Pillars are Just Crutches

One of the most interesting things about the Christianity Today article which I wish they expanded more on was the Third Place. It’s that place that isn’t your home and isn’t you work. The place where you feel comfortable going and sitting down, having a coffee (or tea?) and meeting friends, talking etc …

Think Starbucks, Chapters, or if you’re ulta-Canadian – Tim Hortons

The Christian bookstores I’ve been to don’t have this feel. I don’t feel like browsing through the aisles of those places and flipping through a book. Or sitting down and reading through a chapter (well, there is no where to sit!). And the cafe’s in these bookstores, without exception (from what I’ve seen) always look like an after thought (and are usually closed). I’m not asking for them to be a Chapters or Borders (or a Starkbucks for that matter), but it worries me when Chapters feels more welcoming and Borders has a better theology section!

My final peeve is not everything has to be so Christianized or spiritualized! – God and angels do not have to be the topic of every book (gasp!). It just adds to the un-welcomed feeling I get and It has the potential to make me a little squirm-ish! They almost seem whitewashed.

We need to get away from Christian bookstores and start thinking in terms of bookstores that are owned by Christians. I think the difference is huge! If anywhere has shown us this type of model within Christianity I think it’s the music business. There was a moment when a number of bands were not Christian bands but the members were Christian. Why can’t that, in some way, be a model for a bookstore?

It does a number of things:

Gives you flexibility on what books you can bring in – a lot of the classics (that no Christian bookstore would carry) I would consider must-read for every Christian!

Gives a bigger customer base

Opens up Christianity to people who may not have considered it

Gives the opportunity for ministry

Those are just my thoughts

Christianity Today has an interesting article that I had a chance to read while I was sitting in the library waiting for a class to begin. It was about the slow decline that Christian bookstores have taken in the last couple years. And personally, I can understand why, I hate having to go into those places! I do it only on necessity, and lately, even when I’ve needed something overtly Christian it hasn’t helped.

A couple months ago I asked my wife what she wanted for her birthday and her reply was, ‘a Bible’. Great! At least that’s something I know something about. So I made the trek to the best place I knew to find a Bible … the Christian Bookstore … I should have known better.

Of course, I’m not looking for just any Bible this is the first birthday we’ve had as husband and wife, if I was going to get any purchase right it was this one.

So, I walk into the door and I’m immediately uncomfortable! I’m greeted with Joel Osteen’s smile and books on how I can live a “better” life. As well as books on obscure Biblical prayers and Christianized romance novels. To my right are religious trinkets, pictures, decorations and so on. None of which I would ever be caught dead with in my possession. To my left is a closed (down?) coffee shop. Everything that I see is overtly Christian and yet none these items actually contain the Gospel message. We’ve tailored our books to aim for the non-Christians and yet the bookstores are virtually sterile and whitewashed to the point that the gospel is whitewashed with it.

I proceed to the back corner of the building to look at the one wall of Bibles they have. Half the wall is either TNIV or NIV (which is ok, i guess … but none of which were wife birthday material) the other half is filled with miscellaneous translations.

Then I see it! It’s an ESV, and the inside formatting is perfect! – The cover however is the cheap, typical black cover that every other Bible has. An older lady tries to help me, but to no avail.

So, off to the internet … the very helpful ESV website shows me all the Bibles of that particular format available and there is one that is gorgeous! Perfect in every way! When I get back to the Christian book store I try to order it, and they can’t. They list off the four they can order. No good. Plus, the prices they give sound like the prices I would have paid if the Canadian dollar was still only .70 cents on the American.

In the end I went to Amazon and nearly saved enough money to buy 2 Bibles for the price of one from the Christian Bookstore.

Ouch.

But price isn’t everything.

The paper I just finished … enjoy

Introduction

Righteousness is, understandably, a major topic throughout the whole course of Scripture as it has to do with proper relationship between God to man and vise versa. But how one obtains righteousness and what obtaining that righteousness actually means has often been skewed by singular readings of distinct passages ripped out of their appropriate context. It is with in this unfortunate situation that we look at three Biblical authors. Matthew, Paul and James seemingly expressed three quite different views of righteousness through their writings. But these views were by no means meant to be a comprehensive or exclusive view of righteousness, if they are understood together, within their proper contexts than they form a full view of what it means for God and us to be righteous.

Because of the audience that this paper is directed to and because of space limitations, treatment of Old Testament sources for righteousness will be limited and done within the space of the individual authors that will be studied.

