Did you know that William Tyndale, when he was translating the Bible into English, coined a new word: “righteous.” He also used a cognate “righteousness.” The words that he translated by these words are often translated “just” or “justice.” I’m not sure how Tyndale decided when to use one word and when to use the other, but apparently just about every English version since then has followed his lead.
I wish they hadn’t. Just imagine how our thinking would be changed if every time we saw righteous or righteousness, we instead saw just and justice.
Maybe we’d focus a bit more on justice.
Just sayin’
It does seem that Jesus was more just than righteous, and the Pharisees were more righteous than just.
That’s an interesting thought, especially since the words mean the same thing!
Tim,I believe “righteous” carries a religious connotation, while “just” don’t necessarily imply such. as always that is just my opinion.
Maybe then we would not limit the word “righteousness” to the forensic-legal sense of being “declared right(eous)” and see that God’s redemptive work is about imputive righteousness – being made just (righteous) – being transformed into the image of Jesus Christ, the image of God that we were created in and fell from).
-Rex
Laymond,
I do understand how we’ve come to have the view, but what we need to see is that “righteous” is merely a coined word, at least as far as the Bible is concerned. In the Bible, you don’t get to choose between the two. Anytime you see the word “righteousness,” you should insert the word “justice.” Biblically speaking, there should be no such religious connotation versus a non-religious one.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Rex,
I think that’s a big part of it. It’s one thing, for example to talk about seeking the righteousness of God’s kingdom, per Matthew 6, rather than seeking the justice of God’s kingdom. The invented words change our understanding of what the Bible is saying.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Tim, since we are talking “ifs” here what if the word “en” which is translated (in, by,and with) in scripture had been translated “with” in the following.
Jhn 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
What if?
Jhn 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] with me, and I with thee, that they also may be one with us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Could this have cleared up much confusion? maybe even more than what you are asking about, just asking.
I like that translation, actually.
Of course, William Tyndale didn’t invent any of those prepositions. The problem with using the word righteousness is that it didn’t exist until he made his translation!
Tim, I know the difference in what you are saying, and what I am saying, but when it comes right down to it, we are saying the same thing. Men make mistakes. you said I needed to address other scripture before you took what I said seriously, or something to that effect. what I’m saying here is there would be no need to address many of those verses, if only (en in Jn. 17, 21 ) had been translated WITH, instead of IN. the prep. WITH shows plural, where IN can be misconstrued as being singular. I believe this could change the whole understanding of Jn. 17
I don’t see a problem. I’m in Christ and have fellowship with Christ at the same time. In Chapter 1, John says that Christ was with God and was God.
Naturally, there is a connection to the discussion of righteousness and justice here. I’m just sure of it. You wouldn’t be using the comments of my blog to discuss the topic from your blog, would you? ;-)
Only agreeing with you that we need to be careful of what we say, because others are listening, and could be affected by the way we phrase things :)
Since we’re talking about coining interesting words that can have bearing on our Christian lives, I seem to remember that a friend of mine named Tim Archer coined the phrase “Christly living.” I like it.