Scholars have long recognized the importance of the theme of righteousness within the Gospel of Matthew. However, no scholarly consensus exists around the meaning of righteousness in the First Gospel. Some interpreters assume that the thematic initiative points to God’s demand upon man, while alternatively, others suggest Matthew’s righteousness is a gift reflective of Pauline soteriology.[1] Without a proper understanding of Matthew’s use of righteousness, the interpreter risks inappropriately conflating Matthew’s understanding with the remainder of the New Testament or otherwise missing the author’s intended meaning of the term righteousness. Specifically, this study is limited to the seven uses of the noun form of righteousness, δικαιοσύνη, spoken by Jesus in Matthew. It appears that Matthew’s use of the noun form of righteousness points beyond God’s demands upon man and to a righteousness that reflects a new eschatological reality inaugurated through Christ. The research begins by providing a very brief summary of the theme of righteousness in recent scholarship followed by an analysis of the scope and range of the term δικαιοσύνη in the New Testament. Next, the analysis examines the background usage of the term in the Old Testament, the Pseudepigrapha, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Finally, the research concludes by investigating each of the seven uses of the noun δικαιοσύνη in Matthew: 3:15; 5:16, 10, 20; 6:1, 33; 21:32.

The Theme of Righteousness

The Thematic Initiative

The fact that righteousness, or, more specifically, δικαιοσύνη, is an important theme within the Gospel of Matthew is practically undisputed by scholars. Prominent Matthean scholars such as W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison identify δικαιοσύνη as an important theme in Matthew.[2] Furthermore, John Nolland acknowledges not only the importance but also the broad implications of the concept of righteousness in Matthew.[3] Kolawole Oladotun Paul takes a step further by asserting that righteousness “forms the central significant theme of Matthew’s gospel.”[4] Other scholars note the importance of the thematic initiative within the Sermon on the Mount, while not discounting its value to the remainder of the Gospel.[5] The nature of the term δικαιοσύνη is so theologically rich within New Testament studies that few scholars would deny its theological relevance.

When analyzing the theme of righteousness in Matthew’s Gospel, the challenge revolves primarily around how Matthew utilizes the term to develop the theme. Accordingly, the interpreter is tested from several different directions. First, δικαιοσύνη has a broad semantic range, which will be explored in detail shortly. Second, the context of Matthew’s righteousness passages alongside the backdrop of the Old Testament, the Pseudepigrapha, and the Dead Sea Scrolls provides additional potential nuances to the meaning of the term. Finally, the interpreter faces the issue of how Matthew’s utilization of the term and thematic development relate to the rest of the New Testament canon. Regarding the canonical context, Benno Przybylski explains that the state of the question pertains to whether δικαιοσύνη refers to “God’s gift to man or God’s demand upon man.”[6] Przybylski explains that certain scholars contend that δικαιοσύνη is always considered a demand of God, while others assume it is both a demand of God and a gift, or they find a mediating position between the two perspectives.[7] The task of addressing the challenges begins with the scope of the semantic analysis.

The Semantic Scope

Matthew addresses the concept of righteousness within the δικαι- word group. A lemma search within the Gospel of Matthew reveals the use of the adjectival form, δίκαιος, seventeen times, the use of the verbal form, δικαιόω, twice, and the use of the noun form, δικαιοσύνη, seven times. The adjective pertains primarily to being in accordance with high standards of conduct or moral principles and can apply to both humans and transcendent beings.[8] The neuter form of the adjective can also refer to an obligation relating to certain requirements of justice or rightness.[9] Six times Matthew utilizes the adjective, δίκαιος, to describe a man (Matt 1:19; 10:41; 13:7; 27:19), twice Matthew uses δίκαιος to describe right versus wrong (Matt 20:4, 23:28), twice he uses the term to describe blood (Matt 23:35), and seven times the term is used to juxtapose righteous people with the unrighteous or wicked (Matt 5:45; 9:13; 13:43, 49; 23:29, 25:37; 25:46).

