Skip to content

Righteousness: neither substance nor status

I’ve noticed what I reckon is a false dilemma which has appeared over the meaning of the word “righteousness” (δικαιοσύνη). The false dilemma is pretty widespread, but here’s one example. I’ve been following Mike Bird’s excellent, informative and industriously updated blog for a while. Recently, Mike spoke about the meaning of “righteousness” as if there were only two options for understanding its meaning in Paul: righteousness is either a “substance” (i.e. “merits” that can be built up by Christ and infused or imputed to believers) or a “status” (i.e. a verdict of righteous).

But I don’t think either of these options makes sense of the word “righteousness” in its biblical usage. Both a “substance” and a “status” are things that are external to the subject. A substance is a thing that I own and can dispense; a status exists in the mind of a third party (in this case, God). But according to lexica such as BDAG, and according to my reading of the LXX (and the NT), “righteousness” is neither a substance nor a status, but a quality of the individual him/herself. In normal usage, it is a word which refers to the quality of a person; if a person is in line with a certain standard (often, in the Bible, a moral or legal standard), (s)he is said to be “righteous”, i.e. to have the quality of “righteousness”. (S)he doesn’t merely have a substance called “righteousness” which (s)he can own and dispense, nor is (s)he simply considered by a third party to be something; the word means that (s)he can be properly described as inherently having a certain quality. The quality of “righteousness” can be the basis for a status–i.e. if a person is righteous, then they can be examined by a judge and declared righteous and so receive the status of “justified” in the eyes of the judge and anyone who believes the judge (see, e.g., 2 Chron 6:23 LXX). “Justified” is a status, and “justification” is the conferral of a status, but “righteousness” is properly a quality of a person upon which the status of “justification” is based.

I think this is very important to get right when we come to understanding the debates about imputation.

Published inJustification

Publications by Lionel Windsor:

  • Lift Your Eyes: Reflections on Ephesians


  1. Jason Hobba

    G’day Lionel,

    You’re in good company. I think Stephen Westerholm in “Perspectives Old and New” comes to a similar conclusion.

  2. Peter Kirsop

    How do I (or anyone) achieve this quality?

    • Dear Peter – I assume you’re speaking about perfect righteousness according to God’s ultimate standards as creator and judge (as opposed to righteousness according to more achievable standards). If so, I think this is one of the key questions that both Jesus and Paul discuss, and I’ve had a go at introducing the answer in my series on the meaning of righteousness language in the Bible. The short answer to your question is: I don’t!

  3. John Smuts

    I can’t speak for Peter but my question is the same as his and it involves more than just the attainment of perfect righteousness.

    However you use the term it also has to make sense when used by Paul to say that those who are not righteous are declared righteous (by God). I think you are right in pointing out Mike’s false dichotomy (I’ve been trying to express a similar reservation for a while and therefore am grateful to you for articulating it) but I’m just not yet convinced (yet) that ‘quality’ is the right word either.

    I’m waiting to be convinced though 🙂

  4. Hi John – since my attempt at convincing people is in that series I referred Peter to, if you have the time, I’d like to hear what in particular you find unconvincing (or not yet convincing) about that series 🙂 It would certainly help me to sharpen up my arguments. Cheers, Lionel.

  5. John Smuts

    Sorry Lionel – only just found time to get back to this.

    Essentially I’m not convinced that it is possible to declare that someone has a quality when one doesn’t. I can see how a status can be conferred (if the person doing the conferring has the authority to do so) or how a substance can be given, but I’m not sure how a quality can be ‘declared’.

    I find Michael Bird helpful in his comments about imputation – that Paul does not use language of Christ’s righteousness being ‘given to us’ in the sense of one person giving something to another, rather (and Calvin says pretty much the same thing here) we are righteous because we are ‘in Him’. As I am united with Christ (by faith) so I become righteous. (I’m not convinced by NPP stuff in general though.)

    I don’t see how your use of the word quality helps here though. In what sense do I have the quality of unrighteousness and then receive the quality of righteousness?