Matthew: Introduction

There is much debate to when Matthew was written. The reason it appears as the first book in the New Testament Scriptures is because it was originally believed to be the first book written. Tradition has it that the gospel (or the sources for the Gospel) was originally written in Hebrew and then translated into the Greek version that we have today (McKnight, 1992 p.527; Shelton, p.121, 1999). Holdcroft adds that although a few years had past between Jesus crucifixion and the writing of Matthew it was still written before 70 A.D. because Matthew gives no hint that the destruction of the Temple had already taken place. As well the church father Irenaeus identifies Matthew as the earliest gospel stating that he wrote it while Paul and Peter were ministering in Rome (p.6, 1988). Numerous other church fathers confirm this tradition throughout the first and second century (McKnight, 1992, p.157). However, it has been suggested that it was originally composed in Greek and not Hebrew as previously stated. A further look at the expression by Papia, Hebraidi dialekto, with in its Asia Minor context, finds that it does not necessarily mean written in Hebrew, but written in the Jewish style (McKnight, 1992, p.157).

Others view Mark’s gospel as the first, however, which was written first is relatively unimportant (for this paper), what is important is the author’s deliberate choice of audience for this book, That is, Jews.

Matthew 3:13-17 – Fulfilling All Righteousness

The word ‘righteousness’ (δικαιοσύνη) appears in Matthew seven times and yet is not found in any other gospel except for one poetry passage in Luke 1:75 (Hagner, p.367, 1998). It is hard to chalk it up to coincidence or chance. Indeed, Matthew deliberately uses this word within his gospel. As argued above, one would expect that the Jewish style of Matthew would give the meaning of the word, ‘righteousness’ as ‘ethical righteousness’, or in other words, conforming to the Law. This, although it plays a role in its meaning in some verses, is by no means the entire meaning that Matthew intends his readers to have of this word in his Gospel and the first verses that will be examined make this evident:

Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented … and a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:13-15, 17 NRSV)

Matthew 3:14-15 does not have any parallels in the other Gospels and seems to come straight from Matthew himself (Gundry, 1994, p.50). This scripture is important to discovering what righteousness meant to Matthew because without this verse ‘righteousness’ could be misunderstood to mean ‘conforming to the Law’. There are a number of reasons why these verses put that definition of righteousness (as consistent throughout Matthew) into serious question.

First, baptism was not a Jewish requirement under the Law, there was no obligation, in that sense, for Jesus to get baptized. Second, John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance, something that Jesus never had to do because He was sinless (Shelton, 1999, p.143). Therefore ‘righteousness’ in Matthew means more than just following the Law. For Jesus it meant being obedient to God through relationship with Him. As well, it set an example to His followers for what they were to do (Gundry, 1994, p.50; Shelton, 1999, p.143).

Then, in verse 17, Matthew alludes to Isaiah 42:1, which connects the Servant, Jesus and ‘righteous(ness)’ together (Gundry, 1994, p.50). Isaiah says:

Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen, in whom my soul delights;
I have put my spirit upon him;
he will bring forth justice to the nations.
(italics added)

The Servant here with in the immediate context of Isaiah 41:8 is most likely Israel (Watts, p.119, 1987), however some commentators feel that Israel is pictured too ideally within these verses for the picture to fit (Webb, 1996, p.170). Nonetheless, what is clear is that Matthew saw the Servant of these verses and the justice he would bring as a reference to the work of Christ.

Justice is a major theme in this Servant passage as the word comes up again in verses three and four. Webb comments on this important theme:
Viewed against [the background of Isaiah], the mission of the Servant is a gigantic one. It is nothing less than to put God’s plans for his people into full effect, and to make the truth about the Lord, Israel’s God, known everywhere, especially the fact that he alone is the sovereign creator and Lord of history. (Webb, 1996, p.171)

Jesus role in fulfilling all righteousness, as we will discover in Paul as well, God’s covenant faithfulness. What we are seeing here is the righteousness of God.

Sermon on the Mount: Part 1
Hunger and Thirst for Righteousness

Two chapters later, in the Beatitudes, Matthew again adds a statement that is not found in the other Gospels: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled” (Matthew 5:6, NRSV). Luke presents a different version saying: “Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied” (Luke 6:21a NRSV). From this it is easy to see that Matthew is presenting a view of righteousness to his readers and also making more connections to Isaiah (this time chapters 49 and 61) (Gundry, p.70 1994).

In the Greek text ‘hunger’ and ‘thirst’ are present participles which means that it is addressed to those who continually hunger and thirst after righteousness in the same way that a starving person would hunger and thirst after food continually (Shelton, 1999, p.153).

So what does Matthew mean here by righteousness? Is he referring to a right relationship with God, moral obedience, or something else? Holdcroft believes that those who hunger and thirst here are “those who desire God’s kingdoms standards” (p.80, 1999).

However, judging by the context of the verse, Matthew is not looking at righteousness from the human perspective, yet. In view of the rest of the Beatitudes (especially 5:10ff) and the chapters that Matthew alludes to in Isaiah, it is unlikely that personal righteousness is in view within the verse, what is more likely, and fitting within the context, is that the righteousness here is God’s righteousness, that is, his eschatological justice (Shelton, 1999, p.153; Gundry, 1994, p.70; Hagner, p.367, 1998).

What we have seen so far from Matthew is righteousness from God’s perspective; his justice and covenantal faithfulness. However, the next (and last) verse in Matthew that we will consider will focus on what it means for people to be righteous.

The Sermon on the Mount: Part 2
Righteousness that Exceeds the Scribes and Pharisees

Matthew 5:20 is the first instance we come upon where righteousness is meant within the context of keeping God’s commandments. Except here, Jesus adds a twist. In verses 17 – 19 Jesus tells the crowd that the Law is still completely valid and that he did not come to abolish it but to fulfill it. This does not simply mean that Jesus kept the whole law, but he came to transcend it and in the verses following Jesus great revelation does just that (Shelton, p.158, 1999). This is not rules for the sake of rules however, Matthew is stressing that the Kingdom of God has been inaugurated in the person of Jesus Christ who is giving them these ‘laws’ for which is required keeping in order to enter the Kingdom. The Kingdom of God is the larger framework within which Matthew poses Jesus’ view on what it means to be righteous (Hagner, p.368, 1998).

Which leads into the verse in question and the chapters that follow it, Matthew 5:20 says: “For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (NRSV). Jesus tells the people that they need to have a righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees. “The implication is that a wholly different conception of righteousness is needed” (Guthrie, p.496, 1981). The way the Pharisees lived out the Law only lead to hypocrisy because they lived it out according to their own interpretation. Now Jesus is giving his authoritative interpretation of the Law so that it can be lived out apart from their hypocrisy (Rhoads, p.458).

Jesus then proceeds to interpret the Law using examples such as murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, and retaliation. From the negative aspect He moves on to address the positive acts of a righteous person, one who gives alms, prays and fasts, but not so men will see and take notice but so as to lay up treasures in heaven rather than treasures on earth because the one who seeks God’s kingdom and His righteousness hashis needs taken care of by God (Wilson, p.47).

Unfortunately space does not allow us to view these passages any further except to note in passing that Jesus once again moves away from the righteousness of His disciples in 5:20 to God’s righteousness in 6:33. I would suggest that, despite the popular view, 6:33 is again not talking about obedience to Jesus teaching but God’s covenant faithfulness to His people. For this we can conclude that Matthew’s view of righteousness is not something that can be worked for but must be given by God.

Paul: Introduction

In recent years there has been a lot of discussion on Paul and how Paul should be interpreted. Most of which centers around the first century context in which Paul lived and the theology of his contemporary Jewish peers. Entire books have been written on the subject and they effect this current discussion on righteousness and what Paul meant by it. Unfortunately, dipping into this subject would mean never coming out with enough time to do anything meaningful with our current subject. So, we will head straight into Romans and hopefully deal with these issues as they appear.

We had mentioned earlier that Matthew’s Gospel is undeniably Jewish, therefore his use of ‘Righteousness’ will have been a Jewish use of the term. And the term here is found in Paul as well. What we will find is that ‘Righteousness’ in Matthew is amazingly similar to that in Paul.

No one works in a vacuum and that is especially true of Paul. Paul did not invent the word righteousness or the term righteousness of God. He borrows these terms from his Jewish roots (just like Matthew did). In Hebrew thought the term righteous is a relational concept. It is an impossibility to be righteous independently of everything else. “People are righteous when they meet the claims which others have on them by virtue of their relationship” (Dunn, p.41, 1988). So, when the righteousness of God is in sight it must refer to God’s covenantal faithfulness and “God’s act to restore his own and to sustain them within the covenant” (Dunn, p.41, 1988). And as we look through Romans we’ll discover where Paul differs from his Jewish heritage.

Romans 1:17: God’s Saving Activity

For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “The one who is righteous will live by faith.” (Romans 1:17, NRSV)

The gospel – the announcement of the lordship of Jesus the Messiah – reveals God’s righteousness, his covenant faithfulness, his dealing with the sin of the world through the fulfillment of his covenant in this Lord Jesus Christ. He has done all this righteously, that is, impartially. He has dealt with sin, and rescued the helpless. He has thereby fulfilled his promises. (Wright, p.126, 1997)

It is clear through Paul, both in Romans 1:17 and 3:21ff that the righteousness of God has been made evident through the gospel. N.T. Wright, in his paraphrase/explanation of Romans 1:17 (above), tell us what the righteousness of God, in Paul’s mind, is: His covenant faithfulness (Wright p.126, 1997). The righteousness of God then is God’s activity to bring people into covenantal relationship with Him and to sustain it by grace (Johnson, p.707, 1999). It is, in other words, the “saving action of God” (Moo, p.71, 1996). This however is not the only view, there are two other popular views on what could be meant by the righteousness of God.

The first view is to make it an attribute of God. In this case the phrase would mean “God’s distributive justice”, however, in this verse this meaning is unlikely because the context demands a positive meaning for the phrase. (Moo, p.70, 1996)

The second view is to make it a status given by God. This is the realization that Luther came to: That God imparts righteousness to the believer. The concept here is completely forensic. Thus, the gospel reveals “the righteous status that is from God” (Moo, p.71, 1996).

This writer will favor the first view (God’s activity) because it seems to better explain righteousness with in the Old Testament context of covenant as well as its use throughout the Old Testament (Psalm 31:1, 35:24; Isaiah 46:13, 50:5-8) (Dunn, p.41, 1988; Moo, p.73, 1996, Wright, p.100-103, 1997).

What separates Paul from his Jewish heritage is that the saving activity of God comes though faith, something that his Jewish contemporaries and ancestors had forgotten. However, not too much can be extracted from just verse 17 because it is an introductory passage. In order to really get into Paul’s view of the righteousness of God and what it means to us we need to skip ahead to chapter 3, especially verses 21 following.

Romans 3:21-26: The Righteousness of God

But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus.

Paul has just explained, through a law-court metaphor, that Jews and Gentiles are now under judgment. The Gentile world is not in touch with their Creator and the Jews as a whole have not been faithful to their God. But they have been welcomed into a new covenant with God, and now with in the context of God’s faithfulness (v.5) (as righteousness and faithfulness are closely connected) he continues on to the heart of the message (Wright, p.106, 1997). Luther called this portion of scripture, “the chief point, and the very central place of the Epistle, and of the whole Bible” (Moo, p.218, 1996).

In this passage alone the term “righteousness of God” occurs four times while the verb ‘justify’ is found twice and ‘just’ found once (Moo, p.219, 1996). It is important to note at this stage that all these words have their roots in ‘righteousness’ (Wright, p.106, 1997). Here, Paul explains how the ‘Righteousness of God’ “empower the gospel to mediate salvation to sinful human beings” (Moo, p.218, 1996).

First, Paul relates the ‘Righteousness of God’ to the Old Testament (v.21). Secondly, he points out that everyone (whether Jew or Gentile – being equal in sin) has access to the righteousness of God through faith (v.22-23). Thirdly, Paul reveals God’s provision in Jesus Christ as an atoning sacrifice (24-25a). And lastly, the atonement does not only provide ‘justification’ but also demonstrates God’s “just-ness” (Moo, p.219, 1996).

N.T. Wright summarizes these passages this way:

In Romans 3, he [Paul] shows how God has been righteous … He has been true to the covenant, which always aimed to deal with the sin of the world; he has kept his promises; he has dealt with sin on the cross; he has done so impartially, making a way of salvation for Jew and Gentile alike; and he now, as the righteous judge, helps and saves the helpless who cast themselves on his mercy (Wright, p.107, 1997)

It is safe to say that if another meaning is given to ‘righteousness of God’ other than ‘covenant faithfulness’ or ‘acts of covenant faithfulness’ the message of Paul quickly becomes unclear and muddled (Wright, p.107, 1997).

Paul then goes on to Romans 4 to talk about Genesis 15 and Abram’s covenant with God. This is where we will split off from our look at the righteousness of God and look at the apparent incompatibility of James and Romans 4.

James and Paul: Introduction

For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness. (Romans 4:3-5)

Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone … For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead. (James 2:21-24, 26)

Upon an initial reading these passages, a person with a high view of scripture may think that the ‘contradictions’ seem almost insurmountable! Both Paul and James use the same phrases, words and even Old Testament examples to come to, what seem like, polar opposite opinions. Some of the greatest minds with in Christianity have struggled over interpreting these two Scriptures. Luther, for instance said:
[James] does violence to Scripture, and so contradicts Paul and all Scripture…. I therefore refuse him a place among the writers of the true canon of my Bible; but I would not prevent anyone placing him or raising him where he likes, for the epistle contains many excellent passages.

There are a number of factors that must be looked at here to properly exegete these scriptures. The first thing that must be remembered, of course, is that words and language are not wooden and dead but fluid and living. A word to one person with in a certain context may mean something completely different to another person in another context. The three words that need to be looked at closer are ‘faith’, ‘works’ and most importantly ‘justify’

Faith

For James faith is equal to intellectual assent, particularly to belief about God and vocal agreement to right doctrine (Jenkins, p.65, 2002). This is evident by James use of terms such as ‘such faith’, ‘faith by itself’, and ‘faith alone’ as well, instead of writing ‘you believe in’ he writes ‘you believe that’, all of which are signs that the ‘faith’ James is referring to is quite radically different to the living and active faith that Paul is referring to (Rakestraw, p.36 1986). Paul makes clear elsewhere in scripture what James says here, in 1 Thessalonians 1:2-3 Paul writes, “We always give thanks … constantly remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ” (NRSV). Moo clarifies James position: “It is absolutely vital to understand that the main point of this argument, expressed three times (in w 17, 20 and 26), is not that works must be added to faith but that genuine faith includes works. That is its very nature” (Rakeshaw, p.36, 1986). And this position, Paul would have no problems with.

Works

Rakeshaw here agrees with Moo that the ‘works’ that both Paul and James mention are the same, ‘obedience to God’, not necessarily (in Paul’s case) to works of the Law (i.e. circumcision or dietary law) as there is a distinction between the two in Romans chapter three and four. The difference that is made however is within context. Paul’s context is that pre-conversion works have no bearing on ones salvation while James is referring to post-conversion works as essential for the Christian (Rakeshaw, p.38-39, 1986).

So there is no big difference in the term ‘works’ between Paul and James. For James ‘work’ are always good while Paul uses the formula, ‘works of law’ while developing his argument for justification by faith apart from works (Rakeshaw, p.38-39, 1986).

Justified

The difficulty with this word as used by James in verse 24 is that there are two established uses of the word with in scripture. Paul’s use of the word generally has been as a technical theological word for God’s declaration that a believer is righteous. There is, however, another meaning to the word and that is, “to prove or demonstrate something to be true or just” (Jenkins, p.67, 2002). Seeing as both meanings are prevalent in Scripture a look at the context is needed to establish which way James intends the word ‘justified’ to work.

The context here demands a demonstrative use of the word justified. In 2:14-20 we see James contrasting the faith void of works with the faith filled with works in 2:21-23. The legitimacy of the faith is dependant on the works. So in verse 24 when James says, “You see that a man is justified by works…” it could also be translated, “You see that a person is shown to be righteous on the basis of deeds and not on the basis of faith only” (Jenkins, p.67, 2002).

There is a lot more that could be discussed in relation to these few verses, but because of length restrictions all that can be displayed is James view of how one is made righteous (justified) and his use of the word ‘justified’ that, while it is not unseen in the Bible, can cause confusion with students as to what James really meant.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is evident that there is a rich use of ‘righteousness’ language with in the pages of Scripture. Not one definition can leave an exact meaning for the range of Scripture and to do this will not only leave you confused with some portions of Scripture but can also be damaging to ones doctrine – which was made evident by our look at James. What we come away with from this study is a unified Scripture that glorifies God and makes even clearer His amazing plan for our lives.

About 6 months ago someone decided that they needed my sirius radio more than I needed it so they took a rock to my car window and relieved it from my possession. I was a bit upset, but things like that happen, so I phoned to cancel my subscription.

When I phoned Sirius I learned some interesting details:

First, they would not pause my account (which they advertise that they can do on thier automated phonelines) which would have been ideal for me until I could get another radio.

Second: they would not contact me if my radio (which has a unique and specific ID number) was suddenly activated again. Ok, I can understand this, they probably have thousand of radios stolen and activated (most probably by unsuspecting people) and to phone each person would be time consuming and costly … they did tell me that if I phoned them and gave my devices number they would tell me if it was activated again.

But this second problem begged the question: Will you activate a radio that has been reported stolen?

Their answer: Yes

Can you brick my device? (it can never be activated until I happen to find it)

Their answer: No.

Now this is not an unfair request, after all, cell phone companies do it all the time. And Sirius has the means to do this, every radio has a unique signiture. All they need is to start a list of reported stolen numbers and they have themselves a block-list. But then again, that would mean they would have to turn away paying costumers who want to activate a stolen reciever and lose all that money.

We couldn’t have that could we!

I have a Starbucks card for one reason: I don’t carry cash around and using my debit card has extra fees … it was a convenient alternative.  Now there is another reason to get a Starbucks card, Free Refills and other perks.

Enjoy.