Regarding the verbal form, the following possibilities exist: taking up legal action, rendering a favorable verdict, releasing from claims, and demonstrating moral rightness.[10] Matthew utilizes the verbal form δικαιόω once to suggest vindication via deeds (Matt 11:19) and next to suggest justification via words (Matt 12:37). Both the adjectival and verbal δικαι- word groups point to a standard of being or normative actions that provide a backdrop of meaning for the analysis of the noun form.[11]

The Semantic Range

The broad semantic range of δικαιοσύνη poses a challenge for interpreters when analyzing the noun within Matthew. In general, three major entries for the term exist: the quality of judicial responsibility with a focus on fairness, the quality of juridical correctness with a focus on redemption, and the quality of upright behavior with a focus on morality.[12] Similar to the adjectival form, δικαιοσύνη can apply to both human and transcendent beings. Furthermore, the quality of behavioral righteousness can be subdivided into a morality in general, a fulfillment of intrinsically divine expectations, or an uprightness determined by specific legal standards or ordinances.[13]

A significant challenge facing the interpreter of Matthew is whether the focus of Matthew is on the second entry, redemption, or on the third entry, behavior. In other words, does Matthew’s understanding of δικαιοσύνη in his seven noun references center on righteousness as an eschatological gift from God or does Matthew’s view of righteousness center on a righteousness whereby God demands certain behavior from humanity? To answer the question, a summary of dictionary entries is inadequate. Instead, a brief analysis of δικαιοσύνη within the context of the Old Testament, the Pseudepigrapha, and the Dead Sea Scrolls is a necessary next step to evaluate Matthew’s perspective within his ancient context.

The Background of Righteousness

The Old Testament

The seven occurrences of the noun form of δικαιοσύνη in Matthew all represent words spoken by Jesus. Five of them occur within the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:6, 10, 20; 6:1, 33) and two of them occur with reference to John the Baptist (Matt 3:5; 21:32). Robert Bratcher notes that of the 476 occurrences of the צדק root words, the LXX translates 452 of them with the δικαι- word group; thus, the vast majority of the time the Hebrew word connoting righteousness is translated into the Greek term δικαιοσύνη in the LXX. [14] Przybylski agrees with Bratcher’s basic premise and adds that only between 23 and 32  uses of צדק are not represented “by some form of the δικαι- word group.[15]

More specifically, the primary definitions of the noun and adjectival forms of צדק are what is right, righteousness in government, justice in a case or cause, rightness in speech, ethical rightness, vindication, God’s attribute as sovereign, truthfulness, and righteous acts.[16] The definitions of the verbal form of צדק include being in the right, being justified, being just, being righteous in character and conduct, doing justice as in administering the law, declaring righteous, justifying as in vindicating the cause or saving, and making righteous.[17] Bratcher explains that when צדק is applied to an individual, the word normally means the degree by which an individual is faithful to Yahweh; when applied to a king, the word normally means the way he rightly exercised power; when applied to a nation, the word normally means the people’s devotion to the Law.[18] However, when צדק is applied to God, righteousness detaches from an external norm or moral standard, and instead, it means the actions that Yahweh performs as required by the covenant with Israel.[19] The result is that righteousness in an Ancient Near Eastern culture often is an attribute represented by a virtuous king. Accordingly, Bratcher contends that the righteousness Jesus refers to in Matthew’s Gospel pertains to God’s “way of ruling the Kingdom,” which is the same “righteousness that belongs to the citizens of the Kingdom” that is inaugurating Christ’s eschatological Kingdom (Matt 6:10).[20]

The Pseudepigrapha

Matthew often echoes the concept of righteousness in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, which may provide insight into meaning. First, Matthew 5:10 echoes the Testament of Levi and provides an interesting juxtaposition: “You shall set aside the Law and nullify the words of the prophets by your wicked perversity. You persecute just men: and you hate the pious [δικαίους]; the word of the faithful you regard with revulsion” (T. Levi 16:2).[21] The concept of righteousness is contrasted with those who ignore the Law and the prophets, while righteousness aligns with those who are just and faithful. The implication is that the righteous follow the Law and the words of the prophets even when they are persecuted (Matt 5:10). Second, Matthew 5:10 echoes the Testament of Judah, “Like a whirlwind shall be the false prophets: They shall harass the righteous [δικαίους]” (T. Jud. 21:9).[22] Similar to Matthew 5:10, the righteous are persecuted. However, the righteous are now contrasted with false prophets, and, by implication, the righteous are those who follow the ordinances of God’s true prophets. Finally, Matthew 5:20 echoes 1 Enoch when stating, “Fear not, Enoch, righteous [ἀληθινὸς] man and scribe of truth” (1 En. 15:1).[23] George Nickelsburg translates ἀληθινὸς as righteousness due to the parallel formulation in 1 Enoch 12:4, “Enoch, righteous [δικαιοσύνης] scribe.”[24] The importance of Enoch’s attribute of righteousness is understood in light of 1 Enoch 1:2, “Enoch, a righteous [δίκαιός] man whose eyes were opened by God, who had the vision of the Holy One and of Heaven, which he showed me.”[25] Nickelsburg explains that it was Enoch’s righteousness that allowed him to enter God’s presence.[26] Interestingly, Matthew 5:20 references a type of righteousness similar to Enoch’s righteousness that encounters God’s presence and exceeds that of the Jewish leaders required to enter the kingdom of heaven.

The Dead Sea Scrolls

 A comprehensive analysis of the Hebrew term צדק, righteousness, within the non-biblical texts of the Qumran is beyond the scope of this study. However, the term plays a particularly important role in the Damascus Document (CD). As Przybylski explains, within the corpus of the Dead Sea Scrolls it is only within the CD that צדק is used primarily as a conceptual term.[27] Accordingly, the following brief study focuses on the CD as representative of the term’s usage. The noun form occurs twelve times in the CD as follows: 1:1, 11, 16; 3:15; 4:17; 6:11; 20:11, 17, 29, 31, 32, 33. The first instance of צדק in CD 1:1 identifies the recipients of the document as “all those who know justice (צדק).”[28] In CD 1:11 and 20:32 the phrase מורה צדק occurs, which means Teacher of Righteousness. No scholarly consensus exists regarding the precise meaning of the title. However, Jacob Weingreen argues that no moral connotation exists, and instead, the phrase is simply a title that conveys legitimacy.[29] It would not be unreasonable to conclude that the צדק referred to throughout the CD would pertain to the Teacher’s instructions.

In addition to the references to the Teacher’s title, several of the instances of צדק pertain to either moral conduct or have legal overtones. The context of CD 1:16 points to the nation of Israel straying from Yahweh and “from the tracks of justice (צדק)” by persecuting those who walked in perfection.[30] Certainly, the language seems to connote a lack of morality by God’s people. Similarly, CD 3:15-16 refers to the behavior of humanity by exhorting Israel to follow “His just (צדק) stipulations and his truthful paths, and the wishes of His will which man must do in order to live by them.”[31] The language appears to have juridical overtones. Alternatively, the language of CD 4:17 promotes a more general concept of normative conduct that opposes the evil Belial who catches the Israelites with three nets of supposed justice (צדק): fornication, wealth, and temple defilement. John Kampen explores the nets of the evil Belial in detail and concludes that they demonstrate a coherent legal tradition in order to promote purity.[32] CD 6:11 also points to the law and utilizes a variation of the leader’s title by referring to the one “who teaches justice (צדק) at the end of the days.”[33] Although eschatological overtones may exist, the context does not provide a determinative conclusion. The instances of צדק in CD 20 further support both a righteousness exhibited by proper moral conduct and continues to associate laws or stipulations to the concept of righteousness. Accordingly, Przybylski decisively concludes that within the CD צדק is a “technical term designating proper conduct according to a specific norm.”[34] Przybylski’s conclusion is not incorrect, but it is incomplete. A standard of conduct is insufficient; the connotation of צדק is more than normative behavior and also relates to a way of life of a specific community, which is why Kampen concludes that the significance of righteousness is its relationship to a “chosen” group where צדק is “directly related to the group’s sectarian identity.”[35] In other words, the Damascus Document ultimately indicates the possibility of righteousness in Matthew’s Gospel being representative of a sectarian identifier or sectarian way of life.

