In a recent notice of “Mr. William Kelly as a Theologian,” which also claims to present “a summary account” of Darbyism “in the form it assumed under the hand of Mr. Kelly, who was unquestionably its most learned, systematic, and lucid representative,” the following occurs under the head of “Justification “— “Closely linked in Mr. Kelly's mind with this doctrine of justification is his explanation of the phrase, the righteousness of God. This is not God's gift of righteousness, nor anything in the same order of ideas. Neither is it God's attribute of righteousness. It is God's personal righteousness in the act of justifying the ungodly. This sense, which seems to be required in Romans 3:25, 2625Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. (Romans 3:25‑26), Mr. Kelly assigns to the expression throughout Paul's argument.”
Now the analysis just quoted from cannot, as to this section at any rate, on Soteriology, be said to be an unskillful one. Particularly clear is the confession of the baselessness of the charge of antinomianism so often laid against “the Brethren's” doctrine of justification. And so in measure as to their definition of the term “righteousness of God.” It is not theirs only, no doubt. The same, or a similar interpretation, had been given before, but had fallen into disfavor in presence of that which made it to be, in the words of the reviewer, “God's gift of righteousness.” But there is in his second negative— “Neither is it God's attribute of righteousness” —an implication, if taken absolutely, to which some will demur. Mr. Kelly may perhaps seldom have, in so many words, used the term “God's attribute of righteousness"; but it is questionable if he or Mr. Darby, of whom he is here said to be the interpreter, would, either of them, have been satisfied with the definition from which it was thus peremptorily ruled out.
In W. K. 's “Notes on Romans,” for instance, in chap. 1:17, “the righteousness of God,” διχαιοσύνη θεοῦ is given as signifying a “habit or quality of righteousness,” and (translated “God's righteousness”) is said to be a similar phrase to “God's power” just before, and “God's wrath” just after.
Then, as to Mr. Darby. In a reply to the Record, dealing with Romans 3:25, 2625Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. (Romans 3:25‑26), we have (in “A Letter on the Righteousness of God”), “I say, then, in this capital passage it is a character or attribute of God, which is made good by the blood of Christ—in respect of sinners, so as to favor them.” Again, in a Letter (on “The Pauline Doctrine of the Righteousness of Faith") reviewing the Christian Examiner— “First, as to the term, 'righteousness of God,' I should not call it properly an attribute of God, in the common sense of the word attribute. The word is generally used for what is essential to His being and nature, as power; whereas righteousness is a relative term. But 'the righteousness of God'... means a quality in the character of God,... that which characterizes Himself,... and is a far wider term than His being the Author of it.”
The true statement of the matter would probably have been given had the writer qualified it by saying that the righteousness of God in Romans 3:25, 2625Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. (Romans 3:25‑26), is not merely God's so-called attribute of righteousness; but the brightest and fullest manifestation of that quality in His action of justifying the ungodly. Accompanied by the extract from the article “Righteousness of God,” which he quotes, he would then, I think, have better expressed the teaching he seeks to present as Mr. Kelly's.
It is interesting to notice that the generally accepted signification of this important phrase is being called in question in quarters far removed from Mr. Kelly's school. It has had the field to itself for long. As remarked by the late Editor of Bible Treasury in a very early number (1857)— “It is a singular fact that, while God used Romans 1:1717For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. (Romans 1:17) to Luther's conversion, and we may say to the Reformation, neither he nor his companions, or their followers, ever apprehended the full truth conveyed by this blessed expression— ‘righteousness of God.' Hence it is habitually mistranslated in Luther's German Bible, where διχαιοσύνη θεοῦ is rendered 'the righteousness which is available before God.'"... “It is a humiliating circumstance that the professed comments on scripture” (up to our day) “are so barren as to this grave and deeply interesting theme.”
In 1890, however, to trace its recent history so far as related by one who himself feels the insufficiency of the former interpretation, something in the nature of a new departure was made. In the “Romans” volume of “Pulpit Commentary,” a view of its essential meaning differing from the current one was propounded. This view was subsequently adopted by Revelation Dr. Robertson, Principal of Bishop Hatfield's Hall, Durham, in a paper to the Thinker (November, 1893). More recently Prof. Sanday and Mr. Headlam in the “International Critical Commentary” allude to these two protests “quite recently raised against what had seemed for some time past to be almost an accepted exegetical tradition.”
To quote the first mentioned on Romans 1:1717For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. (Romans 1:17). “It is usual to interpret this as meaning man's imputed, or forensic, righteousness, which is from God— θεοῦ) being understood as the genitive of origin. The phrase in itself suggests rather the sense in which it is continually used in the Old Testament, as denoting God's own eternal righteousness.” Again, “It cannot be denied that the word διχαιοσύνη is used in a secondary sense to express, not absolute righteousness such as God's; but the state of acceptance, or acquittal, into which, through his faith, the believer enters. But we contend that it never has this sense when, without a preposition intervening, it is followed by θεοῦ, and also that God's own righteousness is never lost sight of as the source from which such acceptance or acquittal flows.”
To sum up in the words of Mr. Kelly himself, “There is nothing to hinder our understanding διχαιοσύνη θεοῦ in its usual sense of an attribute or quality of God.... The definition of Luther, Calvin, Beza, Reiche, De Wette, etc., is unsatisfactory, as Luther's version, which is a paraphrase of it, is erroneous.... Of course it is not divine righteousness abstractly (which is perhaps the unconscious difficulty of most who approach the subject), but God just in virtue of the Savior's work. How does He estimate it, how act on it, for the believer? The infusion of divine righteousness has no just sense, or appears to confound justification with life; whilst the idea that it means mercy is a poor evasion which weakens the grand truth that not His love only but His justice justifies the believer.” J. T.