'Penal Substitution', anyone?

[Butch5]

As is penal substitution, take heed!

No it's not. If it was, it cold be traced back to the apostles, it can't, thus it's not Biblical.

 

[Clare73]

Then they were correct, take heed!

Jesus disagreed [post=62758685]here[/post].

However, penal substitution is his revelation (Heb 1:1-2) which is the NT, given in Ro 3:25-26 [post=62647466]here[/post].

<BUMP>

 

[Butch5]

Jesus disagreed [post=62758685]here[/post].

However, penal substitution is his revelation (Heb 1:1-2) which is the NT, given in Ro 3:25-26 [post=62647466]here[/post].

<BUMP>

If it was it could, be traced back to the apostles, it can't be thus it is not Biblical

 

[Arcoe]

Nice try at setting Paul against himself in Eph 2:3 and 5:3-6.

How do you see that? 2:3 says absolutely nothing about being born under the wrath of God. You put that there yourself. If you do not believe 5:3-6, then there is nothing I can tell you. You are freely on your own to believe however and whatever you want.

All Scripture is from God (2Ti 3:16), and God does not contradict himself.

So we know you are misinterpreting.

It is because of both Eph 2:3 and 5:3-6.
It's not either/or, it's both/and.

Well, at least we know where you stand on the word of God written.

"Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath." (Eph 2:3)

We are born with our nature.

Again, NOTHING is said about being born in 2:3. You put this there yourself.

'Tis setting the word of God against itself that is deception.

Not according to the NT.

Eph 5:3-6 states only what leads to God's wrath, not what delivers from it.

What delivers from it is stated elsewhere in the NT, and it is not obedience.

If wrath comes upon the disobedient, then it is obedience which brings God's blessings. God bless.

 

[Clare73]

If it was it could, be traced back to the apostles, it can't be thus it is not Biblical

You're kidding, right?

Jesus disagreed with the Sadducees [post=62758685]here[/post].

And penal substitution is his revelation (Heb 1:1-2) which is the NT, given [post=62647466]here[/post] in Ro 3:25-26.

So in Jesus revelation (Heb 10:1-2) which is the NT, what the apostles record Jesus saying is irrelevant?
Thanks for making clear your view of the word of God written.

However, you are wrong again.
The book of Hebrews reveals those in the New Covenant have come to God, the judge of all men,
and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and
to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel." (Heb 12:23-24)

Spirits of righteous men - pre-Christian believers, such as Abel (Heb 11:4) and Noah (Heb 11:7).
Spirits - because they are waiting for the resurrection, as Jesus said Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were.
Righteous - because God credited their faith to them as righteousness, as he did to Abraham (Ro 4:3).

Actual justification was not accomplished, however, until Christ made it complete by his death on the cross (Heb 11:40; Ro 3:24-26, 4:23-25).

Do you expect this Sadducee foolishness to be taken seriously?

 

[bottomofsandal]

If it was it could, be traced back to the apostles, it can't be thus it is not Biblical

Good morning Butch !

I hope and pray you had a Blessed Resurrection Day !



It might be helpful to illuminate the counter-position to PSAT that the ECFs had about the cross, specifically in regard to Christ's death, and offering/sacrifice. Without the shedding of Blood, there is no remission of sin. Was it required of Christ to shed His Blood ? Thanks in advance !

 

[Skala]

If it was it could, be traced back to the apostles, it can't be thus it is not Biblical

I'm pretty sure the apostles wrote the text that clare is quoting.

 

[Clare73]

How do you see that? 2:3 says absolutely nothing about being born under the wrath of God. You put that there yourself.

Your attitude is showing. . .and you're going in circles.

We've already been around that bush [post=62739406]here[/post], where Scripture reveals we are born in and guilty of Adam's sin.

Therefore, from birth, we "are by nature objects of God's wrath." (Eph 2:3)

And to quote one who shall remain nameless:

"If you do not believe Ro 5:12-21, then there is nothing I can tell you. You are freely on your own to believe however and whatever you want."

 

[Arcoe]

Your attitude is showing. . .and you're going in circles.

We've already been around that bush [post=62739406]here[/post], where Scripture reveals we are born in and guilty of Adam's sin.

Sorry, you won't be able to provide one passage which states we are born guilty of Adam's sin. Since you consider yourself guilty, what did the forbidden fruit taste like?

Therefore, from birth, we "are by nature objects of God's wrath." (Eph 2:3)

You still haven't shown me the word 'born' in Eph. 2:3.

And to quote one who shall remain nameless:

"If you do not believe Ro 5:12-21, then there is nothing I can tell you. You are freely on your own to believe however and whatever you want."

Clare, Clare, if you want to be the winner in this, please give yourself the blue ribbon and consider it done.

 

[Skala]

Sorry, you won't be able to provide one passage which states we are born guilty of Adam's sin. Since you consider yourself guilty, what did the forbidden fruit taste like?

Ever read Romans 5? Paul states that without the law, sin is not counted. But then he says "nevertheless, people died between Adam and Moses". Moses is where the law came from. Yet, Paul says, before the law, people were dying (dying is the wages of sin).

Since sin is not counted where there is no law, why were people dying between Adam and Moses?

Paul is saying that we, as humans, are guilty in Adam. Just as Christ represents his people, Adam represents his people.

What else did you think Paul meant by saying that Christ was a "second" Adam?" What does that even mean if the first Adam has nothing to do with us?

You still haven't shown me the word 'born' in Eph. 2:3.

What is meant by the statement "by nature we are children of wrath"?

 

[Clare73]

Your attitude is showing. . .and you're going in circles.

We've already been around that bush [post=62739406]here[/post], where Scripture reveals we are born in and guilty of Adam's sin.

