Righteousness Defined
 

In Strong's Concordance's Greek Lexicon , the English word "Righteousness" is defined as:

#1343 - dikaiosune dik-ah-yos-oo'-nay from #1342; equity (of character or act); specially (Christian) justification:...

#1345. dikaioma dik-ah'-yo-mah from #1344; an equitable deed; by implication, a statute or decision:--judgment, justification, ordinance, ...

#2118. euthutes yoo-thoo'-tace from #2117; rectitude:...

Seeing God has said, by the words of the prophet ...

"I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD" (Jeremiah 9:24),

and, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ commands us to "seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness;... (Matthew 6:33)...

and, whereas we find it noted in the words of Psalms 89:14 and 97:2 that "righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne," and in Psalm 145:17 it is written "The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works,"

and, seeing that there prevails such disparity of beliefs even amongst saints today when it comes to their understanding of all that the word "righteousness" entails, then I must wonder... Do we, individually and collectively, really have a proper understanding of everything this word encompasses? I would enjoy reading how others define it. Here's what has motivated me to ponder this matter ...

In October 1987, I occasioned to hear a UPCI minister preach, during which he mentioned the abundance of "messages in tongues" and their "interpretations" which were received during the famed Azuza Street revival meetings in the early 1900s. One such "message" which had become of utmost interest to him, considering the "times" in which we are presently living, went something like this: "As the time of the end draws near, greater emphasis would be placed upon worship than upon righteousness."

This caused me to wonder - Are we witnessing the fulfillment of this prophecy in our day? I think so!

Note the admonition put forth in the words of this "message" is NOT that "worship" isn't important, or that it is something which should, or can, be discarded altogether, rather it's a matter of it's importance in regards to those things which we accept, embrace, and propagate as truth. This is to say, if our "worship" is not being done in accordance with truth, as Jesus explicitly decreed must be done (see John 4:24), then it is not acceptable to God for He will not honor any of our worshipful words or deeds which contains error (i.e., 'unrighteousness'). Why? Because John the apostle has written to inform us that "All unrighteousness is sin:..." (II John 5:17).

What's your opinion concerning this issue?

Re: Righteousness Defined
 

Still pondering this subject.

Looking at equity - "the quality of being fair or impartial".

In effect, you are saying, "the quality of being fair or impartial in character or act".

Looking at the root, which of course is righteous:

dikaios
dik'-ah-yos
From G1349; equitable (in character or act); by implication innocent, holy (absolutely or relatively): - just, meet, right (-eous).

You would then, in effect, be saying, "the quality of being fair, impartial, innocent and holy in character or act".

There are quite a few scriptures to go with that and I don't have them all together in my mind. But, I do agree, I see a lot of what many call worship in which righteousness is not a part of the equation.

Re: Righteousness Defined
 

My "take" (i.e., understanding) from the words contained in the "interpretation" of the referenced Azuza Street "message in tongues," was not that its main substance, or essence was upon "worship," rather the manner in which "righteousness" would be relegated, albeit unwittingly I would hope, to a place of secondary prominence; when, in fact, according to the words of Jesus Christ (Matthew 6:33) explicitly command that "righteousness" MUST be our primary objective, after which ALL other things wll be added thereto. Thus the question: Are we, individually and collectively, as the saints of the Most High, truly obeying Jesus' commandment in ALL of the things we do; whether it be worship (which most equate with singing, praying, etc.), to make "righteousness" first? I fear that we are not!

Yes, I agree, we MUST insure that all of what we do and call it "worship" is done in accordance with truth, however, my primary concern is that we are not as diligent as we ought to be when it comes to all of the other things we do (e.g., what we believe and publish as truth about the fundamental "doctrine of Christ"). (see Hebrews 6:1-2 and 2 John 1:8-10)

Case in point: Recently, during a mid-week Bible Study, taught by an elder retired Missionary, and the story of "a certain rich man and a beggar named Lazarus" was the focus, he began his discourse by asserting that the premise of Jesus' words MUST be construed as a depiction of an historical event, and NOT as a parable (as many "assume"). I knew right then and there that practically everything he would have to say afterwards would most likely be amiss. But rather than interrupt him, and perhaps create discord among my fellow saints that were in attendance, I decided to sit and "hear him out."

He then proceeded to place the "rich man" in what I like to refer to as "Apostolic Pentecostal Purgatory," asserting that for an unknown length of time, the wretched man has been tormented by the "flames" of Hell's fire. Oh! What "unrighteousness" such a public assertion by a "man of God" could publish! Why? Because Jesus' telling of this story was NOT a depiction of an actual event, rather it was a parable. Here's how one determines this:

In the words of Mark 4:33-34, we find it written that Jesus ALWAYS spoke in parables to ALL those outside of His inner circle of disciples (see also Matthew 13:10-14, 34-35). Besides this, we find it written in John 5:22 that Jesus said, "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son."

Thus the question: Seeing that our Lord NEVER spake "openly" to ANYONE "outside" of His inner circle of disciples, and, the Father has committed ALL judgments to be rendered by the Son (an event which lies in the future), then where's the "righteousness" (i.e., equality of judgement/justice) in the Missionary's public assertion that Jesus' story of "a certain rich man and a beggar named Lazarus" MUST be construed as a depiction of an historical event? It simply is NOT there, for we find it written in Luke 16:14 that Jesus was NOT speaking to His disciples, rather He was telling this parable to the Pharisees!

