Is the Righteousness of God, God’s Covenant Faithfulness?

Herbert Cremer popularized the view that Paul’s RG equates to God’s covenant faithfulness. For Cremer, “righteousness” in Hebraic thought was a relational concept not an abstract one, and God’s righteousness stood in parallel to God’s faithfulness (Ziesler, 36-43; Hill, 88-89, 93-98; Dunn, 1998, 342-44). RG is God’s covenant faithfulness to his promises and to Israel revealed in the gospel.

In support, Yahweh is righteous when he is true to himself, true to his covenant people, and delivers them as he promised to (Dt 32:4; Ps 89:14, 49; 96:13; 119:38; 143:1; Hos 2:19-20; Zech 8:8; Jub. 1.5-6). In Isaiah, the new David (Isa 11:5), King Cyrus (Isa 45:8, 13, 19), and the Servant of the Lord (Isa 42:6) express God’s faithfulness as chosen deliverers. Plus, pistis can be a specific instance of dikaiosynē in extra-Greek usage (e.g. Herodotus, Hist. 2.151, see Irons, 105-6). Paul does place RG in proximity to God’s faithfulness (Rom 3:3, 5) and God’s faithfulness to his promises to the patriarchs is central to his gospel (Rom 15:8). There is also a long history of locating RG amidst God’s faithfulness including Ambrosiaster, Thomas Aquinas, Erasmus, Johannes Oecolampadius, the English Puritan George Joye, Genevan theologian Jean-Alphonse Turretin, Swiss theologian Karl Barth, and James Dunn and N.T. Wright among New Perspective scholars. New England pastor-theologian Jonathan Edwards commented: “God’s righteousness here [Isa 51:8], is meant his faithfulness in fulfilling his covenant promises to his church, or his faithfulness towards his church and people, in bestowing the benefits of the covenant of grace upon them” (History of Redemption, Intro, 2.1). N.T. Wright (2009, 178) affirms the covenant faithfulness position: “‘God’s righteousness’ referred to the great, deep plans which the God of the Old Testaments had always cherished, the through-Israel-for-the-world plans, plans to rescue and restore his wonderful creation itself, and, more especially, to God’s faithfulness to those great plans.” And in his broader exposition, Wright connects RG to broader biblical depictions of right behaviour, the law court, the covenant, and cosmic rectification (2013, 796-804, 1053-56).

Criticisms do abound (Westerholm, 286-96): (1) Seifrid observes that in the OT the words for “righteousness” (ṣ^eḏāqâ) and “covenant” (berith) rarely occur  together (Isa 42:6; 61:8-11; Hos 2:16-20; Ps 50:1-6; 111:1-10; Dan 9:4-7; Neh 9:32-33). More properly, someone keeps, remembers, establishes, forgets, or forsakes a covenant, they are never said to act righteously towards it. Even if all covenant keeping is righteousness, not all righteousness is covenant keeping (Seifrid 2001, 423-24). (2) In addition, righteousness is not a relational concept (Verhältnisbegriff) nor reducible to the single idea of faithfulness to a community (Gemeinschaftstreue) or to the covenant (Bundestreue) (Seifrid 2004, 43). Irons (106) rightly points to differentiating between lexis and discourse, so that righteousness does not mean faithfulness, as much as faithfulness can sometimes be a specific instance of righteousness (cf. Seifrid 2000, 40; Campbell, 700-2; Schreiner 2018, 75). (3) When Paul refers to God’s fidelity he normally speaks of God’s truthfulness (alētheia), faithfulness (pistis), or reliability (Bebaioō), not dikaiosynē. Plus, in the one place where Paul does link pistis and dikaiosynē (Rom 3:3-5), it is connected to God’s punitive judgment, so God is faithful in exercising justice rather than salvific righteousness (Irons, 273-79, 339).