    Having read your series it all seems like classic reformed stuff to me and I don’t see your justification for the leap to ‘quality’. Qualities don’t function like that.

  6. Hi John,

    Thanks for taking the time to reply! In reading through your answer, it seems that maybe we have different understandings of the word “quality”. I reckon that righteousness means “being in line with a standard”, and in most cases in Paul’s letters it means “being in line with the standards that God the creator has set up in his world and by which he will judge his creatures”. This “being in line with a standard” isn’t a substance, because it can’t be passed around. But it’s not just a status either, which can be conferred on me regardless of who I am. I’m either in line with the standard, or I’m not. So I (and the standard lexicons like BDAG) prefer to use the word “quality” to describe this kind of word. It’s not a substance (like words such as “water” or “air”), nor is it a status (like words such as “boss” or “enemy” or “free”). Rather, it is a quality (like words such as “green” or “tall”). And so, because we are “in Christ”, we are treated by God as if we have this quality of “righteous”, even though in and of ourselves, without Christ, we don’t actually have this quality. That’s why I think imputation is a helpful word. It’s not a “transfer” term, it’s a term that describes treating somebody as if they have a certain quality. It also results in a status (“justified”). Does that help?

  7. John Smuts

    Thanks for being patient with me Lionel.

    Unfortunately I still don’t get it. I almost used colours as an example of quality in my last reply. (In fact I was even going to use ‘green’ which is slightly disturbing.) The problem with this is that (even though I’m in Christ) I’m not green – even the most generous short-sighted friend can only see a few splashes of green here and there. I have no problem in seeing that I do not have this quality outside of Christ, my problem is with seeing how I have this quality in Christ.

    The NT does actually spell out what these ‘qualities’ look like (Galatians 5: 22-23 is a good a place as any to start) – are you saying that I have all these qualities now in Christ? If so, how?

    • Hi John – thanks for being patient with my lack of clarity too as I try to spell out what I think is going on!

      I guess the short answer is that that we are not ultimately righteous, and we don’t “have” righteousness, we are counted as righteous because Christ is the only person who can truly said to be righteous (in the ultimate sense). This righteousness can be said to be “mine” because Christ is mine by faith, and so God treats me as if I were righteous on the basis of Christ’s person and work, even though I am not actually righteous and I do not “have” righteousness in the strict sense.

      Gal 5 does contain a list of other qualities which flow from my relationship with Christ by the Spirit. But these qualities aren’t the same as righteousness.


  8. John Smuts

    I don’t see how this is any different from status. If we do not possess this quality but are counted as having this quality because of Christ that sounds just like a status being conveyed doesn’t it?

    I wasn’t trying to say that the fruit of the Spirit are/is (?) the same as righteousness but I was trying to tease out what this quality you speak of looks like. If it’s green then I can see it. Your quality looks more like an invisible status to me.

    • Hi John – The difference is that if righteousness were simply a status, then we would be able to say that we “have” it (since the status has actually been given to us by God). By way of analogy, “forgiveness” is a status; and thus if God has forgiven me, I can rightly say that I have forgiveness. But since righteousness is a quality, we can’t ultimately say that we “have” it, we can only say that we are being treated as if we have it. On the other hand, “justification” is indeed a status, because it is the result of God treating us as if we are righteous.

      As to what righteousness looks like, much of the OT law is a gigantic and multifaceted illustration of what righteousness looks like. A person who is “righteous” is a person who demonstrably conforms, in his moral life, to the norms which God, as creator, has set up in creation and by which he will judge us. There are a number of people in the OT who are said to conform to some aspect of God’s norms, and can be said to be “righteous” in a specific and relative sense. But since none of us finally and ultimately measures up to God’s norms, none of us is righteous in the ultimate sense.

      Maybe 1 Kings 8:32 can serve as an example? God is asked to “justify the righteous”. Righteousness comes before the act of justification, not after it. That is, righteousness is the quality which forms the basis upon which God makes his judgement, not the resulting status. This holds true in the NT as well, except that (as the doctrine of imputation claims), ultimately the righteousness that God bases his action of “justification” upon (which leads to the status of “justified”) is the righteousness of Christ.

      Perhaps the problem is that people have been confusing “righteousness” (which is a quality) with “justification” (which is indeed a status)? Does that help?

      BTW thanks for forcing me to think this through and articulate it 🙂

    • One more thing – if we want to see what “righteousness” looks like, we look to Christ, not to ourselves. That’s because Christ has it, and we don’t. But since we are “in Christ” in a very real way, we can be rightly treated as if we do actually have it.

  9. John Smuts

    Sorry Lionel, I must be being dense here. I thought that the gospel involved us receiving a righteousness from God. It is a gift. ISTM that is more than God treating us as if we are righteous (although the NT does use that language as well) that we actually do have it. You seem to be saying that God does it with smoke and mirrors – ‘as if we do actually have it’. Also ‘treating as if’ still sounds like status language to me – something conveyed on me because of God’s authority not because of my possessing a quality.

    Or, more likely, I’m missing what you are your saying.

  10. Hi John – no accusations of denseness intended! This is deep stuff, and I think maybe we are indeed missing each other.

    Some clarifications:

    1) Justification is related to righteousness, but it is not the same. Righteousness is a quality, justification is a declaration of the existence of that quality, which then leads to a status of “being justified”. So I’m not at all denying that there is status language in Paul, just that the noun “righteousness” itself (and its associated adjective “righteous”) means a quality.

    2) What we receive in the gospel is Christ, and therefore we may be said to possess Christ’s righteousness in a derivative (but still very real) sense. Christ is righteous, he “has” righteousness, as a quality, in the basic and fundamental sense. By faith, we have a real, spiritual union with Christ. That means that this righteousness of Christ’s can be said to be “ours” too. “Justification” normally means “declaring that a person truly has the quality of righteousness”. But when it comes to us, who are not righteous, the righteousness that is used as a basis for our justification is Christ’s righteousness, not ours.

    3) It’s not smoke and mirrors, because our union with Christ is real and fundamental. This is Calvin’s point, when he says,

    We do not, therefore, contemplate him [i.e. Christ] outside ourselves from afar in order that his righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into his body—in short, because he deigns to make us one with him. For this reason, we glory that we have fellowship of righteousness with him.

    (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 3.11.10)

    Calvin is here defending the right kind of imputation (that is based on our spiritual union with Christ) from an inadequate view of imputation. But, unless I’m badly mistaken, Calvin is not saying that the word “righteousness” is simply a status. He still believes that the word “righteousness” is being used in its normal dictionary sense, as a quality.

    4) It is true that, if we only had Paul’s letters, we might be excused for saying that “righteousness” for Paul, in certain eschatological forensic contexts, is just a status. And therefore, that the doctrine of imputation is redundant (you don’t impute a status, you just declare it). But Paul’s usage of “righteousness” language is consciously rooted in the Old Testament forensic contexts, where the word “righteousness” is not a status which occurs as the result of the declaration of justification, but rather a quality which forms the basis for the act of justification. I want to argue that Paul is still using the word “righteousness” in a similar manner to the OT forensic usage (as a quality); he hasn’t completely redefined it somehow to mean something else (i.e. a status, or even a substance, for that matter). And yet, his view of our righteousness has also radically changed because of his understanding of Christ’s person and work. See Phil 3:9 – Instead of facing the last day being found to be possessed of the quality of righteousness in ourselves, we will be found “in Christ”, and therefore having Christ’s quality of righteousness being used by God as the basis for our justification. This is why the doctrine of imputation is important, and not redundant.

  11. John Smuts

    Lionel says – “What we receive in the gospel is Christ, and therefore we may be said to possess Christ’s righteousness in a derivative (but still very real) sense. Christ is righteous, he “has” righteousness, as a quality, in the basic and fundamental sense. By faith, we have a real, spiritual union with Christ. That means that this righteousness of Christ’s can be said to be “ours” too. “Justification” normally means “declaring that a person truly has the quality of righteousness”. But when it comes to us, who are not righteous, the righteousness that is used as a basis for our justification is Christ’s righteousness, not ours.

