Rightwise: Time to recycle an old English word?

Anyone who has studied New Testament translation, the writings of Paul in particular, and especially the Letters to the Romans and Galatians, will know that the δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosune) word group is crucial to a correct understanding of these key New Testament documents. The dikaiosune word group is usually translated as “righteousness” or “justice” and similar forms.

The problem in English is that there is no single word group that covers both the quality of being “righteous” and the act of declaring someone righteous. Therefore, English translations are forced to use words from two different roots to cover all the usages:

Noun – righteousness ("justice" has a rather different connotation in English though it can also be used.)
Adjective – righteous ("just" is also possible, but has the same issues of wrong connotation and can also be confused with “just” as in “only”)
Adverb – righteously ("justly" is also possible, but has the same issues of wrong connotation)

The big problem is with the verb forms. English has to use compound verbs as there is no verb “to righteous” (although New Testament scholar E. P. Sanders has suggested we just use “righteous” as a verb). Perhaps we should use an invented word like “to enrighen"? So we have to say “to make righteous” or “to declare righteous.” More often, translations turn instead to the “just—” word group for the verbs and associated forms because no standard “right—” forms exist:

Verb – to justify
Actor – justifier
Process/Event – justification

These words can be confusing since "justify" now tends to be used in the sense of something I do to excuse myself from blame rather than something someone says about me. Using both righteous/justify can also result in cross-references and relationships between words being missed in English translations.

Instead of inventing a new word, we could overcome this problem by resurrecting the old English word “rightwise.” Rightwise was used in Wycliffe’s English translation (the very first in English in the 14th century). This is easy word to understand—it sounds like it means “to be in a right relationship” ("I am rightwise before God") or “to declare to be in the right” ("God rightwises sinners because of Christ's atoning work"). It is easy to say. And it avoids any mistaken ideas about "righteous" (which tends to sound like "self-righteous" to the average person).

Most significantly, it can be grammatically used in all situations where the dikaiosune group of words is used in Greek (and the tsedeq group of words in Hebrew too for that matter).

Noun – rightwiseness
Adjective – rightwise
Adverb – rightwise
Verbs – to rightwise (participle: rightwised; gerund: rightwising) or "to be rightwised"
Actor – rightwiser
Process/Event – rightwising

Consider the difference if we compare a couple of key Pauline passages in standard translations and then using my suggested translation: 

Romans 2:13 (ESV): For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Romans 2:13 (“Rightwise” translation): For it is not the hearers of the law who are rightwise before God, but the doers of the law who will be rightwised. 

Romans 3:21–31 (ESV): ²¹But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— ²² the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: ²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴ and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, ²⁵ whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. ²⁶ It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. ²⁷ Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. ²⁸ For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 

Romans 3:21–28 (“Rightwise” translation): ²¹But now the rightwiseness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— ²² the rightwiseness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: ²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴ and are rightwised by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, ²⁵ whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s rightwiseness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. ²⁶ It was to show his rightwiseness at the present time, so that he might be rightwise and the rightwiser of the one who has faith in Jesus. ²⁷ Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. ²⁸ For we hold that one is rightwised by faith apart from works of the law. 

Romans 4:5 (ESV): And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness. 

Romans 4:5 (“Rightwise” translation): And to the one who does not work but believes in him who rightwises the ungodly, his faith is counted as rightwiseness.

Romans 4:22–25 (ESV): ²²That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness”. ²³But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, ²⁴but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, ²⁵who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

Romans 4:22–25 (“Rightwise” translation): ²²That is why his faith was “counted to him as rightwiseness”. ²³But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, ²⁴but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, ²⁵who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our rightwising.

Galatians 3:11 (ESV): Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 

Galatians 3:11 (“Rightwise” translation): Now it is evident that no one is rightwised before God by the law, for “The rightwise shall live by faith.”

Though the terminology may jar the eye and the ear to begin with, I think we would quickly get used to "rightwise". At the very least, when teaching on Paul, it would give us a way of getting at the original Greek better than current English translations allow.

Actually a similar translational problem exists between the English nouns usually translated “faith” or “faithfulness” and the verb forms usually translated “to believe” even though “to believe” something is not exactly the same as “to have faith in” something. Nor can the noun “belief” simply be substituted for “faith” without confusion and loss of meaning. Perhaps we will return to that topic when I find an old English word that covers both “faith” and “to believe”!

The Case for a Universal Basic Income

For some time I have been supportive of a political idea known as the "Universal Basic Income" (UBI) also known as "the Citizen's Income" or "Basic Income Guarantee" or "Negative Income Tax" is a very simple idea - that every citizen in a country is paid a basic level of income, which is unconditional and universal, irrespective of employment status or other income.

Usuallly the UBI is championed by people on the Left (I believe it is the policy of the Green Party for example). But what I find interesting is that the UBI also has supporters on the Right (both conservatives and classical liberals).

