance of faith (cf. 13:8). In 24:25 the concept contains more the general meaning of “proper conduct” along with the explicitly mentioned virtue of “self-control.”
    In 1 Tim 6:11 striving for righteousness is mentioned as the behavior appropriate for the “man of God,” Timothy, together with other basic aspects of conduct such as “godliness,” “faith,” “love,” “steadfastness,” and “gentleness” which are enumerated in dependence on the catalog of virtues from Hellenistic ethics (cf. also 2 Tim 2:22). In 2 Tim 3:16 “correction” and “training in righteousness” are expected as a result of the correct use of the Scriptures which have been inspired by God. The “crown of righteousness” (2 Tim 4:8) beckons the apostle as a reward for his efforts.
    “Doing righteousness” becomes the criterion of true Christianity and of being “born of God” in 1 John 2:29; 3:7, 10. In a combination of the christological-soteriological basis and the ethical demand, the doing of righteousness remains bound to the criterion of the “righteous one,” Christ, who appeared in human form and who will come at the final parousia. In opposition to the Gnostic false teachers, the confirmation of faith in Christ in deeds (of love) becomes the distinctive characteristic of righteousness. Against the background of these texts from 1 John and in view of their significance, the singular usage in John 16:8, 10 becomes understandable. The righteousness that the Paraclete will demonstrate to the world—in condemning it—refers to Jesus as the Christ. It consists in the “justification” granted to him in exaltation and glorification by God, by which he appears as the criterion of conduct in relation to the world.
    The use of the concept of righteousness in connection with the demand for authenticating deeds in numerous passages is an indication of a relatively broad early Christian tradition, in which δικαιοσύνη, in contrast to its theological usage in Paul, becomes a major parenetic motif. This is true also for the final passage in the NT, Rev 22:11, where the doing of righteousness is understood as the practical and consistent demonstration of the already determined election of the “righteous” and the “unrighteous.”

    K. Kertelge

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts