Righteousness Defined

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Lafon

This was also the manner I (sort of) understood righteousness for a very long while. But after carefully noting the manner in which it (with the exception of the element of "just") conflicted with the definition given in Strong's Concordance, I knew I must take action to reconcile this.

Well, Strong's is not the end all, be all of Bible lexicons. Other very good Bible dictionaries exist. While Strong's has its place and merits, I would never recommend using it as the sole resource for studying the original languages of the Scripture.

Strong's and I could NOT both be correct, but who's wrong?

See above. Additionally, however, there might be more agreement between you and Strong's than at first determined. See below:

As I fasted, prayed, and searched the Scriptures in an attempt to comprehend whatever esoteric implications might be "hidden" in this word, then it seemed to strike me like a jolt of lightning ..... "moral innocence, purity, and perfection" might be said to best describe the attributes of the Almighty's character; whereas "equality, justice, fairness, and impartiality" seemed to be more fitting as a principle, or rule that God established to direct the manner in which He would "administer and regulate" all of His judgments.

When looking at the Greek term most commonly translated as righteous/ness in the New Testament, the definition I gave is accurate. However, when looking at the Hebrew word most commonly translated as righteous/ness in the Old Testament, the definition you gave comes to the forefront.

Do we then conclude that the Bible's meaning of righteous/ness differs according to the covenant in place at the time? I don't believe that's the case.

Rather, I think there is great unity between the two (apparently different) meanings. Here's how I reconcile them:

The character of God (i.e. that He is righteous, or morally perfect, pure, and innocent), which can be imputed to a believer by faith, causes God to be equitable, just, fair, and impartial, to wit, than any believer who has been made righteous by God through faith, will consciously act in the same manner, vis a vis, they will be equitable, just, fair, and impartial as well, thus demonstrating that the character of God, i.e. His righteousness, has truly taken root and been developed in such a person (Consider Ephesians 4:24, in which we are told that the new man of a Christian believer is created "after God in righteousness...").

We see then, no real disagreement between saying that righteous and righteousness ought to be understood as either moral perfection, purity, and innocence or in the way you describe it.

They are hand in glove with each other, reflecting one another, proving one another. An equitable, just, fair, and impartial man is only so because his moral character in Christ has been perfected, purified, and declared innocent by God through faith.

Likewise, a man demonstrates that his character is righteous (i.e. morally perfect, pure, and innocent) by acting equitably, justly, fairly, and impartially.

It's the heads and tails of a single coin.

Upon discovery that righteousness prevails as the very foundational principle upon which the knigdom of heaven has been built (Psalms 89:14 and 97:2), and that Psalm 145;17 advises that ALL of God's works are done in accordance with this same principle/rule, then I felt compelled to abandon the manner in which I had previously esteemed righteousness, and accepted it as I've noted here (i.e., God MUST exercise impartiality [equality] in His administeration of justice [judgments], without exceptions).

Yes, indeed, God does so adminster his justice. But why? Because of the moral attributes assigned to Him by the Word, i.e. that His character and nature are innately perfect, pure, and innocent.

One begets the other.

Think of it this way:

1.) There is a process of being made righteous, i.e. of becoming righteous

2.) There is a state of being righteous (once so made by God through process)

3.) There is a a manner of acting righteously (i.e. the outgrowth of the process and state)

These all happen sequentially, but then, once they've happened, they become a cyclical reinforcement for each other. By being made righteous, a person obtains a righteous status with God. By obtaining such a status, they go about doing righteous things. By doing righteous things they maintain their righteous state. By maintaining their righteous state before God, they justify God and prove that He was righteous in initially justifying them upon conversion (i.e. making them righteous through the process of faith -- See, e.g. Romans 3:26).

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Lafon

Votivesoul


Oh yes, I do "see the difference," however, there are certain aspects of what you've stated, to which I must question their veracity and Scriptural merits.

I would be quick to agree, that is, "We all need to be careful to presume to teach the Word of The Lord ... (because) we are all prone to error, no matter how sincere or upright of character we believe ourselves to be."

Such was the situation that confronted righteous Job (albeit he was unaware of it; just as I am confident was the case with the retired Missionary's act of unrighteousness that I mentioned in a previous post)! But because even Job (painfully) was made to recognize, and acknowledge that even a righteous man can hold to, and publicly proclaim "things" of which they are not fully knowledgable about, Job expressing this in repentance, saying,

"Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? Therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not." (Job 42:3).

