Channels, Fall 2016

Channels • 2016 • Volume 1 • Number 1 Page 31 as the one “who bestowed on his people the all-embracing gift of his righteousness.” 45 Von Rad correctly argues, based on Genesis 15:6, Deuteronomy 6:25, and Ezekiel 18, that the nature of righteousness and the individual’s vindication as righteous were determined by God alone. Thus, the psalmist can pray for his vindication to “come forth” (Pss. 17:2; 37:6), and the Servant is able to know that his vindication will take place because righteousness belongs to Yahweh (Is. 49:4, 8). 46 For this reason, it appears that the NPP’s definition highlights one example of righteous- ness, but it is not broad enough to address the entirety of the concept. 47 48 To say that “righteousness” equals or only means “covenantal faithfulness” is to commit an incident of “totally transfer”, that is, to affirm that the meaning arising from one or more passages must be the same in all references. 49 In his study of Old Testament “righteousness”, Wester- holm reached the conclusion that, in the Hebrew Bible, the foundation for Paul’s doctrine of justification and vocabulary in the epistles, “righteousness is what one ought to do (how- ever that is defined), and the one who does it is ‘righteous.’” 50 Noah was declared “right- eous” before any covenant is mentioned in Scripture (Gen. 6:9) and before others in his generation failed to meet the expectation of “righteousness” and were judged (though part of no covenant). Job was blameless and upright in God’s eyes even though the covenant is not mentioned and even though he most-likely lived before Moses. Moreover, Abel and Lot were considered “righteous” (Heb. 11:4; 2 Pet. 2:7-8) before the covenant. According to Westerholm, the concept of “righteousness” is connected to what is deemed morally appro- priate. This transcends the reality of the covenant since it reflects the morally appropriate behavior rooted in the character of God and in the principle of creation before the formula- tion of the covenant. 51 45 Ibid., 377. 46 Ibid., 379-80. 47 Westerholm, Justification Reconsidered, 71. 48 John Piper, The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007), 62- 63. In this section, Piper makes the statement that Wright’s definition of God’s righteousness does not go deep enough. Although God’s faithfulness in keeping his promises and honoring his covenant with the Israelites is part of his “righteousness,” attributes such as love, goodness, and faithfulness could also impel God to be faithful to the covenant promises. According to Piper, one must ask, “What is it about God’s righteousness that inclines him to act in these ways? In order to find a definition for the “righteousness of God.” In the following pages, he affirms that “the righteousness of God consists most basically in God’s unswerving commitment to preserve the honor of his name and display his glory (p. 66).” 49 S. Brian Pounds, “Romans 4:1-4 as a Test Case for the New Perspective on Paul,” 220. 50 Westerhom, Justification Reconsidered, 59. 51 Ibid., 58-64. Westerholm states that “righteousness does not mean, and by its very nature cannot mean, membership in a covenant or a status conveyed by the decision of a court.” According to the author, the meaning of “righteousness” is rooted in the uprightness of someone’s moral character that transcends the concepts of the covenant and the law. In other words, “righteousness” was a reality before the covenant was present, because it is rooted in the character of God since the beginning of times. Another example that the author uses is found in the book of proverbs, where the framework used throughout the book is not that of “the covenant,” but of creation’s order, which is observed even by the ants (prov. 6:6-8). He claims that “scales, paths, and commandments be what they ought, or purport, to be. Covenant membership is not, for scales, paths, or commandments, a live option; but they ought to be ‘righteous.’ (pg. 63).