It is the backdrop of righteousness within the Old Testament that points to God’s way of ruling His Kingdom. It is the righteousness within pseudepigraphal works such as Enoch that allowed entrance into God’s presence. It is the righteousness of the Qumran community that not only points to normative conduct, but also to a sectarian identity by which the thematic initiative of righteousness in Matthew’s Gospel can be further pursued. In sum, the Old Testament, certain pseudepigraphal works, and the Qumran evidence all associate the concept of righteousness with God’s kingdom that foreshadows the rule, presence, and identity of an eschatological reality inaugurated through Christ.

The Utilization of Righteousness

Matthew 3:15 and 21:32

The following section analyzes each of the seven instances of δικαιοσύνη used by Matthew in the First Gospel within their respective contexts. The first verse under consideration is Matthew 3:15, “But Jesus answered him, ‘Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.’ Then he consented” (ESV). At the outset it is acknowledged that Przybylski’s rather comprehensive study of δικαιοσύνη in Matthew’s Gospel concludes that all seven occurrences of the noun refers to man’s conduct: God’s “demand upon man.”[36] Regarding Matthew 3:15, R. T. France substantially agrees with Przybylski and translates the δικαιοσύνη phrase as “the right way for us to fulfill all that is required of us.”[37] However, instead of a general principle of conduct, France suggests a specific requirement.[38] The requirement does not reference humanity in general, but a specific baptismal task that Jesus and John must participate in for the former to carry out His God-ordained mission. Forcefully, Craig Blomberg focuses on the fulfillment aspect of the verse and suggests that it is time for Christ to obey all the moral demands of God; and thus, to fulfill all righteousness means “to complete everything that forms part of a relationship of obedience to God.[39] Blomberg’s emphasis arises from Matthew’s frequent use of the lemma πληρόω when citing the Old Testament (Matt 1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 5:17; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4: 26:54, 56; 27:9), which confirms that the activity is aligning with God’s will as noted in the Hebrew Scriptures. Granted, ethical conduct may be in view in certain contexts of Matthew, but it is not a requirement in every instance. Since δικαιοσύνη has a broad semantic range, the author may use the word in different senses.

A more contextually based understanding of the term in Matthew 3:15 points to a salvation-historical understanding of δικαιοσύν. Donald Hagner notes that no commandment exists within the biblical canon commanding Jesus to submit to John’s baptism and, accordingly, to suggest that somehow baptism fulfills all righteousness is quite difficult.[40] Instead, Hagner asserts that through baptism and “the accompanying anointing by the Spirit” (Matt 3:16)  the two men inaugurate “God’s saving activity.”[41] Likewise, in Matthew 21:32 John the Baptist comes “in the way of righteousness,” which, according to Hagner, also references the process of God accomplishing salvation through history by sending the Baptist ahead of Jesus.[42] Importantly, the descent of the Spirit may have a significant role in a contextual understanding of righteousness in Matthew 3:15. If the purpose of baptism is to fulfill all righteousness and the vehicle through which baptism occurs is the receipt of God’s Spirit (cf. Acts 2:38), then the fulfillment of righteousness may look beyond a behavioral standard demanded by God and point to a righteousness beyond human effort in verse 15. Paul McCuistion, Colin Warner, and Francois Viljoen recognize that the “ontological aspect of God’s righteousness is at the root of all actions.”[43] The actions referred to by the authors include the activity of both God and humanity, thus Jesus fulfilling all righteousness “satisfies a greater reality than moral living.”[44] The greater reality is a Messianic reality whereby Christ expresses the righteousness of God via the incarnation, and then, as a representative, He introduces humanity to God’s righteousness. As McCuistion, Warner, and Viljoen explain, the “baptism becomes the incarnational agency through which the righteousness of God…is accessed by the believing world.”[45] In sum, the literary contexts suggest that the meaning of the term righteousness in Matthew 3:15 and 21:32 appears to move beyond human conduct and points to a righteousness that reflects a eschatological reality inaugurated through Christ.