Not only has this retired Missionary's complete disregard for the principles inherent in "righteousness" (i.e., equality of justice/fairness in rendering judgment upon the un-named rich man) feel compelled to "suspect" every thing I might occasion to hear him say after this incident, but it was the damage which he inflicted upon those in attendance who were/are not as knowledgable about the truth as I, to wit.....

A sister-in-law, who is not of this like precious faith, but who happened to be in attendance on that occasion, told me afterwards (because it just so happened that she and I had, on a previous occasion while visiting at her home, became engaged in a conversation about this same topic, during which I had shown her in the Bible the manner in which one properly discerns this matter), saying, "If I was confused before, NOW I am REALLY confused!" for even she had recognized the error inherent in the Missionary's premise. And she was right, for what the retired Missionary had done was add "confusion" to her mind, and that is NOT of God, for He is not the author of confusion. Upon hearing this is when I recalled the message from Azuza Street - "As the time of the end draws near, greater emphasis will be placed upon worship than upon righteousness!"

May God helps us all to recognize the need to insure that "righteousness" is at the fore of our thoughts in ALL that we do and publicly proclaim as truth!

Re: Righteousness Defined
 

Lafon, I do not agree with you on this one..The missionary was right...This was not a parable, but an actual event. Notice an actual name was used(Lazarus).

Jesus was just kind enough to not give the name, for the descendants sake, of the rich man in hell. (his family may have been know in Israel at the time)

Re: Righteousness Defined
 

It should not matter, if this is a parable or not. The problem comes in missing the whole point of the lesson that is to be learned from the story. And I for one agree with Lafon, this was a story. In attempting to make it about a real person the missionary twisted the lesson Christ was making.

Re: Righteousness Defined
 

Did you read the words which Jesus spake that are recorded in John 5:22?

Disagree with me, if you like, for that is your choice. But, none can disagree with Jesus' words! Seeing that He has explicitly stated that "THE FATHER JUDGETH NO MAN, BUT HATH COMMITTED ALL JUDGMENT UNTO THE SON" (Yes, that's right! I'm shouting!)

For any man to assert, suggest, or even intimate that the Spirit, who is the Father, at some unspecified moment in the ancient past, has judged and un-named rich man to torment in the flames of Hell's fire, there to await final judgment and be thrown into the actual lake, is "unrighteousness"!!

Satan and his wicked band of angels have NOT yet been committed to such torment, and they were the FIRST in rebellion against God (read Matthew 8:28-29). Seeing that God hath NOT chosen these to be tormented (as many allege to be so with an un-named rich man), rather He has "reserved them in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day" (that is, that judgment which occurs at the end of the coming millennial reign of Christ Jesus upon the earth - see Revelation 20:7-15), then would it not seem to "unrighteous" for God to inflict such punishment (as alleged) upon man when He has not done so for those who first rebelled against Him?

If such were true, that is, that a man (whether it be "a certain [un-named] rich man," or any other, is presently being tormented in the flames of Hell's fire while awaiting final judgment, then such a man would be justified in accusing God of displaying "respect of persons," and we know that that is something which God simply cannot do!

You appear to be "assuming" far too much, and give no scritural evidence in support of such, whereas I have, at least, attempted to do this in support of by belief about the matter. I encourage you to carefully re-read my last post, and after taking into consideration the words of our Lord (especially), as well as those mentioned above, then tell me how you see things. Hopefully, it will be different and more aligned to what the Bible states.

Regards, Lafon

Re: Righteousness Defined
 

Addendum to previous post:

For the sake of discussion, let's "assume" that Jesus' telling (to the Pharisees) about "a certain rich man and a beggar named Lazarus," actually depicts the fate of these two men.

The issue, or so it seems to me, is whether it be true that our Lord was stating "this" was something which took place at some "previous" moment in history. As I have attempted to show, by the Scriptural references given, such could NOT be the case!

If it were true, then this would also imply that God (i.e., the Father, who is Spirit, apart from His manifestation in human flesh as the Son), did, at some point in times past, establish a "precedent" which would demand that every wicked person who dies thereafter MUST also be sentenced to the same fate as it is alleged the un-named rich man presently experiences. As noted by Jesus' own words, ONLY Himself possesses the power of rendering such a judgment!

Admittedly, my "take" on Jesus' story about a certain rich man's fate, does, indeed, give us a vivid picture of the eventual fate of ALL the wicked who will be cast "alive" into the "lake of fire." Therefore it IS a depiction of a REAL event, albeit NOT one that has already taken place!

That being said, let's note the fate of the wicked following final judgment:

1.) They will be fully awake and aware of the insurmountable consequences of the punishment that has been imposed upon them, knowing there is no escape EVER!

2.) They will have the "eyes of an eagle" (able to see events happening at a great distance), gazing across the gulf which separates them from, able to see "what could have been."

3.) They will be ALONE, with no one near to communicate with or with whom they might share their miserable state.

Oh! What a place of loneliness, devastation, deprivation, eternal torment and overwhelming despair Hell will be for the wicked! Let us be busy about the business of assisting the unsaved amongst us to understand the "truth" about this Biblical story! Perhaps in so doing, we might "others (to be) saved," even if be by "fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh" (see Jude 22-23).

Re: Righteousness Defined
 

Amen Lafon, never have more assumptions been made about a scriptural passage than this one.

Re: Righteousness Defined
 

Amen Lafon, never have more assumptions been made about a scriptural passage than this one.

Re: Righteousness Defined
 

Lafon, the rich man was BEFORE Jesus and under the Law.