Therefore, from birth, we "are by nature objects of God's wrath." (Eph 2:3)

Sorry, you won't be able to provide one passage which states we are born guilty of Adam's sin.
Since you consider yourself guilty, what did the forbidden fruit taste like?

Pay attention.

No wonder you are so Scripturally uninformed.

The NT reveals that unregenerate mankind is morally responsible for Adam's sin.
The NT reveals that we are born spiritually dead (Ge 2:17; Eph 2:1; Col 2:13) in sin and unbelief and, therefore, are condemned to damnation (Jn 3:18b-19, 36).

In Ro 5:12-21, the NT establishes our personal responsibility for this condemnation into which we are born, where two illustrations are used to show that unregenerate man is responsible for the sin of Adam's transgression.

1) In vv. 12-14, the NT reveals that even those from Adam to Moses who were not guilty of the sin of transgression (because there was no law to transgress, Ro 4:15, 5:13) died anyway (v.14)--proof that God held them all guilty ("all sinned," v.12) of sin ("sin was in the world," v.13).
But when there was no law to transgress, the only sin in the world that could cause the guilt of death (Ro 6:23) was Adam's transgression.
And thus the NT establishes that unregenerate mankind since Adam is born guilty of the sin of Adam's transgression.

In vv. 15-16, the NT contrasts, and then

2) in vv. 17-19, the NT parallels the trespass of Adam and the righteousness of Jesus Christ, to show the Biblical principle which is involved.
Note that in v. 18, the NT states that we are all condemned by Adam's trespass, just as we are made righteous by Christ's obedience.

Christ was a second Adam (v.14; 1Co 15:45), meaning that our interest (involvement) in the two of them is of the same nature (1Co 15:22).
In one man we were made sinners, just as in one man we are made righteous.
The NT is drawing clear parallelisms of imputation in vv. 18-19, so that the last half of each verse gives the true meaning of the first half of each verse.
In neither half of the parallel does the outcome (guilt, righteousness) have anything to do with what mankind did, or our involvement would not be of the same nature and the parallelism would be destroyed.

The clear meaning is that Adam's guilt is imputed to us, just as (in the same way) Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, which is the Biblical principle of imputation the NT reveals here.

So the NT reveals that unregenerate mankind is morally responsible for (guilty of) the sentence of condemnation into which he is born because of the guilt of Adam which is imputed to him.

Not that does raise the question, if man did not personally incur the sin of Adam, how can God justly hold man morally responsbile for that sin?

And that is addressed [post=62739406]here[/post], as part of the previous presentation to you.

The NT is quite clear that we are born in Adam's sin, which is the meaning of original sin.

So, no Arcoe, the NT reveals that your original sin was not the first sin of which you are personally guilty.

Clare, if you want to be the winner in this, please give yourself the blue ribbon and consider it done.

What a pathetic thinly-veiled attempt to disguise your inability to address Ro 5:12-21, above.

Q.E.D.

 

[hedrick]

There's more than one literal reading of original sin. The one you mention is that we are guilty of Adam's sin. However John Calvin took a different view: that as a result of Adam's sin, his nature was corrupted. He passed that corrupted nature on to us. That corrupted nature makes a right relationship with God impossible (without grace), and thus is grounds for condemnation. I think you'll find that the Bible's discussion of Adam is compatible with either approach, and possibly others that I may write about.

It is far from clear that Rom 5 speaks of imputation of sin. It says:
* sin came into the world through Adam
* death spread to us because we have sinned
* death exercized dominion
* many died through Adam's sin

None of this says that sin is imputed. Indeed Calvin's exegesis seems to make more sense of it, though I have concerns even about his, which I'm not yet ready to write about.

Now about the parallel with Christ. Suppose Calvin is right, and what we inherit from Adam is a corrupted nature. What we inherit from Christ is a regenerated nature. The difference is that we are natural children of Adam, whereas we receive regeneration from Christ by union with him, dying to sin and receiving new life (Rom 6). I.e. we are his children through faith. A quite standard Pauline motif.

I think that's just as reasonable an exegesis as Clare's, since it uses only things that Paul actually says, rather than imputation of sin, which he doesn't.

Clare: It is extremely easy to read your own preconceptions into passages. This is a danger that I don't believe you're taking sufficient precautions against. There is at least one legitimate interpretation other than yours. I think your snide comment about being Scripturally uninformed inappropriate. 1 Cor 13:1.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

There are elements of truth in a number of the so-called "theories" of atonement, as such, each should be weighed by Scripture. I embrace limited atonement and substitutionary atonement, but also the satisfaction view, and the penal view. Each of them have a different emphasis. Outside of Scripture, I believe at least two of them have their official theological origin in St. Anselm of Canterbury.

 

[Arcoe]

Pay attention.

No wonder you are so Scripturally uninformed.

Clare, if you are going to continually berate me with your attitude, then I will have move on to others who do not have such an attitude. I would advise get off Romans 3, and stay on 1 Corinthians 13 for a while.

The NT reveals that unregenerate mankind is morally responsible for Adam's sin.
The NT reveals that we are born spiritually dead (Ge 2:17; Eph 2:1; Col 2:13) in sin and unbelief and, therefore, are condemned to damnation (Jn 3:18b-19, 36).

Genesis 2:17
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

IN THE DAY YOU EAT OF IT, not before you are born.

Ephesians 2:1
And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,

Again, absolutely NOTHING about being born in sins and trespasses.

Colossians 2:13
And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,

Strike three! But, I am gracious, I will give you two more tries.

John 3
18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Okay, I am beginning to think you are trying to deceive me again.

John 3:36
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.

Okay, you have given five references you claim to say we are born in sin and with the wrath of God upon us. You have failed in them all.

In Ro 5:12-21, the NT establishes our personal responsibility for this condemnation into which we are born, where two illustrations are used to show that unregenerate man is responsible for the sin of Adam's transgression.

Really now? Again, you will have to provide passages which state we are born into condemnation. As I've said before, you won't find any. If you want to be responsible for Adam's sin, and would like to take his punishment, then be my guest. I'll stick with the responsibility of my own sins. Thank you.

1) In vv. 12-14, the NT reveals that even those from Adam to Moses who were not guilty of the sin of transgression (because there was no law to transgress, Ro 4:15, 5:13) died anyway (v.14)--proof that God held them all guilty ("all sinned," v.12) of sin ("sin was in the world," v.13).
But when there was no law to transgress, the only sin in the world that could cause the guilt of death (Ro 6:23) was Adam's transgression.
And thus the NT establishes that unregenerate mankind since Adam is born guilty of the sin of Adam's transgression.

Let me get this straight, the guilty will die a physical death as punishment for Adam's sin. And you call this physical death the wrath of God. Just for your information, you cannot escape the wrath of God then. You will die physically just as anyone else.

I am sure the evil appreciate your rendition of God's wrath. I am sure, by your belief, no one made it to heaven from Adam to Moses, for everyone during that time died a physical death, or experienced the wrath of God.

In vv. 15-16, the NT contrasts, and then

2) in vv. 17-19, the NT parallels the trespass of Adam and the righteousness of Jesus Christ, to show the Biblical principle which is involved.
Note that in v. 18, the NT states that we are all condemned by Adam's trespass, just as we are made righteous by Christ's obedience.

If judgement came to ALL men, then you must believe the gift of righteousness came to ALL men, just as the passage states.

Christ was a second Adam (v.14; 1Co 15:45), meaning that our interest (involvement) in the two of them is of the same nature (1Co 15:22).
In one man we were made sinners, just as in one man we are made righteous.
The NT is drawing clear parallelisms of imputation in vv. 18-19, so that the last half of each verse gives the true meaning of the first half of each verse.
In neither half of the parallel does the outcome (guilt, righteousness) have anything to do with what mankind did, or our involvement would not be of the same nature and the parallelism would be destroyed.

No need to worry Clare, the gift of righteousness came to ALL men, just as condemnation came to ALL men.

The clear meaning is that Adam's guilt is imputed to us, just as (in the same way) Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, which is the Biblical principle of imputation the NT reveals here.

I think I like what Jesus said about Adam. Since this is such an important subject every believer must know and understand, the words of Jesus concerning Adam should give us some light on this very pertinent subject.

So the NT reveals that unregenerate mankind is morally responsible for (guilty of) the sentence of condemnation into which he is born because of the guilt of Adam which is imputed to him.

You are setting my teeth on edge just reading about being guilty because Adam ate sour grapes.

Not that does raise the question, if man did not personally incur the sin of Adam, how can God justly hold man morally responsbile for that sin?

He doesn't hold man responsible for Adam's sin. He holds man responsible for the sins he actually commits.

Well, the analogy of the Anthropos family business is helpful here.
As long as the Anthropos sons of future generations, who successively inherit the family business (not a corp, partnership, LLC etc.), keeps up the family business, they are personally responsible for the debts of that business, even though they did not personally incur those debts.
The prinicple here is that personal responsbility for debt does not require that the debt be personally incurred.

You have that correct. AS LONG AS they keep up the family business, they are indebted. Want to know a secret? I am not keeping up Adam's business. The debt Adam incurred, is his. I've started my own business, and will be responsible for any debt I personally incur.

That legal priniple is also a Biblical principle.
Because man is the son of Adam, who continues in the family businss of Adam, which is rebellion and disobedience of God's enemies (Ro 5:10, 3:10-12, 18), he is, therefore, responsible for the debt of Adam (penalty for sin), even though he did not personally incur that debt.

As I said, I gave up Adam's 'rebellion' and 'disobedience' business. I have my own business I started when I was born.

We have an example of that principle in Lk 11:48-51, where Jesus holds the present generation of Jewish doctors of (experts in) the law responsible for all the blood of the prophets shed by their forefathers from the beginning of the world; because in rejecting and murdering Christ (Ac 7:51-52), the Prophet whom Moses said was to come (Dt 18:18; Jn 1:21, 6:14, 12:49; Ac 3:22-23), they were keeping up their forefathers' business of rejecting and murdering God's prophets and were, therefore, liable for all the debts (penalty for sins) of their forefathers' business of murdering the prophets (v.51).

You need to read and believe Ezekiel 18. This will clear any misunderstanding you might have of all this.

So, in the same way as Jesus held the Jewish doctors of the law responsible/guilty of the sin of their forefathers, even though they did not personally incur their sin, unregenerate man is likewise responsible/guilty of the sin of Adam, even though he did not personally incur Adam's sin (Ro 1:32), because he continues in the sin of Adam's rebellion and disobedience.

So, it's not being born in Adam's sin, but CONTINUING in the likeness of it. I will deal with being guilty of Adam's sin below.

So Biblically, as well as in our legal system, there is no injustice in God holding unregenerate mankind morally responsbile for the sin of Adam's rebellion and disobedience which he did not personally incur, because personal responsibility for debt does not require that it be personally incurred.

Let me give you two verses from Ezekiel 18 which puts this folly of yours to rest once and for all.

19 Yet you say, &#8216;Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?&#8217; Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live.
20 The soul who sins shall die. The son SHALL NOT bear the GUILT of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be UPON HIMSELF.

This is about as clear as it gets. If you still want to believe your scenario, then you will have to disregard the Bible. And that's not a very wise decision.

The NT is quite clear that we are born in Adam's sin, which is the meaning of original sin.

So, no Arcoe, the NT reveals that your original sin was not the first sin of which you are personally guilty.

What a pathetic thinly-veiled attempt to disguise your inability to address Ro 5:12-21, above.

Q.E.D.

You and this being 'born' in Adam's sin is a folly. I've shown you what the Bible plainly states of man not being guilty of the father's sins. I have asked you to show me passages from the Bible which say we are 'born' in Adam's sins, and you can't.

I think Ezekiel 18 addresses Romans 5 very well. Do you need more proof than what the Bible says?

 

[ForceofTime]

He doesn't hold man responsible for Adam's sin. He holds man responsible for the sins he actually commits.

You need to read and believe Ezekiel 18. This will clear any misunderstanding you might have of all this.

Hi, Arcoe. In light of the above, how do you interpret the following (apologies if this has been brought up before):

Mat 23:35-36 KJV
(35) That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
(36) Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Pay attention.

No wonder you are so Scripturally uninformed.

The NT reveals that unregenerate mankind is morally responsible for Adam's sin.
The NT reveals that we are born spiritually dead (Ge 2:17; Eph 2:1; Col 2:13) in sin and unbelief and, therefore, are condemned to damnation (Jn 3:18b-19, 36).

In Ro 5:12-21, the NT establishes our personal responsibility for this condemnation into which we are born, where two illustrations are used to show that unregenerate man is responsible for the sin of Adam's transgression.

1) In vv. 12-14, the NT reveals that even those from Adam to Moses who were not guilty of the sin of transgression (because there was no law to transgress, Ro 4:15, 5:13) died anyway (v.14)--proof that God held them all guilty ("all sinned," v.12) of sin ("sin was in the world," v.13).
But when there was no law to transgress, the only sin in the world that could cause the guilt of death (Ro 6:23) was Adam's transgression.
And thus the NT establishes that unregenerate mankind since Adam is born guilty of the sin of Adam's transgression.

In vv. 15-16, the NT contrasts, and then

2) in vv. 17-19, the NT parallels the trespass of Adam and the righteousness of Jesus Christ, to show the Biblical principle which is involved.
Note that in v. 18, the NT states that we are all condemned by Adam's trespass, just as we are made righteous by Christ's obedience.

Christ was a second Adam (v.14; 1Co 15:45), meaning that our interest (involvement) in the two of them is of the same nature (1Co 15:22).
In one man we were made sinners, just as in one man we are made righteous.
The NT is drawing clear parallelisms of imputation in vv. 18-19, so that the last half of each verse gives the true meaning of the first half of each verse.
In neither half of the parallel does the outcome (guilt, righteousness) have anything to do with what mankind did, or our involvement would not be of the same nature and the parallelism would be destroyed.

The clear meaning is that Adam's guilt is imputed to us, just as (in the same way) Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, which is the Biblical principle of imputation the NT reveals here.

So the NT reveals that unregenerate mankind is morally responsible for (guilty of) the sentence of condemnation into which he is born because of the guilt of Adam which is imputed to him.

Not that does raise the question, if man did not personally incur the sin of Adam, how can God justly hold man morally responsbile for that sin?

Well, the analogy of the Anthropos family business is helpful here.
As long as the Anthropos sons of future generations, who successively inherit the family business (not a corp, partnership, LLC etc.), keeps up the family business, they are personally responsible for the debts of that business, even though they did not personally incur those debts.
The prinicple here is that personal responsbility for debt does not require that the debt be personally incurred.

That legal priniple is also a Biblical principle.
Because man is the son of Adam, who continues in the family businss of Adam, which is rebellion and disobedience of God's enemies (Ro 5:10, 3:10-12, 18), he is, therefore, responsible for the debt of Adam (penalty for sin), even though he did not personally incur that debt.

We have an example of that principle in Lk 11:48-51, where Jesus holds the present generation of Jewish doctors of (experts in) the law responsible for all the blood of the prophets shed by their forefathers from the beginning of the world;
because in rejecting and murdering Christ (Ac 7:51-52), the Prophet whom Moses said was to come (Dt 18:18; Jn 1:21, 6:14, 12:49; Ac 3:22-23),
they were keeping up their forefathers' business of rejecting and murdering God's prophets and were, therefore, liable for all the debts (penalty for sins) of their forefathers' business of murdering the prophets (v.51).

So, in the same way as Jesus held the Jewish doctors of the law responsible/guilty of the sin of their forefathers, even though they did not personally incur their sin,
unregenerate man is likewise responsible/guilty of the sin of Adam, even though he did not personally incur Adam's sin (Ro 1:32), because he continues in the sin of Adam's rebellion and disobedience.

So Biblically, as well as in our legal system, there is no injustice in God holding unregenerate mankind morally responsbile for the sin of Adam's rebellion and disobedience which he did not personally incur, because personal responsibility for debt does not require that it be personally incurred.

The NT is quite clear that we are born in Adam's sin, which is the meaning of original sin.

So, no Arcoe, the NT reveals that your original sin was not the first sin of which you are personally guilty.


What a pathetic thinly-veiled attempt to disguise your inability to address Ro 5:12-21, above.

Q.E.D.

I know I gave rep, but I've gotta quote this one, can't help but draw more attention to this outstanding post!

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

A. Righteousness
God's righteousness is his justice.
God's justice is his righteousness.
Justice and righteousness are the same Greek word[/COLOR], dikaiosune, and they are the same thing

I would have quoted your entire post (which I enjoyed) but only wanted to address the definition of righteousness. You inspired me to do a word search in my Logos library and I wanted to share a small sample of the results, as I thought you might be interested. Please note, there is not nearly enough character space for full quotes, these are partial and selective, but here goes.