I also agree that "There is a big difference between a false teacher ... versus someone who's ... in error and doesn't know the mistakes they are making with the Word ..." I do not agree, however, that the one committing such an act is "innocent" (as God allowed Job's sufferings to make him aware of his error indicates).

Indeed, in the incident I've noted with the words of the retired Missionary which I am persuaded were in error, I sensed a "grieving" of the Spirit as I sat listening to him publicly express the things which he did. Nevertheless, I do not, and will not, declare his act of unrighteousness as being "innocently" committed. He, above all others, in my opinion, should have insure the truthfulness of the assertions which he made PRIOR to saying them publicly! Our Lord did admonish, as I'm confident you're well aware, that "Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned" (Matthew 12:36-37).

Neither do I concur in your conclusion that Apollos can serve as an example, for we must remember, Apollos had not yet been converted when Aquila and Priscilla "took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly" (Acts 18:24-26). If it be that Apollos stated things after his conversion which did not align perfectly with the Word of The Lord, well ... then the same thing would apply to him, but not in his un-converted state. In that condition, he was just another sinner, much like you and I before we were converted.

I beg not to be misunderstood! The retired Missionary whose error I have noted, is a very dear friend of mine. As such I do not, in any manner whatsoever, condemn him because of his words, rather I have, since that occasion, been earnestly seeking guidance from The Lord concerning the proper approach (and words) I should use in helping him to be better informed about the matter. In time, I am confident this will happen.

You see, I do believe that we owe it to a fellow saint to help him/her to see, and understand whatever error we might detect in the things which they say or do, and with love, do whatever the Spirit leads us to do to make them aware of their error, so they might take steps to correct it. I would certainly want, yea, even demand that another do the same for me! While it is true that we are all capable of making a mistake, and we do (including myself) is why John wrote to advise us that "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (I John 1:9).

It's just that, more often than not, we are susceptible of embracing and publishing things concerning God's Word which isn't proper, and in such cases we desperately NEED another, when they become aware of that fault in us, to step up and tell us. One cannot correct something lest they know about it, right? That is what's called "brotherly love"!

There is a lot here, merited all. But instead of a point by point response, I feel led to only say the following:

James, the author of the very passage I quoted, was known by his fellow Jewish countrymen as James the Just, or in Hebrew Ya'akov haTzadik meaning Jacob the Righteous.

This was a man who, though not a Levite, was permitted to enter into the Holy Place of the Temple, where he often knelt in prayer for hours on end making intercession for the Jewish people before God, who was eventually martyred by confessing his own half-brother, Jesus, to be the Savior, on the Temple Grounds in 62 AD (and subsequently, God destroyed the Temple because of his murder, as it was believed in the 1st century, at least), who was featured prominently in both the histories of Flavius Josephus and Hegessipus, was humble enough to write in his general epistle that he and the other apostles were sometimes prone to error.

If such a righteous man can admit to the possibility of frequent error, and still be considered righteous, both back then by the world at large, and now, by the Christian world at large, then surely if another brother in the Lord is given over to similar, frequent errors, we can still think of them as righteous (in the eyes of the Lord), if not actually and specifically "right" in regards to something they presumed to teach.

We don't have to go around being the doctrine police for everyone who presumes to teach the Word. Each one of us has a Master to whom we rise or fall, who is fully able to help us stand up again should we ever fall.

As the Lord said, we must first cast the beam out of our own eye before we can ever hope to help a brother remove the mote from his. While we're sitting in constant judgment of the teaching of others, we tend not to effectively judge the merits of our own teaching.

If we presume to go correct someone's understanding, how is it that we know we are right on the subject and they are wrong, considering the real possibility that we are often wrong on many subjects, as well?

Now, I'm not talking fundamental truths obviously recorded in the Word. If someone attempts to teach something opposed to sound doctrine (for example, that Mary is Co-Mediatrix with Christ), then by all means, attempt an apology.

But in esoteric matters, in which, upon an honest and unbiased assessment, the Scriptures are clearly unclear, then why do we go about trying to make a brother convert to our way of thinking? I'm referring of course, to Lazarus and the Rich Man. Is it literal and historical? It is parable only?

It's not clear. The only thing that is clear is that the two opposing views divide and conquer the Body. If we're going to get up in arms about something, how about we contend for the faith of the Son of God and the doctrines of Christ? Why get all out of sorts and heated over whether or not a small passage in the middle of a book with 24 chapters, one of the longest documents in the entire Bible, is literal or metaphorical?

