The Upper Register Blog

In my research for my dissertation, I rejoiced to discover Origen’s interpretation of ”the righteousness of God” in Paul. Although Origen had some pretty speculative ideas in his theology, he strikes me as a rather sober exegete. He interprets Romans 3:21-22 and 10:3 in light of 1 Cor 1:30 and concludes that “the righteousness of God” is nothing less than Christ himself.

Here he is commenting on Rom 3:21:

We can now see what “righteousness” it is that has been manifested apart from natural law. It is the same which the apostle Paul says concerning Christ, that “he has been made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.”  Therefore, this righteousness of God, which is Christ, has been manifested apart from the natural law, but not apart from the law of Moses or the prophets. Natural law teaches us about equity among men or to know that there is a God. But that Christ is the Son of god, who is able to come to know this by nature? Therefore, apart from that law, the righteousness of God, which is Christ, has been manifested, testified to by the law of Moses and the prophets [Migne, Patrologiae Graecae, vol. 14, column 944].

Not only is “the righteousness of God” Christ himself, but it is given to all who believe, causing them to be cleansed of their sins, justified, and made fit for glory:

There is, he says, no distinction between Jews and Greeks, since all stand equally made under sin, as he had previously made clear, and now the righteousness of God, supported by the testimonies of the law and prophets, through faith in Jesus Christ is equally given to all … For that reason, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ coming to all who believe, whether they are Jews or Greeks, justifies those who have been purified from their prior crimes and makes them fit for the glory of God; and it makes them such, not by their merits, nor for their works, but freely offers glory to those who believe [column 945].

Contra the New Perspective on Paul, Origen interprets the Pauline lexeme “the righteousness of God” as having reference not to God’s faithfulness to the covenant but to Christ himself and the status of being cleansed from sin, justified, and qualified for eschatological glory on the basis of Christ’s atonement. “The righteousness of God” is thus a soteriological status that sinful humans receive by believing in Christ. And it makes believers fit for glory, “not by their merits, nor for their works, but freely (gratis) offers glory to those who believe.”

His comments on Rom 10:3-6 are also important. He argues that Paul makes mention of “two righteousnesses” (duarum justitiarum), namely, “the righteousness which is by the law” (justitia quae ex lege) and “the righteousness which is by faith” (justitia quae ex fide). Origen connects these two kinds of righteousness with Paul’s statement in the immediately preceding context about Israel’s unbelief (“being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own righteousness,” Rom 10:3): 

“For Christ is the end of the law,” that is, the perfection of the law, and Christ is righteousness, but to those who believe.  Those who do not truly believe, because they do not have Christ, do not have the perfection of the law; and for this reason neither are they able to arrive at righteousness. “For Moses writes that the righteousness which is by the law, which if a man does he shall live by it. But the righteousness which is by faith speaks thus.”  Already and in the preceding, the apostle made mention of two righteousnesses, when he says, for being ignorant of the righteousness of God, Israel sought to establish their own righteousness:  and here now he speaks again of two righteousnesses, one which is by the law, and the other which is by faith. But it seems to me that that righteousness which he had said above was ignored by Israel, the righteousness of God, is the same as the righteousness which is by faith. And that righteousness indeed of which he had said, “seeking to establish their own righteousness,” is the same as the righteousness which Moses here introduces with words, that “righteousness which is by the law, which if a man does he shall live by it” [column 1160].

I repeat: Origen says, “It seems to me that that righteousness which he had said above was ignored by Israel, the righteousness of God, is the same as the righteousness which is by faith,” while “their own righteousness” is the same as the righteousness which is by the law. 

I think this is significant because many scholars from Cremer to Käsemann to the New Perspective (Dunn and Wright) reject the identification of “the righteousness of God” with “the righteousness of faith.” Although they acknowledge the close connection between the two, these scholars want to emphasize the theocentric meaning of “the righteousness of God” (interpreted as God’s saving righteousness in fulfillment of his covenant promises) while allowing only the latter term, “the righteousness of faith,” to refer to the soteriological status of righteousness enjoyed by the believer.