Matthew 5:6, 10; 6:1, 33

Although the term δικαιοσύνη does not have to refer to a behavioral standard, it often has a connotation that seems to indicate God’s demand upon man. Toward the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount, a straightforward reading of Matthew 5:10 provides a good example by stating, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” The suffering righteous is not an uncommon theme within Jewish literature (2 Ch 34:16; Wis 1:16-2:24; 4:20-5:8; 2 Bar 52:4-5). Nolland concludes that persecution accompanies those who will not compromise or commit apostasy.[46] For believers in Christ, the pressure likely arose from multiple sources such as Jewish religious leaders, the Roman government, or Hellenistic influences. Regardless, Hung-Sik Choi explains that most scholars conclude that righteousness within the context of suffering refers to obedient, righteous conduct, thus “God’s demand, not God’s gift.”[47] However, two important contextual clues suggest otherwise. First, in the second half of Matthew 5:10, the author makes a connection between the suffering of the righteous and the kingdom of heaven. Hagner explains that the kingdom of heaven, a circumlocution for the kingdom of God, represents an important fulfillment theme in Matthew that points to the rule of God inaugurated through Jesus.[48] Second, in Matthew 5:11 the generalized third person shifts to Jesus’s audience by utilizing the second person pronoun. Nolland suggests that the audience now recognizes that a new situation is emerging where identification with Jesus is critical to participation in the newly inaugurated kingdom.[49] Accordingly, the possibility remains that the attacks arise due to the onset of a new eschatological reality inaugurated through Christ rather than behavioral norms.

Matthew – Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

The term δικαιοσύνη also occurs previously in the Beatitudes, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied” (Matt 5:6). Even when used within the same pericope, righteousness does not require the same meaning. Of the seven nouns under review, the lack of consensus surrounding the interpretation of Matthew 5:6 may be eclipsed only by the controversy surrounding verse 20. David Turner decisively concludes that righteousness in verse 6 refers to behavior before God and not justice, and he asserts that a Pauline forensic righteousness is not part of the Matthean perspective.[50] In contrast, Hagner asserts that δικαιοσύνη actually means social justice and not personal righteousness because the context refers to those who have experienced injustice, such as the poor.[51] However, Hagner also suggests that δικαιοσύνη points to the coming of God’s eschatological rule and salvific activity.[52] Choi provides three reasons for this view: (1) δικαιοσύνη pertains to God’s salvific activity in the LXX (cf. Ps 51:14; 22:13; 35:28; 40:10; Isa 46:13; 51:5, 6, 8), (2) the future passive χορτασθήσονται, “they shall be satisfied” (Matt 5:6), suggests a provision given by God, and (3) the feast language suggests the coming kingdom (cf. 8:11; 22:2-14; 25:10).[53] In sum, Matthew 5:6 refers to those who hunger and thirst for a salvific eschatological reality they hope to receive, a new eschatological reality inaugurated through Christ.

Unlike the controversy surrounding Matthew 5:6, significant consensus surrounds the meaning of righteousness in Matthew 6:1: “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.” The language is clear that the righteousness Matthew is referring to is a type that is performed or, more specifically, a type of righteousness that you are not to do, ποιεῖν, before others. Accordingly, the meaning of righteousness appears to clearly point to man’s conduct or behavior. Interestingly, in contrast to the command that prohibits practicing righteousness before others,  an apparent contradiction appears to exist between Matthew 6:1 and Matthew 5:16 where the believer is exhorted to let others “see your good works.” However, France identifies two important differences: (1) Matthew 5:16 refers to character in general, but Matthew 6:1 refers specifically to religious duties, and (2) the purpose of Matthew 5:16 is to glorify God, while the purpose of the righteous acts warned against in Matthew 6:1 is to glorify man.[54] The literary context identifies the three specific aspects of Jewish piety that comprise righteousness: almsgiving (Matt 6:2), praying (Matt 6:5), and fasting (Matt 6:16). Without question, the context points to the performance of righteous acts with proper motives. However, one may wonder how much Jesus’s understanding of the new eschatological reality He inaugurates sheds light on the prohibition against the performance aspects of religious duties.