As a way of replacing the bureaucratic welfare state, it is an attractive idea as there is some evidence that it would be either as cheap to run or even cheaper than a plethora of means-tested benefits.

Here are some interesting links I've found discussing UBI, most of them are from a conservative or classical liberal viewpoint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

http://citizensincome.org/

http://basicincome.org.uk/reasons-support-basic-income/

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/a-neoliberal-case-for-a-basic-income-or-something-like-it

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragmatic-libertarian-case-basic-income-guarantee

http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income#.oz0pbd2:3cP6

http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/why-did-hayek-support-basic-income

This is not a party political issue as the various links show. Across the political spectrum it is an idea that has much to commend it and I think it is an idea whose time has come.

Interesting Political Articles

An excellent piece on the Christian critique of Conservatism: http://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/04/the-problem-with-conservatism

And the problem with Liberalism from the Christian point of view is worth reading too: http://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/03/001-the-problem-with-liberalism

Generous Justice (Repost)

Generous Justice
Timothy Keller
Hodder & Stoughton 2010

I have recently re-read this book and have to say I still agree with my own review of it from a couple of years ago. I think it is worth reposting.

I've pretty much enjoyed everything I've ever read by Tim Keller and Generous Justice is no exception. It seems to me that Keller's central thesis in this book is crucial in our time to the health, vitality and witness of the churches, particularly the evangelical churches, who perhaps need to hear this message most. Keller's thesis is simply that doing justice, in our daily lives as Christians at a personal, social and societal level, is a necessary outworking of the grace of God we have experienced through the gospel.

Keller writes in the introduction for example: "There is a direct relationship between a person's grasp and experience of God's grace, and his or her heart for justice and the poor...I have observed over decades that when people see the beauty of God's grace in Christ, it leads them powerfully towards justice." (p. xix).

It is immediately apparent that Keller wants to challenge several wrong views. To begin with he challenges the secular voices that claim that the Bible is somehow a hindrance to establishing justice in our world. But more interestingly from my point of view, he also challenges the still all-too-typical evangelical mindset that sees the church's true biblical role as "saving souls" and teaching correct doctrines, especially salvation by grace alone, in Christ alone, through faith alone. For too long there has been a false dichotomy in many churches between the evangelical gospel of salvation and the so-called liberal gospel of social justice. Keller is a Reformed theologian and minister of an evangelical Presbyterian church, yet he correctly sees that social justice is fundamental to the church's mission, not as a replacement for the gospel (which is where liberal Christians go wrong) but as a necessary outworking of the gospel.
The rest of the book explores a variety of angles of justice to give a rounded picture of the biblical material.

To begin with, Keller looks to define "justice" and finds that in the Bible it is about far more than simply punishing sinners. Again, too often in evangelical circles, "justice" is restricted to enforcing morality and punishing wrongdoers and we can end up looking simply like the religious equivalent of the "hang 'em and flog 'em brigade"! No, biblical justice is more akin to "social justice" that looks after the poor, the widow and the fatherless. It is about doing what is right for everyone and about living in a "harmonious peace" (as Keller defines the key Hebrew concept of shalom) with our fellow human beings and with all creation. It is about fair treatment of immigrants. It is about making sure workers are paid fair wages and work in decent conditions. The list of applications of the biblical principles could go on and on. Keller also points out that justice in biblical terms is not about doing the bare minimum of good for others, it should be generous. Why? Because when we act like that we reflect God's own character. The Scriptures say that God is on the side with the weak, the poor and the oppressed. And as we claim to be the people of God, so should we.

Later chapters highlights material from the Old Testament, especially the prophets, and the New Testament, especially the teachings of Christ himself, that all back-up the point of view outlined. Keller's treatment of the Parable of the Good Samaritan was a particular highlight.

A later chapter in the book called "How Should We Do Justice?" is very practical and very challenging. In it, Keller gets down to the nitty-gritty of actually putting the theory into practice and I found it useful when he talks about three levels of doing justice called "relief, development and social reform" and how Christians are called to involvement at all three levels. Relief is immediate help given to someone in need. Development is longer term involvement to help someone in need improve things so the need no longer exists. Social reform challenges governments to change the law and/or society to stop the situation that caused the need from happening in the first place. In the example of the old proverb, relief is giving a man a fish, development is giving a man a fishing rod and teaching him to fish, social reform questions the government why the poor have to live off fish while others have plenty to eat.

The book ends with a chapter where Keller links peace, justice and beauty and reiterates the link between the gospel of grace and living out a gospel life of grace that seeks justice for others (in the true biblical scope) and closes with a final challenge to us as Christians. In essence, if we have received so much blessing from God's hand, shouldn't we be more willing to bless others from our hands? In Keller's own words:

Proverbs 14:31 says, "He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker." The God of the Bible says, as it were, "I am the poor on your step. Your attitude towards them reveals your true attitude toward me." A life poured out in doing justice for the poor is the inevitable sign of any real, true gospel faith.

Now, if that doesn't challenge any Western Christian who reads it, what will?