RIGHTEOUSNESS (Heb. &#7779;e&#7695;eq, &#7779; e&#7695;&#257;qâ; Gk. LXX and NT, dikaiosyn&#275. The Heb. &#7779;e&#7695;eq probably derives from an Arab. root meaning &#8216;straightness&#8217;, leading to the notion of an action which conforms to a norm. There is, however, a considerable richness in the biblical understanding of this term and it is difficult to render either the Heb. or Gk. words concerned by a simple Eng. equivalent. One basic ingredient in the OT idea of righteousness is relationship, both between God and man (Ps. 50:6; Je. 9:24) and between man and man (Dt. 24:13; Je. 22:3)....

The NT uses righteousness in the sense of conformity to the demands and obligations of the will of God, the so-called &#8216;righteousness of the law&#8217; (Gal. 3:21; Phil. 3:6, 9; cf. Tit. 3:5). Human attainment of righteousness is at points relatively positively viewed (Lk. 1:6; 2:25; Mt. 5:20), but in the end this attainment in all men falls far short of a true conformity to the divine will (Rom. 3:9&#8211;20; Lk. 18:9&#8211;14; Jn. 8:7). In contrast to this human unrighteousness stands the righteousness of God (Rom. 1:17) which in consistency with OT understanding conveys the thought of God&#8217;s active succour of man in the miracle of his grace. - New Bible Dictionary IVP

JUSTICE, RIGHTEOUSNESS
In biblical thought the idea of justice or righteousness generally expresses conformity to God&#8217;s will in all areas of life: law, government, covenant loyalty, ethical integrity or gracious actions. When humans adhere to God&#8217;s will as expressed in his Law, they are considered just or righteous. Jesus taught that those who conform their lives to his teachings are also just or righteous.
1. Terminology, Meaning and Context
2. The Message of Jesus
3. The Emphases of the Gospel Writers
1. Terminology, Meaning and Context.
English words related to justice and righteousness are usually used to translate the dik- word group found in the NT. The use of dik- in the NT reflects the LXX&#8217;s usual translation of the Hebrew &#7779;&#7695;q (righteous) word-group with the Greek dik-. In the OT the &#7779;&#7695;q word group essentially refers to &#8220;conduct in accordance with the requirements of a particular relationship,&#8221; whether that be the covenant which imposes obligations on both God and his people or the world order set up by God, with which humanity must live in accordance. Hence, though she acted sinfully in playing the harlot, Tamar is said to be &#8220;more righteous&#8221; than Judah because she acted in the interest of a social standard&#8212;Judah&#8217;s obligation to provide offspring for her deceased husband (Gen 38:26). In several instances the &#7779;&#7695;q word group is translated in the LXX by other Greek terms, including ele&#275;mosyn&#275; (almsgiving) and krisis (judgment). However, it is not just the &#7779;&#7695;q word group that conveys the idea of righteousness and justice in the Hebrew OT; the concept also embraces mi&#353;p&#257;&#7789; (judgment, ordinance), &#7717;ese&#7695; (lovingkindness), tôrâ (command) and t&#257;mîm (perfect, complete).
Whereas in English justice emphasizes conformity to a society&#8217;s standards, righteousness usually denotes conformity to God&#8217;s standards or religious norms. However, these distinctions are not helpful when justice and righteousness are used to translate biblical terms (e.g., Job 22:6&#8211;9, 23; Ezek 45:9; Amos 4:1&#8211;3). In conveying biblical thought, the two English terms are inseparable in that it is God&#8217;s will to which a person conforms, whether that will is expressed in predominantly social or religious categories. In this article justice will be used exclusively for the social implications of God&#8217;s will; righteousness will be used for the broader meaning of the concept. However, in many instances a clear distinction cannot and should not be made.
Throughout Jewish literature we find two dominant ideas: God is righteous and his people are to be righteous in their behavior. The righteousness of God, primarily understood as his impeccable holiness and the conformity of his actions to that holy nature, is commonplace in Jewish thought (Is 45:21; Ps 22:31; 40:10; 51:14; 71:15&#8211;24; Hos 10:12; Amos 5:21&#8211;24; Mic 6:5; 7:9; Pss. Sol. 2:15; 8:23; Bar 5:1&#8211;2; Sib. Or. 3:704; Josephus Ant. 2.6.4 §108; 11.3.6 §55; 1QS 1:21; 10:11, 25; 1QH 12:19; 14:15; Sipre Deut 307 [on 32:4]; m. So&#7789;a 1:9). In addition, as recent scholarship has shown, righteousness attributed to God&#8217;s people refers to moral behavior conforming to God&#8217;s will (Gen 18:19; Lev 19:36; Deut 6:25; Is 5:16; Ps 1:4&#8211;6; Pss. Sol. 2:34&#8211;35; 3:3&#8211;12; 15:1&#8211;13; Philo, Leg. All. 2.18; Migr. Abr. 219; 1QS 1:5, 13; 3:1; 1QH 2:13; 4:30, 31; 7:14; Sipra Qedoshim pereq 11:6 [on Lev 20:16]; t. Pe&#722;a 4.19; t. Sanh. 1.3&#8211;5). These twin themes of divine and human righteousness should inform our approach to the use of righteousness in the Gospels. - Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels IVP

RIGHTEOUSNESS &#8212; holy and upright living, in accordance with God&#8217;s standard. The word &#8220;righteousness&#8221; comes from a root word that means &#8220;straightness.&#8221; It refers to a state that conforms to an authoritative standard. Righteousness is a moral concept. God&#8217;s character is the definition and source of all righteousness (Gen. 18:25; Deut. 32:4; Rom. 9:14). Therefore, the righteousness of human beings is defined in terms of God&#8217;s...
The cross of Jesus is a public demonstration of God&#8217;s righteousness. God accounts or transfers the righteousness of Christ to those who trust in Him (Rom. 4:3&#8211;22; Gal. 3:6; Phil. 3:9). We do not become righteous because of our inherent goodness; God sees us as righteous because of our identification by faith with His Son. - Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary Thomas Nelson

