* Alen and its kindred words were derived by Aristotle from 8lxa twofold, the fundamental idea being that of an even relation between parts. Modern philologists, however, assign the words to the root dx, which appears in Selvume T show or point out.
+ This, however, is disputed by those who claim that the earlier sense of dix is custom or usage. See Schmidt, ‘*Synonymik,” 18, 4.
Cu. L] THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. il
Nevertheless, however clearly the religious background and sanction of morality may be recognized, it is apparent that the basis of right is found, very largely, in established social usage. The word ethics points first to what is established by custom. While with Mr. Grote we must admit the peculiar emphasis on the individual in the Homeric poems, we cannot help observing a certain influence of social sentiment on morals. While there are cases like the suitors, Paris and Helen, where public opinion imposes no moral check, there are others where the force of public opinion is clearly visible, such as Penelope and Nausicaa. The Homeric view of homicide reveals no re- lation between moral sentiment and divine enactment. Mur- der is a breach of social law, a private and civil wrong, entail- ing no loss of character. Its penalty is a satisfaction to the feelings of friends, or a compensation for lost services.
Later, we find this social aspect of morality even more strongly emphasized. ‘The city becomes the central and paramount source of obligation. The great, impersonal au- thority called ‘the Laws’ stands out separately, both as guide and sanction, distinct from religious duty or private sympathy ” (Grote). Socrates is charged with impiety because he does not believe in the gods of the state, and Socrates himself agrees that that man does right who obeys what the citizens have agreed should be done, and who refrains from what they forbid.*
The social basis of righteousness also appears in the frequent contrast between d/en and Bia, right and force. A violation of right is that which forces its way over the social sanction. The social conception of déxavos is not lost, even when the idea is so apprehended as to border on the christian love of one’s neighbor. There is a wrong toward the gods, but every wrong is not in itself such. The inner, personal relation to deity, the absolute and constraining appeal of divine character and law to conscience, the view of duty as one’s right, and of personal right as something to be surrendered to the paramount claim of love—all these elements which distinguish the christian
* Xenophon, ‘‘ Memorabilia,” i., 1, 1; iv., 4, 3.
12 WORD STUDIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. (Cu. I.
conception of righteousness—are thus in sharp contrast with a righteousness dictated by social claims which limit the in- dividual desire or preference, but which leave untouched the tenacity of personal right, and place obligation behind legiti- macy.*
It is desirable that the classical usage of these terms should be understood, in order to throw into sharper relief the Bibli- cal usage, according to which God is the absolute and final standard of right, and every wrong is a sin against God (Ps. li. 4). Each man stands in direct and primary relation to the holy God as He is by the law of His own nature. Righteous- ness is union with God in character. To the Greek mind of the legendary age such a conception is both strange and essen- tially impossible, since the Greek divinity is only the Greek man exaggerated in his virtues and vices alike. According to the christian ideal, righteousness is character, and the norm of character is likeness to God. This idea includes all the social aspects of right. Love and duty toward God involve love and duty to the neighbor.
Here must be noted a peculiar usage of Sécavos righteous, and duxatoovvn righteousness, in the Septuagint. They are at times interchanged with éXenuooivn mercy, and édeos kind- ness. The Hebrew chesed kindness, though usually rendered by Aeos, is nine times translated by dicatocvvn righteousness, and once by dikavos righteous. 'The Hebrew tsedakah, usually rendered by dccatoovvn, is nine times translated by éAenwootvyn mercy, and three times by édeos kindness. Compare the Heb. and Sept. at Deut. vi. 25; xxiv. 13 (15); Gen. xix. 19; xxiv. 27. This usage throws light on the reading ducacoovvny, Rev., righteousness (kindness ?), instead of édenwoovvnv mercy, A. V., alms, Matt. vi. 1. Mr. Hatch (“Essays in Biblical Greek”) says that the meaning kindness is so clear in this passage that scribes, who were unaware of its existence, altered the text. He also thinks that this meaning gives a better