Have you ever considered that the development to the feeling of community in a church is directly related to how that church gives financially? In today’s teaching you will see how our view of God affects our understanding in giving which then is meant to lead us to a greater sense of community. MP3 download.
About Dan Miller
Pastor Dan was part of the core group that started Grace Fellowship in 2003. Pastor Dan is our primary teaching pastor, leads the staff, and oversees the vision and strategy for our disciplemaking philosophy of ministry. Dan married Vicki in 1993. Together, they enjoy their seven children – Benjamin (married to Courtney), David, Alexa, Zachary (married to Ginna), Nathan, Ana, and Autumn, along with one grandchild - Lucy.
I could use some advice on how to interpret the term “righteous” or “righteousness” that is referred to in Psalms (like was referenced in the Scripture you were teaching out of today). When I think about righteousness, I think about how God is the standard. He is completely righteous, and the only way in which I am righteous is through being justified in salvation. In my life here and now, I don’t think about the imperfect gracious, merciful, or loving things that I may do as righteousness (Isaiah 64:6). So I get tripped up when I read 2 Cor 9:9 / Psalm 112:9 where the “his” in “his righteousness” seems to be referring to the man and not to God.
Jeff, there are several dimensions in which the Bible uses the term “righteousness” depending on when it is used in the unfolding of God’s plan of redemption. The mental picture that you get is a good and right one (the righteousness of God that is a sinless and perfect righteousness). However, there are other “forms” or “degrees” of righteousness expressed in the Bible.
For example, in Matthew 1:19 it says, “And her husband Joseph, being a “just” man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.”
The word “just” is the word “rightness” (δίκαιοςa). This passage helps us see how “righteous” can be used in its most basic form: “pertaining to being in accordance with what God requires.” The idea of Joseph being righteous carries the point that he did the right thing, a “godly” decision. So,the idea of the “righteous man” in Psalm 112:9 is that he did the right thing according to what the Law commands in providing for the poor. In contrast, we see (in v. 10) the actions of the wicked (or “unrighteous”) man. He doesn’t do the right thing in regard to how to give to the poor who are in desperate need according to the command of God expressed in the Law.
So, the basic point of this chapter seems to relate to not a “standing” with God in the way of the New Testament (a forensic declaration – “the rightness will live by faith”), but in the sense that the actions of the “righteous” meets the standards given in the Law. It is clear how each man should act and yet only the righteous man does what the Law tells him to do:
Now, however, the New Testament reveals that our actions are not enough. The standard of God is not simply about giving, it is about wanting to give. We are evaluated on whether or not we desire to give to the needs of the poor. It is not simply about giving because we feel guilty or we want to look good or we will be punished if we don’t give. There is not one person on the face of the earth who naturally gives in the way God demands we give. So, according to the surface standard of the Law, the man in Ps.112 was righteous under the Old Covenant. However, this doesn’t mean that he was righteous in the same sense that we can be today under the New Covenant.
The new Covenant offers us “more” righteousness than is expressed in Psalm 112. It offers us a complete change in motive and desire. The Law could never accomplish this. Why? We are sinners. We don’t have the ability flowing from an on-demand sincere trust in God. So, under the Old Covenant, the Law was completely unable to make me righteous. All the Law can do is point out my sinfulness and condemn me. The Law can never provide for me since it has no power to change me. It is simply a standard by which I (and you) will be measured. I need a Savior to cleanse me from my ill-motives and to provide for me a new heart that enables my desire be truly want to obey Him. To truly give to others in need from a heart of thankfulness for God’s grace in declaring me righteous on the basis of the merits of Jesus.
So, while the Law can tell me what to do it cannot give me a “cheerful” heart. In this sense, the man in the passage (if he were alive today) would not be completely righteous in regard to his motive all the time. He would still need something more; the forgiveness and righteousness of Christ to fulfill the holy, perfect and righteous standard of God.
Make better sense?
Yes. I’m still processing this. Thank you for the time spent on your response.
I don’t want to chase a rabbit trail that is too tangential to the original question, but as to Matthew 1:19, you say that it refers to him making a right decision. However, the text says “being a just man AND unwilling to put her to shame”. I natually read that as two statements – (1) he was a just man, and (2) in keeping with that character he was unwilling to put her to shame. So it seems that the description of Joseph as a just man goes beyond this decision. Would you interpret that as he generally had a heart and actions that God approved of and one example of that was how he treated Mary in this situation? Is this one of those situations where you have to look at the whole of the text / Scripture and not a verse?
More later . . .
Thanks,
Jeff
In conjunction with your comments, I found this note in the ESV study Bible to be very helpful in regards to interpreting Psalm 112.
“Psalms 111–112 go together. Both follow an acrostic pattern: after the initial “Praise the Lord” (Hb. hallelu-yah), the first word of each line begins with the successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. For both psalms, the flow of thought is governed by the acrostic structure. Psalm 111:10 brings its praise to a close with a reference to the fear of the Lord—a “wisdom” idea, coupled with “understanding”—while Ps. 112:1 leads off its wisdom meditation with “the man who fears the Lord.” This clear connection helps readers in interpretation: in Psalm 111 it is the Lord whose “righteousness endures forever” (v. 3) and who is “gracious and merciful” (v. 4, echoing Ex. 34:6), while in Psalm 112 it is the godly person whose “righteousness endures forever” (112:3) and who is “gracious and merciful” (112:4). The implication is that the person who fears the Lord and attends to his commandments has God’s own moral traits reflected in his character. This is the goal of redemption, to renew the image of God in human beings. Psalm 111, in stressing God’s mighty deeds of redemption for his people, focuses on the “big story” for the whole people; Psalm 112, in stressing “wisdom,” encourages each member of God’s people in a day-to-day walk, a “little story,” that contributes to the big story of the whole people. Christians sing these psalms in the same way, with the mighty deeds including Jesus’ resurrection and installation as the heir of David, and God’s continuing care for his people.”
I was getting tripped up on ideas like a man’s righteousness enduring forever. In Psalm 111 God is praised for being eternally righteous (111:3) while in 112 it uses the same language as from 111 to make the point that when we fear the LORD and follow His commandments, we reflect him in what we do. It is not, then, saying that we in and of ourselves have this righteousness.
As to your comments about doing right things versus wanting to do right things, I understand what you are saying I think. Psalm 112:1 does include the statement of “who greatly delights in his commandments” as a qualification of the way in which this individual fears the LORD, however. Which shows that the need for the heart to be involved in the action of obedience was not completely hidden. Correct?
Thanks again for your time,
Jeff
Jeff, yes I think we are making progress here. I believe there is a both/and principle at work here: How the righteous act will be recognized for what it is (truly meeting the right-action that God requires in a particular area expressed by the Law), and will confirm what they are in how they are acting – righteously. Added note: we must remember that the action(s) we are discussion are occurring under the umbrella of the Old Covenant. Under the New Covenant, the standard is different in degree and in kind of righteousness. We would need to differentiate between forensic (we are declared righteous by trusting in the righteousness of Christ being imputed to us) justification and natural or moral justification. I will leave that for another blog.