    I’m with you on Calvin and certainly the need to keep imputation. The analogy Keller uses here is that of marriage – Christ’s riches become really mine at the moment of union. If we were talking about the quality of being rich then I can see how your use of ‘quality’ works; it’s just that I can’t conceive speaking of righteousness in the same way. That may well be due to my lack of imagination though.

  12. Hi John, Tim Keller is in good company when he uses the analogy of marriage; this comes from Martin Luther (who may have got it from somebody else). I reckon that “being rich” can be a helpful metaphor / analogy, although it runs the danger of degenerating into an economic, “substance” view of righteousness (as monetary “riches”) if not handled with appropriate care.

Comments are closed.

Recent blog posts

  • Entering a tomb in PompeiiWe too: the offenders (Ephesians 2:3)
    Judgmentalism. It’s a bigger problem than we think. Judgmentalism is certainly a danger for God’s people. That’s because God’s people have God’s word. God’s word helps God’s people to see how wonderful God is, and how terrible humanity is in comparison. But Ephesians 2:3 contains two highly significant, emphatic words: “we too”. We too, says Paul, were the offenders. We, too, were the disobedient. These words aren’t talking about all those horrible people “out there”. They’re talking about God’s people. And it’s something we, too, need to hear. These words tell us something incredibly important—something that we ignore at our peril.
  • Photo by Daniel Lienert on UnsplashThe root of the problem (Ephesians 2:1–2)
    I hadn’t visited the dentist for years. Then I felt a tiny amount of pain in one of my teeth. But I ignored it. I didn’t want to bother with a dentist. Anyway, I had my own solution: I’d always brushed my teeth quite thoroughly, and was proud of it. So I just kept brushing. But after a while, the pain came back. This time, it was worse. So I finally visited the dentist. That was painful, too. The root had become so infected that I needed root canal surgery. That was a while ago. But last year, it flared up again, as these things apparently do. And yet I chose to visit the dentist again, even though I knew it might be painful. Why? Because I’d learnt something. I’ve learnt that if I have a problem that goes to the root, and if I know someone who has the solution to the problem, I shouldn’t ignore it or try to fix it myself. I should face up to the root problem, and get help. So I got help. Now, I don’t have a tooth in that spot at all. In Ephesians 2:1–2, Paul seeks to go deep, to the root of the problem. The problem Paul talks about here is incredibly serious. It can be very painful to admit. But Paul can and does admit it—because he also knows the person with the solution. According to Paul, this isn’t a problem to ignore or try to fix ourselves. It’s not something we can educate ourselves out of. This is a problem to face up to, and get help.
  • Captivated by ScriptureCaptivated by Scripture: A personal reflection on D. W. B. Robinson’s legacy for biblical studies
    What made Donald W. B. Robinson such an inspiring and influential teacher for generations of students? His commitment to being captivated by Scripture. This is a paper given by Lionel Windsor at the legacy day and launch of Donald Robinson Selected Works Volume 3: Biblical and Liturgical Studies & Volume 4: Historical Studies and Series Index. Moore Theological College, Sydney, 16 March 2019.
  • The first thing to say about church (Ephesians 1:22–23)
    Here in Ephesians 1:22–23, for the first time in his letter, the apostle Paul uses the word “church”. He’s taken quite some time to get to this point. That might make you think that the church isn’t very important to Paul. But actually, the reverse is true. This is a climactic statement. So far in Ephesians, Paul has poured out his praise to God for his blessings and plans and purposes. He has told his readers how he is praying for knowledge and hope and strength in God. Now, finally, at the highest peak of this amazing prayer, Paul names “the church”. So what is the first thing Paul has to say about the church? What is the word he associates most closely with the church? What matters most to Paul when it comes to the church? The answer is, in fact, obvious. It’s so obvious that you might think it doesn’t need to be said. You might even wonder why Paul bothers saying it, when there are so many other more practical things he could say about the church. But while it might seem obvious, it needs to be said first. Why? Because it’s so easy to assume it. Yet without it, nothing else about the church makes sense.