An ethical meaning for the term δικαιοσύνη may also occur in Matthew 6:33, “But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.” Nolland highlights several challenges that face the interpreter when investigating the meaning of righteousness. One challenge is the referent of the dislocated αὐτοῦ as some translations assume it is the kingdom’s righteousness, which, per Nolland, is a grammatical impossibility due to the feminine nature of the noun for kingdom.[55] Accordingly, the antecedent is more likely God, thus, the righteousness referred to is God’s righteousness. Nolland then provides three ways that the righteousness could be considered God’s: as exemplary, as a source, or as a requirement.[56] In other words, the verse may suggest that God’s righteousness could be an example to be imitated, could originate from God as its source, or could refer to what God requires of man. Nolland seems to reluctantly choose the latter. However, the context of the passage revolves around human needs such as eating and drinking (Matt 6:25-32). Accordingly, if the meaning of righteousness is God’s requirement of man, then it appears the verse could be translated: “But seek first…God’s requirements of man, and then all humanity’s needs, such as food and clothing, will be added to you.” Unfortunately, the verse now appears to place man into a relationship with his Creator whereby man will be able to control God’s provision through proper conduct, which essentially reverses the role of God and man. At this point, France may assist by suggesting that seeking God’s kingdom or kingship is to live under the umbrella of God’s direction.[57] Similarly, seeking God’s righteousness in Matthew 6:33 more likely means to live under the umbrella of an eschatological reality of God’s salvific activity. Choi highlights the possibility by noting the juxtaposition of βασιλεία and δικαιοσύνη, which seeks to make the eschatological reality a priority.[58] Furthermore, Matthew would have likely been familiar with the Old Testament connections between righteousness and salvation as noted in Isaiah 51:5, which states, “My righteousness draws near, my salvation has gone out.” Accordingly, it is by drawing near to God’s righteousness, which is eschatologically inaugurated through Christ, that the believer finds all his human needs met (cf. Matt 6:25-32).

Matthew 5:20

Possibly the most debated use of the noun δικαιοσύνη within the First Gospel occurs in Matthew 5:20, “For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” The debate revolves around the verb “exceeds,” περισσεύω, modified by a form of πολύς. In other words, the righteousness referred to by Jesus must not only exceed the scribes and Pharisees, but it must greatly surpass that of the religious leaders for the believer to enter the kingdom. Consistent with previous interpretations of the noun in Matthew, Przybylski argues that δικαιοσύνη in Matthew 5:20 refers to man’s conduct or behavior in accordance with the law with the ultimate goal of perfection.[59] Przybylski correctly recognizes that it is within the context of the law that δικαιοσύνη in verse 20 must be interpreted. Without question, Jesus’s intention is that every minute detail of the law must be kept (Matt 5:18-19). However, what Przybylski seems to either miss or ignore are two important phrase modifiers in verse 18. Don Garlington observes that verse 18 “exudes the language of apocalyptic eschatology.”[60] More specifically, Jesus explains that nothing will pass from the Law “until heaven and earth pass away,” and “until all is accomplished” (Matt 5:18). Garlington explains that the heaven and earth phrase is an apocalyptic metaphor that points to the passing away of the old creation and the inauguration of the new (cf. Jer 31:35-37; Joel 2:28-32; Hag 2:6-7). The second phrase also has eschatological or salvation-historical overtones by pointing to the accomplishment of all things in Christ, which appears to intentionally follow the fulfillment language (πληρόω) of verse 17. Finally, the language of the Law and the Prophets in verse 17 is canonical in nature and summarizes God’s salvific plan to date, while prompting the reader to recognize a new cosmic reality is on the horizon. Accordingly, it is within the literary context of a new eschatological reality that the better righteousness of Matthew 5:20 needs examined.

