‘The Righteousness of God’ in Paul

If the ground starts rumbling beneath your feet on Thursday at about 4:30pm ET, just know that it’s me reading my paper at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Providence, Rhode Island (a paper unrelated to the aforementioned amendment). For those who might be interested, here’s the abstract summary of my presentation.

‘God’s Inactive Righteousness: A Clarification Regarding the Meaning of Paul’s “Righteousness” Language’

by Denny Burk

Paul’s scattered references to the “righteousness of God” should be interpreted in light of the fact that his original audience would have heard his letters read aloud to them. I suggest two things about what Paul’s original audience would have heard as this letter was read to them: (1) they would not have heard the phrase “righteousness of God” as either a subjective or an objective genitive, but (2) they would have heard δικαιοσύνη as the nominalization of an attribute. These two observations will not enable us to say definitively what the correct interpretation of “righteousness of God” is in Paul’s letters (that is beyond the scope of this short paper), but they will help us to rule out some interpretations currently on offer.

6 Responses to ‘The Righteousness of God’ in Paul

  1. John Holmberg November 18, 2008 at 11:06 am #

    Why would the “ground start rumbling”? Are you alluding to it being controversial? Because if so, I fail to see how it is. Are you indicating that you will make exegetes mad by excluding the use of the genitive? I don’t know why anybody would get upset about this. Personally I’m puzzled by this language of Paul.

    At least your paper is on the Bible and isn’t defending America from being too imperial 😉

  2. Michael Metts November 18, 2008 at 12:28 pm #

    Would, or how would, this affect transformative and forensic righteousness?

  3. Luke Britt November 18, 2008 at 3:45 pm #

    I would love to read it.

  4. Denny Burk November 18, 2008 at 6:27 pm #

    The ‘ground rumbling’ remark was meant tongue in cheek. I guess that was a bust!

  5. John Holmberg November 18, 2008 at 6:45 pm #

    You’re just too unpredictable for me Denny 🙂

  6. http://renewingthoughts.blogspot.com/ November 20, 2008 at 7:52 pm #

    hope you have had an enjoyable time at ETS. Is it possible to get a copy of your paper?

    -Charile

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes