The Gr. ^ixx.ii>irCvr„ like the Heb. ^ifl'i, was generally used in a much broader sense than our word ' justice,' and denoted social virtue as a whole. Aristotle defines it as icpirr, r-Xtix y.x'i o-jX ccnrXuJ; aX?.a ^po; -rspov , . . oi puip'i? «p£T>:>, a.'kXa, o}.7j upirvi (Ethics, V. 3. lV2i)h ; of. Plato, RepvMic, 443). The chief differ- ence between the Ileb. and Gr. words lies, not in the terms themselves, but in the radical distin.-tion between the religions of the two races, — the former licin^ based on the relation of man to God, the latter on man's duty to himself ; thus in Greek Ichixux. is usually distinguished from x.(riiti<x..
* SeeDalman, Die richt/'riiche Gprrchtirjkpit im AT, as quoted in art. ' Righteousness (in OT)' in Hastings' Dli iv. 281.
■vor.. II. — u
ii. NT usage.— The NT writers inherited the word ^^1% with all its religious associations, .and used as its e(juivalent SiKaLoavv-n, and as its oppo- site dduia. The Latter word is sometimes con- trasted .also with dX-^deia {e.g. llo l'^, 2 Th 2'") ; for ' truth passing into action is righteousness' (West- cott on 1 Jn P). adiKos is also contrasted with itkttos (Lk IG"'-"), euae^rjs (2 P 2«, cf. Ko 4^), 07(05 (1 CJoG'). The first of these three words expresses an idea alw<ays pi'esent in the word ' righteousness' (namely, consistency) ; the other two give its basis for man, — ilevotion to God, — but do not immediately ex- press the notion of duty tow.ards one's neighl)our.
Jesus Christ tr.ansformed the whole conception of righteousness ; for He broke down the exter- nalism of His d.ay by emphasizing character rather tlian action, and set religion on an entirely new b.'isis by making it a real response of the whole personality to God, and pointing to love as the essence of righteousness. It is significant in this connexion that it was Christianity that created tlie very conception of personality, and so ulti- mately the word itself. Jesus Christ tells His followers tli.at their righteousness is to be based on the eternal character of God (Mt5**-^^), as uniquely revealed in human life by Himself (11'-^'' ||). Accord- ingly the early Christians seem to have spoken of Christ as the righteous one' (see Ac 3'^ 7^^ 22''*, J.a 5®). But we must ex.amine in more detail the righteousness taught and exemplified by Him.
1. The Synoptists. — («) General usage. — The Synoptic writers all use Si/caiosand St/caiotri'i/i? gener- ally, of the man who tries to do his duty in the sight of God, whether Christian or not (Mt V^ 5•»^ Mk 6^0, Lk P 225). g^t St. Mcatthew also uses the words especially of believers in Christ, to denote the char.acter which He requires in citizens of the Kingdom of heaven (Mt 5^'* 6^ etc.). St. Luke, indeed, approximates to this in three passages at least (Lk W\ Ac 24i'- -s) ; but with him it can scarcely be called a well-defined usage. The ex- planation of this peculiarity of the First Gospel no doubt lies in the f.act that its chief aim is to represent Christianity as the consummation of Judaism (cf. Mt 5'^). But a still more noteworthy fact is that the Synoptic writers do not directly speak of righteousness as a Divine attribute. [Mt 6'^^ is no exception, for 'his righteousness' there means the character which God expects of us, though this is implicitly based on the nature of the Father]. Nor is Christ ever directly termed diKaioi by them, except in the mouth of unbelievers (e.g. Pihate's wife in Mt 27^^), and in the cases mentioned above from tlie Acts, where St. Luke represents three ditierent speakers as calling Him 6 SiKaios. In this connexion it is significant that in recording the centurion's words at Calvary, St. Luke (23''") writes, ' Cert.ainlv this w.as a righteous man' ; but St. M.atthew (275-") and St. M.ark (153») give i'i6s 6eov in place of SiKaios. Now, when we remember that our Lord, in the Synoptic accounts, does not speak of Himself as 6 vibs tov deov, though He accepts the title from others, and .acknowledges His unique Sonshij) before the S.anhedrin (Lk 22™ ||), we see why He does not call Himself 6 diKaios. He does not put forward His own claims in the Galil.T'an ministry, but leaves His followers to infer them from His words and .acts (cf. Mt 16'''-'''). And when men have drawn the inference, then they call Him 6 I'ids rod deov rather than 6 StVatos. Similarly, He Himself does not speak of the Father's righteousness, because to His he.arers the word would not convey enough. He speaks rather of the Father's love.
(b) God'fs righteonsncta. — What we have said above leads us on naturally to ask, What is the central idea inClirist's teaching .about the Father's
530 KIGHTEOUS, EIGHTEOUSNESS
RIGHTEOUS, RIGHTEOUSNESS
righteousness (for though He does not Himself apply the word to God in the Synoxitic accounts, the idea is not excluded) ? Our Lord bases everything on the truth that God is a loving Father to all men, and they are potentially His sons ; by love they may know Him, and so make that jaotenti- ality actual. Such is the teaching of the parable of the Prodigal Son (Lk ISi'"^^). In Mt 5^'^-*^ Christ tells us that God loves both good and evil, both righteous and unrighteous ; and His followers are to do the same 'in order that ye may be (yev-qade — ' show youi'selves to be ' ; or else ' become ') sons of your Father which is in heaven. ' And His summary of the whole matter is, ' Ye therefore shall be perfect (i.e. in and through love) as your heavenly Father is perfect.' But this love in God, if it makes Him infinitely merciful to the penitent sinner, makes Him equally stern to the impenitent. Again and again Christ, by means of a series of parables, teaches the future sutiering of the wicked. It will suffice to quote one which shows the unity of the Divine love in its two aspects of mercifulness and sternness — the parable of the king that took account of his servants and punished him who showed no mercy to his fellow (Mt jg23-35)_ jjg jg ready to forgive the largest of debts if only the servant proves his love ; but he has no mercy for the ungrateful and unloving ; ' he delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due.'