Further, why assume the Holy Spirit is grieved when we hear a teaching on such an esoteric concept in the Bible? Maybe it's us who are grieved because we don't agree, thinking as we often do, that we have more of an understanding of Truth than someone else?

What good does it do to try and make a person believe the story from Luke is a parable versus a true history? It doesn't serve the Kingdom any good. It just causes fights and debates, and, even worse, causes us to question the level of righteousness, i.e. moral perfection, purity, and innocence, of a fellow saint who presumes to teach a view which opposes our own.

Because the fact is, such wrangling disagreement is anything but equitable, just, fair, or impartial.

[Lafon]

Votivesoul, I appreciate the expression of your opinion on these matters (as well as all of the issues you address in your "most interesting" Blog, albeit I've not read them all, but I'm working at it), and I am NOT trying to be an "Apostolic Doctrinal Police" by seeking ONLY to find fault with the words of others. But having said that, I am persuaded to believe we each owe a debt of responsibility to one another; to take whatever the appropriate action might entail/warrant to help them to recognize, acknowledge, and correct any error we might be made aware of in their understanding of the pure Word of The Lord. Allow me to cite just a few recorded instances wherein even God did this when He finds such error in the thinking/belief system of a "righteous" man:

First (and seeing that I've already noted this, it could "go without repeating"), is the case with Job. God readily acknowledged Job's righteousness, explicitly informing Satan of such, and this not once, but twice (Job 1:8, 2:3), nevertheless, as evidenced by His inquiry of Job (see Job 38:2), God also let Job know that he was guilty of having committed unrighteousness by "darken(ing) counsel without knowledge" (i.e., Job was guilty, albeit unwittingly, of publishing words [which we aren't told] that apparently weren't correct.

Secondly, we find Elihu (who spoke on God's behalf [i.e., he was a prophet, or spokesman for God), informing Job of the manner in which God goes about the business of correcting instances of unrighteousness/iniquity committed by a righteous man:

"He withdraweth not his eyes from the righteous: but with kings are they on the throne; yea, he doth establish them for ever, and they are exalted.
And if they be bound in fetters, and be holden in cords of affliction; he sheweth them their work, and their transgressions that they have exceeded.
He openeth also their ear to discipline, and commandeth that they return from iniquity.
If they obey and serve him, they shall spend their days in prosperity, and their years in pleasure.
But if they obey not, they shall perish by the sword, and they shall die without knowledge" (Job 36:7-12).

Let us also note the words which God commanded Ezekiel concerning acts of unrighteousness which a righteous man commits:

"Again, when a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul" (Ezekiel 3:20-21).

To the saints of the 1st Century Church at Laodicea, Jesus Christ commanded John the apostle to write, after He had informed him of the apathy being displayed by those members, saying,

"As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent" (Revelation 3:14-19).

Although we are not told of the manner in which such chastening by God of the righteous transpires (we must look elsewhere in the Scripture for such information), it is clear that He is the one who chooses to employ chastening as a means of correction.

Through Elihu's words to Job we also discover the various "means" through which the Spirit endeavors to assist a righteous man to become aware of whatever act(s) of unrighteousness he might be guilty of having committed; all taken in an effort to "withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man... (to) keep back his soul from the pit, and his life from perishing by the sword... (and) to shew unto man his (God's) uprightness" (Job 33:17-18, 23). The "means" by which God seeks to make man aware of his acts of unrighteousness (i.e., iniquity) are:

"For God speaketh once, yea, twice, yet man perceiveth it not. In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed; then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction" (Job 33:14-15).

By this we discover that among the first actions which God takes in an effort to assist a righteous man to become aware of an act of unrighteousness (iniquity/sin) that he has committed, and for which he must acknowledge, repent thereof and correct, is by giving that righteous man instructions by way of dreams (note its plurality, implying more than one).

If the righteous man fails to perceive such instruction given to him via dreams from God, then He takes the second phase of His action designed to correct the righteous man's iniquity:

"He is chastened also with pain upon his bed, and the multitude of his bones with strong pain: so that his life abhorreth bread, and his soul dainty meat.
His flesh is consumed away, that it cannot be seen; and his bones that were not seen stick out.
Yea, his soul draweth near unto the grave, and his life to the destroyers" (Job 33:19-22).