  • Grave of John BunyanStrength to live (Ephesians 1:19–21)
    What do we do when we feel weak in the face of the powers that be? One response might be just to shut down, close ranks and find a bitter satisfaction in our identity as victims. Another response might be to try to fight as hard as we can to exert our power and dominance over others, seeking to turn the tables so that we become the conquerors instead of the oppressors. Both of these responses involve seeking strength and power in ourselves. They are often the way that oppressed individuals and groups in our world respond to the powers that are oppressing them. But is that the way God wants his people to respond to our weakness in the face of power? In Ephesians 1:19–21, the apostle Paul gives us a far better way to respond. Paul’s response involves looking for strength. But it’s not a strength that comes from within ourselves. It’s a strength that comes from God himself.
  • Christ, the Cross and Creation Care ConferenceConference: Christ, the Cross and Creation Care
    I'll be speaking at the "Christ, the Cross and Creation Care Conference", Sydney. 8.30am to 3.30pm, Saturday 22 June 2019. A conference run by A Rocha Australia
  • Palatine Hill from Roman Forum with contrails – Black and WhiteWhat’s the point of theology? (Ephesians 1:17–18)
    The full name of the college I teach at is “Moore Theological College”. That word “Theological” says something important about who we are. It reminds us about what we're on about. Yes, the Bible is at the centre of everything we do. Yes, we seek to train people for ministry. Yes, we're driven by the worldwide mission of Jesus Christ. Yes, we're committed to learning together, and having our characters formed in loving Christian community. But our careful study of the Bible, and our pastorally-motivated ministry and mission training, and our encouragement of one another in our community, all matter because of something more basic: theology. Unfortunately, the word "theology" can be misunderstood. It sometimes gets used to mean something like “technical details about spiritual things that experts argue about and isn’t much practical use to regular people”. But that's just a caricature. It's not what theology is. Theology is something far more profound, far more life-changing, and far more fundamental—not just for people at a college, but for everyone. In Ephesians 1:17–18, Paul prays for his readers—people who have come to believe in and live for Jesus Christ. It's a prayer for more theology.
  • Youth praying, Finchale PrioryPrayer: What are we actually doing? (Ephesians 1:15–16)
    “A Muslim, a Jew and an Anglican Minister walk into a classroom”. This was the advertising blurb for a local Community College seminar I participated in a few years ago. I joined a Muslim educator and a Jewish academic (who is also a friend of mine) to give a series of presentations on different aspects of our three religions to interested people from the community. When we came to the topic of ‘prayer’, I was fascinated to hear what my co-presenters had to say. Even though we were all using the same word, ‘prayer’, the word meant very different things in the different religions. As a believer in Jesus Christ, what did I have to say about what prayer is? What would you have said? Christians, too, can often be a bit confused or unclear about what prayer actually is. That’s where the Apostle Paul really helps us. In these verses in Ephesians, Paul starts telling his readers about his own prayers for them.
  • Photo by Danielle Macinnes on UnsplashThe Holy Spirit: Our security (Ephesians 1:14)
    The Stanford Marshmallow Experiments are a favourite illustration of motivational speakers. The lesson is this: If you can learn how to delay gratification early in life, you’ll do better in later life. Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? But unfortunately, like many popular conclusions drawn from famous psychological experiments, it doesn’t stand up to closer scrutiny. The more up-to-date study demonstrates something far more mundane: if you grow up in a secure home where you know there will always be food on the table, you’re more likely to be able to put off eating a marshmallow. This isn’t a particularly useful lesson for motivational speakers. But it’s a great illustration of what it means to be a child of God.
  • Mission. Photo by Ben White on UnsplashThe message is the mission (Ephesians 1:13)
    What is God’s mission? What means is God using to bring about his purposes in Christ? What does that mean for our own mission as Christians and churches?

On this site

All content copyright Lionel Windsor