The Righteous

There’s a teaching in Christianity that says “none are righteous,” and it’s pulled from Romans 3, which quotes from either Psalm 14 or Psalm 53 (they’re almost identical).

The thing is… the scriptures refer to people being “righteous” all the time.

Noah, Abraham, David… and though Jesus spoke Aramaic, our bibles record this greek word δίκαιος (dikaios) to describe “righteous Abel” in Matthew 23:35, and it’s the same word that Paul uses in Romans 3.

What are we supposed to learn from this?

For starters, this seems to provide pushback against “I’m-a-worthless-worm” theology, unless there’s some odd subclass of “righteous-worm” that’s hidden in the text.

And actually, if you go back and read the Psalms mentioned above, you’ll notice something important.

But there they are, overwhelmed with dread,
for God is present in the company of the righteous.
You evildoers frustrate the plans of the poor,
but the Lord is their refuge.
Psalm 14:5-6 (NIV)

David doesn’t say that “nobody is righteous.” He’s identifying a corrupt and wicked people, and they are distinct from the righteous people who are identified in Psalm 14:5-6.

Psalm 14:4 calls the wicked people “workers of injustice,” and when you read Psalm 14 in the context of the wickedness of Genesis 6 and Genesis 18, you’ll start to see parallels. There’s a description of a growing tide of wickedness and oppression that covers everything.

In the case of the Psalm, David is obviously not including himself in the definition of the wicked fools who say “there is no god.”

Likewise, though “the whole world is wicked” in Genesis 6, Noah is singled out. In the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot is singled out.

There’s a rabbinical teaching that says “a single righteous person could save the rest of the world,” and I think this can be derived from seeing that in the case of the flood, Noah was hidden away, leaving none. In the case of Sodom, Lot was led away, leaving none.

When Abraham asks if God would spare the cities for the sake of 10 righteous people, I think the teaching is that God would have spared the cities if there was even one who remained. Removing Lot brought the number of righteous people down to zero.

Perhaps this understanding informs the parable of the Wheat/Weeds in Matthew 13:24-30. God won’t tear out the weeds and destroy the wicked so long as there is even a single stalk of wheat growing in it.

In the Psalm, David calls these wicked people “fools” who say in their hearts, “there is no god.”

David isn’t making a statement about atheists. The description of the “fools” here are the specifically wicked who commit injustice, devour God’s people, and afflict the poor.

This absolutely (and specifically) includes people who loudly proclaim God’s laws and the existence of God, but who believe *in their hearts* that there is no God. This is hypocricy. And this is precisely what Paul was talking about in Romans 2. That’s the whole context!

Now, before we get too comfortable with drawing lines around the righteous and the wicked, I suspect that Jesus is saying something very particular when He warns against calling anyone a “fool.”

But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
Matthew 5:22 (NIV)

All this to say, I don’t believe Paul is teaching us to never consider anyone “righteous.” We have plenty of examples of righteous people in the Bible who serve as examples of faithfulness, and as examples of God’s faithfulness in them.

Be blessed!

Good Deeds

One of the faults in reform-adjacent Christianity is this insistence on a works-less faith. We have a whole system for what “good works” even means, taking Isaiah’s “righteousness is like filthy rags” and rendering good acts of nonbelievers as meaningless.

This is broken.

I’ve often argued that Paul’s “war against works” was never intended to be used the way the reformers wield it, and that Paul was pushing back against a pious self-righteous boasting about accomplishments and holiness.

In Genesis, it seems like God looks for good works.

After Ham does something (we’re not really sure what) to Noah, the text says that Ham’s brothers address their father’s shame by taking a garment and covering him, shielding him from further humiliation.

But the Hebrew language hides a clue here.

But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it on both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were turned away, so that they did not see their father’s nakedness.
Genesis 9:23 (NASB)

While we read “Shem and Japheth” in English, the Hebrew uses an idiom that doesn’t translate well into English. It’s not “they.” It’s “he,” and it points to Shem as the initiator.

The focus is on Shem.

(Gen. 9:23:) THEN HE, SHEM AND JAPHETH, TOOK A GARMENT. R. Johanan said: “Then they took” is not stated here, but THEN HE TOOK. Shem first showed his courage [in the worthy act] and afterwards Japheth. Ergo: THEN HE, SHEM AND JAPHETH, TOOK A GARMENT.
Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Noach 21:2

Without seeing this, the resulting blessing by Noah makes little sense. While the fate of Ham’s son is repeated, we are told that Shem is God’s man, and Japheth will be blessed by Shem’s abundance.

Why is Shem singled out? The text gives one answer: his good deed.

He also said,

Blessed be the Lord,
The God of Shem
;
And may Canaan be his servant.
May God enlarge Japheth,
And may he live in the tents of Shem
;
And may Canaan be his servant.”
Genesis 9: 26-27 (NASB)

And the good deed here is God’s own heart: to defend those who are shamed. We can quibble about drunkenness and nakedness, but the focus is Shem honoring his father and defending the vulnerable from shame.

This is the work God desires. Perhaps this is why God uses Shem.