RIGHTEOUS, RIGHTEOUSNESS
i. HISTORY OF THE TERMS.&#8212;The root notion of the Heb. word &#1510;&#1456;&#1491;&#1464;&#1511;&#1464;&#1492; is that which is just, right, and normal; and its exact meaning fluctuates in each epoch according to the standard by which right and wrong are measured. It is true that in the OT this standard is always based on the will of Jehovah; but we observe great changes&#8212;chiefly progressive&#8212;in the Jewish notion of what He requires. In more primitive times the conception of &#1510;&#1456;&#1491;&#1464;&#1511;&#1464;&#1492; is mainly forensic, meaning that which accords with custom as fixed by the Divinely given decisions of the people&#8217;s judges. But the prophets raised the whole conception of the law of God, and insisted that its moral aspect was infinitely more important than its ceremonial. Indeed, thongh like all OT writers they dealt with action rather than character, they almost foreshadow in places the NT teaching, that it is a clean heart that makes a righteous deed. Hosea and Jeremiah illumined the conception of man&#8217;s duty to his neighbour by the preaching of God&#8217;s loving-kindness to His people. Dcutero-Isaiah goes further still, and finds in the thought of God&#8217;s unfailing righteousness the pledge that He will comfort and redeem His servants. As used of Him, the word &#1510;&#1456;&#1491;&#1464;&#1511;&#1464;&#1492; denotes moral consistency and faithfulness to His promises, and in the highest prophetic teaching this was felt to include the love which pardons the penitent, though ever stern to the obdurate.
In the age of formalism, which was marked by the cessation of prophecy, the notion of righteousness became more ceremonial and external. Already in some of the Psalms we have &#8216;the righteous&#8217; as a regular party in the land, and the term ultimately became the self-designation of the Pharisees. &#1510;&#1456;&#1491;&#1464;&#1511;&#1464;&#1492; was now identified mainly with almsgiving in the sphere of private morals; and, in the judicial sphere, with readiness to help the weak as opposed to the letter of strict judgment.* In the LXX the word is tr. usually by &#948;&#953;&#954;&#945;&#953;&#959;&#963;&#973;&#957;&#951;, but also by &#954;&#961;&#943;&#963;&#953;&#962;, &#7956;&#955;&#949;&#959;&#962;, and &#7952;&#955;&#949;&#951;&#956;&#959;&#963;&#973;&#957;&#951;; and the adj. &#1510;&#1463;&#1491;&#1460;&#1468;&#1497;&#1511; usually by &#948;&#943;&#954;&#945;&#953;&#959;&#962;, but also by &#7940;&#956;&#949;&#956;&#960;&#964;&#959;&#962;, &#954;&#945;&#952;&#945;&#961;&#972;&#962;, &#960;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#972;&#962;, and &#949;&#8016;&#963;&#949;&#946;&#942;&#962;.
The Gr. &#948;&#953;&#954;&#945;&#953;&#959;&#963;&#973;&#957;&#951;, like the Heb. &#1510;&#1456;&#1491;&#1464;&#1511;&#1464;&#1492;, was generally used in a much broader sense than our word &#8216;justice,&#8217; and denoted social virtue as a whole. Aristotle defines it as &#7936;&#961;&#949;&#964;&#8052; &#964;&#949;&#955;&#949;&#943;&#945; &#954;&#945;&#8054; &#959;&#8016;&#967; &#7937;&#960;&#955;&#8182;&#962; &#7936;&#955;&#955;&#8048; &#960;&#961;&#8056;&#962; &#7957;&#964;&#949;&#961;&#959;&#957; &#8230; &#959;&#8016; &#956;&#941;&#961;&#959;&#962; &#7936;&#961;&#949;&#964;&#8134;&#962;, &#7936;&#955;&#955;&#8048; &#8005;&#955;&#951; &#7936;&#961;&#949;&#964;&#942; (Ethics, v. 3. 1129b; cf. Plato, Republic, 443). The chief difference between the Heb. and Gr. words lies, not in the terms themselves, but in the radical distinction between the religions of the two races,&#8212;the former being based on the relation of man to God, the latter on man&#8217;s duty to himself; thus in Greek &#7936;&#948;&#953;&#954;&#943;&#945; is usually distinguished from &#7936;&#963;&#941;&#946;&#949;&#953;&#945;. - A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels James Hastings