Much of the discussion regarding the nature of the δικαιοσύνη in verse 20 revolves around whether the verb περισσεύω is qualitative or quantitative. Przybylski asserts both a qualitative and quantitative aspect of the verb, but he limits his understanding of the δικαιοσύνη to a seemingly pre-eschatological trope that demands man to follow an “extremely meticulous and strict interpretation” of the law, albeit a “different interpretation of the law.”[61] France notes that understanding righteousness in terms of literal obedience would seem to be an absurd idea if one’s δικαιοσύνη had to surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees; thus, Jesus is referring to a qualitatively different type of righteousness rather than trying to beat the scribes and Pharisees at their own game.[62] Further, John Meier contends that περισσεύω is an eschatological catchword connoting a fullness that is “present and proclaimed in the age of salvation, as compared with the old aeon, or a new standard that is required in the new age.”[63] To be clear, Matthew’s righteousness is not a gift in the sense of a father giving a vehicle to a teenager on his sixteenth birthday, but instead, a gift in the sense of a father providing the capacity for the teenager to drive the vehicle. As David Turner acknowledges, “Christology is the foundation of ethics.”[64] In sum, Garlington provides a poignant paraphrase of Matthew 5:20, “But, you see, your end-time righteousness must surpass that of the people of old, as exemplified by the scribes and Pharisees. Otherwise, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven in its finalized manifestation.”[65] Accordingly, the righteousness in Matthew 5:20 is not first and foremost a demand on man, but instead, it is a demand on Christ. Matthew’s righteousness is not a demand upon man to observe every iota and dot as Christ did. Instead, Matthew’s righteousness in verse 20 is a demand upon man to live in a new eschatological present reality of God’s kingdom inaugurated through Christ, which qualitatively surpasses the righteousness of the religious leaders, that ultimately leads the believer into an eschatological future reality of the kingdom’s final manifestation.

Conclusion

The thematic initiative of righteousness within Matthew is practically undisputed. However, the broad semantic range of the term provides significant challenges to the interpreter. An examination of the term’s usage in the Old Testament, Pseudepigrapha, and the Dead Sea Scrolls suggest, although the idea of behavioral standards does exist, all three also point to the possibility that δικαιοσύνη has kingdom-oriented eschatological overtones. Furthermore, each of the literary contexts of Matthew’s seven uses of the noun form of righteousness also point to a newly inaugurated eschatological reality. First, the use of righteousness in Matthew 3:15 and 21:32 appear to encompass the inauguration of God’s salvific activity through the obedience of Jesus and the Baptist. Second, the literary context and use of righteousness in Matthew 5:6, 10; 6:1, and 33 also jointly point to a new salvific eschatological reality inaugurated through Christ. Finally, Matthew 5:20 also lends itself to an eschatological understanding of righteousness in light of the new creation context that underpins the type of righteousness that qualitatively surpasses the current understanding of righteousness. Accordingly, it appears that Matthew’s use of the noun form of righteousness points beyond God’s demands upon man and to a righteousness that reflects a new eschatological reality inaugurated through Christ. The most significant aspect of the research may be its potential contribution to the longstanding debate surrounding the potential bifurcation of Matthean and Pauline soteriology. An area of further research may be an exploration of integrative connection points between Matthew’s overtones of eschatology in his thematic initiative of righteousness and an understanding of righteousness within the Pauline corpus especially in relationship to the apocalyptic initiatives within the texts of second temple Judaism.

______________________________________________________

[1] Benno Przybylski explains that scholars such as Georg Strecker view all seven noun forms of righteousness in Matthew, δικαιοσύνη, as God’s demand upon man. However, scholars such as M. J. Fiedler assert that all instances of δικαιοσύνη are a gift from God that precedes a demand. Other mediating positions also exist such as J. A. Ziesler’s view that righteousness in Matthew 5:20 is a demand but a gift in Matthew 5:6. See Benno Przybylski, Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1981), 1.

[2] W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Matthew 1-7, ed. J. A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield, and G. N. Stanton, vol. 1, International Critical Commentary (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 79–80.

[3] John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 95. Furthermore, Jonathan Pennington not only contends that righteousness is a major theme in the First Gospel, but that Matthew also has a specific way in which he functionally utilizes the term. See Jonathan T. Pennington, Reading the Gospels Wisely: A Narrative and Theological Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 43–44.

[4] Kolawole Oladotun Paul, “A Critical Examination of the Concept of Righteousness in the Gospel of Mathew,” Asia-Africa Journal of Mission and Ministry 20 (2019): 96.

[5] See Walter T Wilson, “A Third Form of Righteousness: Theme and Contribution of Matthew 6.19-7.12 in the Sermon on the Mount,” New Testament Studies 53, no. 3 (2007): 321.; Francois P Viljoen, “The Righteousness of Jesus and John the Baptist as Depicted by Matthew,” In die Skriflig 47, no. 1 (2013): 5–7.

