No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Righteousness and Salvation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
Extract
‘A Twentieth-Century reader encountering the word righteousness in Semitic texts must always be careful to adjust his thought and not to place this term in the categories to which our word righteousness has accustomed us.’ These cautionary words may well be given for any study of Old Testament terms but they are especially appropriate for the study of righteousness. We are accustomed to associate righteousness with some kind of impartial and impersonal dispensing of reward and blame by which the moral rectitude of society is maintained. Righteousness in the Old Testament does have something of our modern concept of justice but it cannot be restricted to that for we will find to our surprise that other concepts have important significance in our understanding of righteousness. As we shall see, righteousness shines forth in a spectrum of meaning that cannot be reduced to one line of thought. It behooves the student of the Old Testament, to free himself from any kind of bondage, whether it be an adherence to prevailing scholastic categories of thought or a reaction against them.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1977
References
233 1 Cazelles, H., ‘A propos de quelques textes difficiles relatifs à la justice de Dieu dans l'A.T.’, Revue Biblique (1951), pp. 169 ffGoogle Scholar.
233 2 Kautzsch, E., Die Derivate des Stammes sdq im alttestamentlichen Sprachgcbrauch (Tübingen, 1881)Google Scholar.
238 1 von Rad, G., Old Testament Theology, Vol. I (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962), p. 377Google Scholar; cf. Jacob's, E. criticism of ‘non-punitive’ righteousness, Theology of the Old Testament (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958) pp. 99fGoogle Scholar; also Kuyper, L. J., The Righteousness of God in the Old Testament (Holland, Michigan: Western Theological Seminary, 1943), pp. 13–15Google Scholar.
240 1 The Theology of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1904), p. 144Google Scholar.
243 1 Stuhlmacher, P., Gerechtigkeit Gottts bei Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), pp. 188–191Google Scholar.
248 1 The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1954), p. 57Google Scholar; cf. further Dodd's discussion of the paradox and his exposition of Rom. 3.25f The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London: Collins, 1959), pp. 76–84Google Scholar.
250 1 Recommended studies of Paul's exposition of the Righteousness of God: Barrett, C. K., The Epistle to the Romans (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1957) pp. 71–84Google Scholar; Nygren, A., Commentary on Romans (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1949) pp. 144–184Google Scholar; Ropes, J. H., ‘“Righteousness“ and “The Righteousness of God” in the Old Testament and in St. Paul’, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 22 (1903), pp. 221–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schernk, G., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. II (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964), pp. 202–210Google Scholar; P. Stuhlmacher, op. cit., pp. 74–101.
252 1 M. Dibelius offers a summary about the Paul-James issue on faith-works: ‘The faith of Abraham helped his works, and his works perfected his faith.’ The completion of this faith in James' thought arrived at something higher, a goal for both faith and works, which is Abraham's righteousness, Der Brief des Jakobus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959), pp. I52f. B. Reicke lessens the Paul-James tension in observing that James views man's justification (righteousness) with the final judgment in mind, whereas Paul has the believer's conversion and baptism in mind, The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude (‘The Anchor Bible’; Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1964), pp. 34fGoogle Scholar; other recommended studies: J. Jeremias, ‘Paul and James’, The Expository Times (September, 1955), pp. 368–371; Moffat, J., The General Epistles (‘The Moffat New Testament Commentary’; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, Doran & Company, 1928), pp. 42–45Google Scholar; P. Stuhlmacher, op. cit., pp. 191–194.