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

TO BE RIGHTEOUS
A. Verb.
tsadaq (&#1510;&#1464;&#1491;&#1463;&#1511;, 6663), &#8220;to be righteous, be in the right, be justified, be just.&#8221; This verb, which occurs fewer than 40 times in biblical Hebrew, is derived from the noun tsedeq. Nowhere is the issue of righteousness more appropriate than in the problem of the suffering of the righteous presented to us in Job, where the verb occurs 17 times. Apart from the Book of Job the frequency of tsadaq in the various books is small. The first occurrence of the verb is in Gen. 38:26, where Judah admits that Tamar was just in her demands: &#8220;She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son.&#8221;
The basic meaning of tsadaq is &#8220;to be righteous.&#8221; It is a legal term which involves the whole process of justice. God &#8220;is righteous&#8221; in all of His relations, and in comparison with Him man is not righteous: &#8220;Shall mortal man be more just [righteous] than God?&#8221; (Job 4:17). In a derived sense, the case presented may be characterized as a just cause in that all facts indicate that the person is to be cleared of all charges. Isaiah called upon the nations to produce witnesses who might testify that their case was right: &#8220;Let them bring forth their witnesses that they may be justified: or let them hear, and say, It is truth&#8221; (43:9). Job was concerned about his case and defended it before his friends: &#8220;&#8230; Though I were righteous, yet would I not answer, but I would make supplication to my judge&#8221; (9:15). Tsadaq may also be used to signify the outcome of the verdict, when a man is pronounced &#8220;just&#8221; and is judicially cleared of all charges. Job believed that the Lord would ultimately vindicate him against his opponents (Job 13:18).
In its causative pattern, the meaning of the verb brings out more clearly the sense of a judicial pronouncement of innocence: &#8220;If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify [tsadaq] the righteous [tsaddiq], and condemn the wicked&#8221; (Deut. 25:1). The Israelites were charged with upholding righteousness in all areas of life. When the court system failed became of corruption, the wicked were falsely &#8220;justified&#8221; and the poor were robbed of justice because of trumped-up charges. Absalom, thus, gained a large following by promising justice to the landowner (2 Sam. 15:4). God, however, assured Israel that justice would be done in the end: &#8220;Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause. Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked&#8221; (Exod. 23:6-7). The righteous person followed God&#8217;s example. The psalmist exhorts his people to change their judicial system: &#8220;Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy&#8221; (Ps. 82:3).
Job&#8217;s ultimate hope was in God&#8217;s declaration of justification. The Old Testament is in agreement with this hope. When injustice prevails, God is the One who &#8220;justifies.&#8221;
The Septuagint translates the verb by dikaiao (&#8220;to do justice, justly, to vindicate&#8221. In the English versions a frequent translation is &#8220;to justify&#8221; (KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV); modern versions also give the additional translations &#8220;to be vindicated (RSV, NASB, NIV) and &#8220;to acquit&#8221; (RSV, NIV).
B. Nouns.
tsedeq (&#1510;&#1462;&#1491;&#1462;&#1511;, 6664); tsedaqah (&#1510;&#1462;&#1491;&#1462;&#1511;, 6666), &#8220;righteousness.&#8221; These nouns come from a Semitic root which occurs in Hebrew, Phoenician and Aramaic with a juristic sense. In Phoenician and Old Aramaic it carries the sense of &#8220;loyalty&#8221; demonstrated by a king or priest as a servant of his own god. In these languages a form of the root is combined with other words or names, particularly with the name of a deity in royal names. In the Old Testament we meet the name Melchizedek (&#8220;king of righteousness&#8221. A more limited meaning of the root is found in Arabic (a South Semitic language): &#8220;truthfulness&#8221; (of propositions). In rabbinic Hebrew the noun tsedaqah signifies &#8220;alms&#8221; or &#8220;demonstrations of mercy.&#8221;
The word tsedaqah, which occurs 157 times, is found throughout the Old Testament (except for Exodus, Leviticus, 2 Kings, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Habbakuk, and Zephaniah). Tsedeq, which occurs 119 times, is found mainly in poetic literature. The first usage of sedeq is: &#8220;Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor&#8221; (Lev. 19:15); and of tsedaqah is: "[Abram] believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness&#8221; (Gen. 15:6).
Translators have found it difficult to translate these two words. The older translations base their understanding on the Septuagint with the translation dikaiosune (&#8220;righteousness&#8221 and on the Vulgate iustitia (&#8220;justice&#8221. In these translations the legal relationship of humans is transferred to God in an absolute sense as the Lawgiver and with the perfections of justice and &#8220;righteousness.&#8221;
Exegetes have spilled much ink in an attempt to understand contextually the words tsedeq and tsedaqah. The conclusions of the researchers indicate a twofold significance. On the one hand, the relationships among people and of a man to his God can be described as tsedeq, supposing the parties are faithful to each other&#8217;s expectations. It is a relational word. In Jacob&#8217;s proposal to Laban, Jacob used the word tsedaqah to indicate the relationship. The KJV gives the following translation of tsedaqah: &#8220;So shall my righteousness answer for me in time to come, when it shall come for my hire before thy face &#8230;&#8221; (Gen. 30:33). The NASB gives the word &#8220;righteousness&#8221; in a marginal note, but prefers the word &#8220;honesty&#8221; in the text itself. The NEB reads &#8220;fair offer&#8221; instead. Finally, the NIV has: &#8220;And my honesty [tsedaqah] will testify for me in the future, whenever you check on the wages you have paid me.&#8221; On the other hand &#8220;righteousness&#8221; as an abstract or as the legal status of a relationship is also present in the Old Testament. The locus classicus is Gen. 15:6: &#8220;&#8230; And he [the Lord] counted it to him [Abraham] for righteousness.&#8221;
Regrettably, in a discussion of the dynamic versus the static sense of the word, one or the other wins out, though both elements are present. The books of Psalms and of the prophets particularly use the sense of &#8220;righteousness&#8221; as a state; cf. &#8220;Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged&#8221; (Isa. 51:1); and &#8220;My righteousness is near; my salvation is gone forth, and mine arms shall judge the people; the isles shall wait upon me, and on mine arm shall they trust&#8221; (Isa. 51:5). The NEB exhibits this tension between dynamic and static in the translation of tsedeq: &#8220;My victory [instead of righteousness] is near, my deliverance has gone forth and my arm shall rule the nations; for me coasts and islands shall wait and they shall look to me for protection&#8221; (Isa. 51:5). Thus, in the discussion of the two nouns below the meanings lie between the dynamic and the static.
Tsedeq and tsedaqah are legal terms signifying justice in conformity with the legal corpus (the Law; Deut. 16:20), the judicial process (Jer. 22:3), the justice of the king as judge (1 Kings 10:9; Ps. 119:121; Prov. 8:15), and also the source of justice, God Himself: &#8220;Judge me, O Lord my God, according to thy righteousness; and let them not rejoice over me.&#8230; And my tongue shall speak of thy righteousness and of thy praise all the day long&#8221; (Ps. 35:24, 28).
The word &#8220;righteousness&#8221; also embodies all that God expects of His people. The verbs associated with &#8220;righteousness&#8221; indicate the practicality of this concept. One judges, deals, sacrifices, and speaks righteously; and one learns, teaches, and pursues after righteousness. Based upon a special relationship with God, the Old Testament saint asked God to deal righteously with him: &#8220;Give the king thy judgments, O God, and thy righteousness unto the king&#8217;s son&#8221; (Ps. 72:1).
The Septuagint gives the following translations: dikaios (&#8220;those who are upright, just, righteous, conforming to God&#8217;s laws&#8221; dikalosune (&#8220;righteousness; uprightness&#8221; and eleemosune (&#8220;land deed; alms; charitable giving&#8221. The KJV gives the senses &#8220;righteousness; justice.&#8221;
C. Adjective.
tsaddiq (&#1510;&#1463;&#1491;&#1460;&#1468;&#1497;&#1511;, 6662), &#8220;righteous; just.&#8221; This adjectival form occurs 206 times in biblical Hebrew. In Old Aramaic the adjective signifies &#8220;loyalty&#8221; of a king or high priest to his personal god, often represented by a gift to the god. Similarly in Phoenician, the noun and adjective apply to the loyal relationship of the king before the gods. The word is used of God in Exod. 9:27: &#8220;I have sinned this time: the Lord is righteous, and I and my people are wicked.&#8221; Tsaddiq is used of a nation in Gen. 20:4: &#8220;&#8230; And he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?&#8221; Vine's Expository Dictionary of Words W.E. Vine