But, if after all of these things, the righteous man still does not recognize and acknowledge the acts of unrighteousness (iniquity) that he has done, God does not forsake him, for there is one final step which He undertakes to withdraw the righteous man from his unrighteousness:

"If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness [i.e., God's righteousness in the matter]:
Then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit: I have found a ransom" (Job 33:23-24).

So, what should we conclude from these? Is it not that God uses one's fellowman (i.e., a brother in Christ) as the instrument by which He seeks to make a righteous man to become aware an act(s) of unrighteousness (iniquity/sin) which he has committed? If you or I should ever be found guilty of such, it is evident that we surely should not expect the resounding audible voice of God from the heavens advising us of our wicked deed! Nay, such words of correction will be given us by one (or perhaps even more) of our brethren in the church to whom the Holy Ghost had made aware of such iniquity done by our brother.

And, as evidenced by the following, such words of correction must come by means of the written Word of God:

"...Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not have spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish" (Ephesians 5:25-27).

Lastly, I would be remiss should I fail to note the verbal chastening Paul the apostle penned to the saints of Corinth, wherein he explicitly explained the reason for the "divisions" among them; and informing them (as well as we today) of the "reason" why God has chosen to employ human instruments to correct error within the teachings of the righteous:

"Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you" (I Corinthians 11:17-19).

By this should we not conclude that there will be someone among the assembly of saints to whom God will make aware (i.e., approved) of whatever element of heresy (i.e., unrighteousness/iniquity) might be manifested (whether it be by word or deed) by another, or others in the church? Of course! God always employs human instruments; one's fellowman, as His spokesman, to convey righteous instructions to mankind.

Don't you think Paul first sought to insure the accuracy of his claim (i.e., he sought to first insure there was no "log" in his own eye) before endeavoring to assist the saints at Corinth to remove the "splinter" from theirs? Was he not an "approved" vessel whom The Lord had made aware of the cause for the divisions that prevailed among them? Of course! Again, this is the manner in which God works ... He always uses men as the instruments to assist others to become aware of their errors!

Has He not commissioned you and I to act in such a role in delivering the gospel of salvation to our fellow Gentiles? Absolutely! And it is no different when it comes to assisting a brother in Christ to recognize whatever act of unrighteousness God causes/allows us to become aware of that has been committed.

[votivesoul]

Thank you for your very thorough reply, Brother Lafon. I appreciate and now better understand your meaning.

So, in the interests of clarification, which tenders greater unity, just allow me to say the following:

I am all for Biblical correction and the administering of reproof when a brother or sister has sinned. To not be for such would be antithetical to the cause of Christ and His Body.

That being said, I see correction, reproof, and even rebuke, in terms of an act or acts of unrighteousness more so in the committal of actual, provable sin.

If a brother or sister simply shares a point of view on the Word that I find to be in error, I don't see the need to confront them and correct, reprove, or even rebuke them for what I perceive to be their error, in the same way a brother or sister MUST be confronted if the life they are living is in the flesh.

I mean, if I went around addressing, confronting, and attempting to correct someone every single time I thought they made an error, I would have no other time in the Kingdom to do anything else.

And let's face it, such confrontations rarely if ever do any good. At best, the only thing that happens is a "I'll pray about it" with no evident change ever taking place, to at worst, an outright fight, even to the point of two righteous saints wrangling and debating the Word so fiercely, that by the end, both have lost their righteousness before God through a very real work of the flesh called in the Greek eris, translated as "variance" in Galatians 5:20. In an effort to fix someone's doctrine, two brothers in the Lord can almost come to blows.

Now, if the contention is for the Gospel, then yes, there are times to defend and contend for the faith.

But in those unclear areas of Scripture, I see no need to go out correcting someone. Rather, I do the following, and God has blessed:

I take my concerns to the Lord in secret. And I pray, interceding for God to, through His Spirit within them, to amend their understanding and teaching.

It's a slower, much longer process that takes great patience while waiting for God to work on them, but I have seen it happen. God has done it. And when God, and not me, has done the work, it lasts.

To me, this is a greater love. This is the kind of intercession James made for his Jewish countrymen. He knew they didn't have it right regarding Jesus the Messiah. And yet he dwelt with them in peace, was accounted as righteous by them, and only in the end, when denying the Lord became a real possibility, did such a drastic confrontation have to take place, and it cost him his life.

[Sean]

Lafon, Votivesoul, I am sorry if you may feel I am being petty and divisive over the subject of the rich man in hell.