 

[cygnusx1]

Clare, if you are going to continually berate me with your attitude, then I will have move on to others who do not have such an attitude. I would advise get off Romans 3, and stay on 1 Corinthians 13 for a while.



Genesis 2:17
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

IN THE DAY YOU EAT OF IT, not before you are born.

Ephesians 2:1
And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,

Again, absolutely NOTHING about being born in sins and trespasses.

Colossians 2:13
And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,

Strike three! But, I am gracious, I will give you two more tries.

John 3
18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Okay, I am beginning to think you are trying to deceive me again.

John 3:36
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.

Okay, you have given five references you claim to say we are born in sin and with the wrath of God upon us. You have failed in them all.



Really now? Again, you will have to provide passages which state we are born into condemnation. As I've said before, you won't find any. If you want to be responsible for Adam's sin, and would like to take his punishment, then be my guest. I'll stick with the responsibility of my own sins. Thank you.



Let me get this straight, the guilty will die a physical death as punishment for Adam's sin. And you call this physical death the wrath of God. Just for your information, you cannot escape the wrath of God then. You will die physically just as anyone else.

I am sure the evil appreciate your rendition of God's wrath. I am sure, by your belief, no one made it to heaven from Adam to Moses, for everyone during that time died a physical death, or experienced the wrath of God.



If judgement came to ALL men, then you must believe the gift of righteousness came to ALL men, just as the passage states.



No need to worry Clare, the gift of righteousness came to ALL men, just as condemnation came to ALL men.



I think I like what Jesus said about Adam. Since this is such an important subject every believer must know and understand, the words of Jesus concerning Adam should give us some light on this very pertinent subject.



You are setting my teeth on edge just reading about being guilty because Adam ate sour grapes.



He doesn't hold man responsible for Adam's sin. He holds man responsible for the sins he actually commits.



You have that correct. AS LONG AS they keep up the family business, they are indebted. Want to know a secret? I am not keeping up Adam's business. The debt Adam incurred, is his. I've started my own business, and will be responsible for any debt I personally incur.



As I said, I gave up Adam's 'rebellion' and 'disobedience' business. I have my own business I started when I was born.



You need to read and believe Ezekiel 18. This will clear any misunderstanding you might have of all this.



So, it's not being born in Adam's sin, but CONTINUING in the likeness of it. I will deal with being guilty of Adam's sin below.



Let me give you two verses from Ezekiel 18 which puts this folly of yours to rest once and for all.

19 Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live.
20 The soul who sins shall die. The son SHALL NOT bear the GUILT of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be UPON HIMSELF.

This is about as clear as it gets. If you still want to believe your scenario, then you will have to disregard the Bible. And that's not a very wise decision.



You and this being 'born' in Adam's sin is a folly. I've shown you what the Bible plainly states of man not being guilty of the father's sins. I have asked you to show me passages from the Bible which say we are 'born' in Adam's sins, and you can't.

I think Ezekiel 18 addresses Romans 5 very well. Do you need more proof than what the Bible says?

It is an error to think Ezekiel 18 is dealing with all sin , it isn't.

It is also and more so an error to claim the gift of righteousness came to all men when all men are not made righteous !

Lastly your case didn't "start when you were born " . Try as you might you cannot disengage yourself from the fallout of Adams sin , long before you were born your state was ruined.

 

[Arcoe]

It is an error to think Ezekiel 18 is dealing with all sin , it isn't.

If this is the case, then not all sin can be attributed to us from Adam.

Ezekiel 18 -
21 But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live.

I don't see anything about the sin Adam committed, do you? Don't you think if Adam's sin was so destructive for mankind, God would have mentioned it here?

It is also and more so an error to claim the gift of righteousness came to all men when all men are not made righteous !

I'm only quoting what Paul said.

Lastly your case didn't "start when you were born " . Try as you might you cannot disengage yourself from the fallout of Adams sin , long before you were born your state was ruined.

I keep hearing about this 'being born' with Adam's condemnation, but NOT ONE person has provided ONE passage which states this. Perhaps you will be the first Cygnus.