I just had different experiences with people that seem to have a new theme of "there is no such thing as hell" these days. This(rich man story as a parable) is one of their main doctrinal points they try to use. If they can convince us this is a fact, then they can begin to erode Mark 9 and the rest and say that hell is only "Greek lore".

There is a big sign in front of a mega church by my house that denounces the idea of a hell altogether...for all to see that drive by.

Again, my apologies here. It was alarming in my perspective and possibly petty in your perspective. (its all in our experiences of life I guess)

[votivesoul]

I didn't take it as offensive or petty. Whatever is a concern to you is valid. We all may feel strongly about any number of topics. It is good to be zealously affected in a good thing!

[Sean]

Amen

[Lafon]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I didn't take it as offensive or petty. Whatever is a concern to you is valid. We all may feel strongly about any number of topics. It is good to be zealously affected in a good thing!

Ditto!

[Lafon]

Recognizing, and acknowledging that our Lord has commanded that the very FIRST thing we MUST "seek" to possess AFTER attaining citizenship in the kingdom of God (i.e., being "born again" of the water and of the Spirit - John 3:5) is His "righteousness" (Matthew 6:33), then it would seem, to me at least, that ALL other things pertaining to His kingdom must be "centered" upon "righteousness," else all of our pursuits and endeavors to attain the "perfection" which He requires of us (II Timothy 3:17) will fall short.

The greatest fear that I have for my brethren is that they fail to recognize the importance of "righteousness" in their walk with God, believing that just because they have obeyed the dictates of Acts 2:38, they have attained "righteousness" as somewhat of an added measure of grace. Yet I find nothing in our Lord's command of Matthew 6:33 which alludes to such being true. Instead, it appears that to attain the "righteousness" of which our Lord, as well as Paul spoke about, requires an "added" effort on our part AFTER we have taken heed to and obeyed the command to be "born again."

In other words, I believe our obedience to the dictates of Acts 2:38, albeit an essential act, is only the "visa" (or initial step, if you will) which authorizes (enables) us to begin our journey to the portals of that eternal city of new Jerusalem, but it will be our acts of "righteousness" that we perform afterwards which will actually be the determining factor authorizing our entrance into its portals when we appear before the coming Judgment Seat of Christ and He inspects our Passport (i.e., the "Book of Life"). This is why I struggle so very much in trying to comprehend all that the word "righteousness" entails. I want my "Passport" to be honored by Him when I must appear before Him, as well as that of my brethren.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Lafon

Recognizing, and acknowledging that our Lord has commanded that the very FIRST thing we MUST "seek" to possess AFTER attaining citizenship in the kingdom of God (i.e., being "born again" of the water and of the Spirit - John 3:5) is His "righteousness" (Matthew 6:33), then it would seem, to me at least, that ALL other things pertaining to His kingdom must be "centered" upon "righteousness," else all of our pursuits and endeavors to attain the "perfection" which He requires of us (II Timothy 3:17) will fall short.

The greatest fear that I have for my brethren is that they fail to recognize the importance of "righteousness" in their walk with God, believing that just because they have obeyed the dictates of Acts 2:38, they have attained "righteousness" as somewhat of an added measure of grace. Yet I find nothing in our Lord's command of Matthew 6:33 which alludes to such being true. Instead, it appears that to attain the "righteousness" of which our Lord, as well as Paul spoke about, requires an "added" effort on our part AFTER we have taken heed to and obeyed the command to be "born again."

In other words, I believe our obedience to the dictates of Acts 2:38, albeit an essential act, is only the "visa" (or initial step, if you will) which authorizes (enables) us to begin our journey to the portals of that eternal city of new Jerusalem, but it will be our acts of "righteousness" that we perform afterwards which will actually be the determining factor authorizing our entrance into its portals when we appear before the coming Judgment Seat of Christ and He inspects our Passport (i.e., the "Book of Life"). This is why I struggle so very much in trying to comprehend all that the word "righteousness" entails. I want my "Passport" to be honored by Him when I must appear before Him, as well as that of my brethren.

An understandable desire, to be sure.

But a thought occurs. We are taught by the Scriptures that righteousness is imparted by faith in Jesus Christ. Indeed, we are told that God saves us, not by any acts of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy.

These two concepts cause me to wonder what you mean by:

"...but it will be our acts of "righteousness" that we perform afterwards which will actually be the determining factor authorizing our entrance into its portals..."

Do you mean to say that we, apart from imparted righteousness by faith and the mercy of God, must be the ones to earn our place in the Holy City?

I assume not, but for others who read and aren't sure, could you give an answer?