[6] Przybylski, Righteousness in Matthew, 1.

[7] Ibid.

[8] William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000), 246–47.

[9] Ibid., 247.

[10] Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon, 249.

[11] Although neither the adjectival nor verbal δικαι- word groups detract from the analysis of the noun form, a more comprehensive analysis that includes the verbal and adjectival forms would be the logical next step to further support or frustrate the conclusions of this study.

[12] Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon, 247–48.

[13] Ibid., 248.

[14] Robert G. Bratcher, “‘Righteousness’ in Matthew,” The Bible Translator 40, no. 2 (1989): 231.

[15] Przybylski, Righteousness in Matthew, 77.

[16] Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977), 841–42.

[17] Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs, 842.

[18] Bratcher, “‘Righteousness’ in Matthew,” 229–30.

[19] Ibid., 230.

[20] Ibid., 235.

[21] James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Academic, 2010), 794.

[22] Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:801.

[23] George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 36.

[24] George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1-36, ed. Klaus Baltzer (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 270. Nickelsburg’s point is that Aramaic noun translated as ἀληθινὸς can mean either righteousness or truth.

[25] Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 19.

[26] Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 270.

[27] Przybylski, Righteousness in Matthew, 35.

[28] Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2019), 551.

[29] Jacob Weingreen, “Title Môrēh Tsedek,” Journal of Semitic Studies 6, no. 2 (1961): 169.

[30] Martínez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 1:553.

[31] Martínez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 1:555.

[32] John Kampen, “‘Righteousness’ in Matthew and the Legal Texts from Qumran,” Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 23 (1997): 470.

[33] Martínez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 1:559.

[34] Przybylski, Righteousness in Matthew, 22.

[35] Kampen, “‘Righteousness’ in Matthew,” 479.

[36] Przybylski, Righteousness in Matthew, 78–99.

[37] R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 119.

[38] Ibid., 120.

[39] Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Holman Reference, 1992), 81.

[40] Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13, vol. 33A, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1995), 56.

[41] Ibid.

[42] Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, vol. 33B, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1995), 614.

[43] Paul Raymond McCuistion, Colin Warner, and Francois P Viljoen, “Fulfilment of Righteousness: Historical and Ontological Perspective of Matthew 3:15,” In die Skriflig 48, no. 1 (2014): 4.

[44] Ibid.

[45] Ibid., 7.

[46] Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 207.

[47] Hung-sik Choi, “A Study of Δικαιοσύνη in Matthew,” Korea Journal of Christian Studies 39 (2005): 54.

[48] Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 33A:lx.

[49] Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 208.

[50] David L. Turner, Matthew, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 151.

[51] Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 33A:93.

[52] Ibid.

[53] Choi, “A Study of Δικαιοσύνη,” 52.

[54] France, The Gospel of Matthew, 234.

[55] Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 314.

[56] Ibid., 315.

[57] France, The Gospel of Matthew, 271.

[58] Choi, “A Study of Δικαιοσύνη,” 58.

[59] Przybylski, Righteousness in Matthew, 85–87.

[60] Don Garlington, “The ‘Better Righteousness’: Matthew 5:20,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 20, no. 4 (2010): 481.

[61] Przybylski, Righteousness in Matthew, 87.

[62] France, The Gospel of Matthew, 189.

[63] John P. Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel: A Redactional Study of Matt.5:17-48 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976), 108–9.

[64] Turner, Matthew, 164.

[65] Garlington, “The ‘Better Righteousness’,” 487.

Bibliography

• Arndt, William, Frederick W. Danker, Walter Bauer, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000.
• Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Holman Reference, 1992.
• Bratcher, Robert G. “‘Righteousness’ in Matthew.” The Bible Translator 40, no. 2 (1989): 228–35.
• Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs. Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1977.
• Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. Vol. 1. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Academic, 2010.
• Choi, Hung-sik. “A Study of Δικαιοσύνη in Matthew.” Korea Journal of Christian Studies 39 (2005): 47–64.
• Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison. Matthew 1-7. Edited by J. A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield, and G. N. Stanton. Vol. 1. International Critical Commentary. New York: T&T Clark, 2004.
• France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.
• Garlington, Don. “The ‘Better Righteousness’: Matthew 5:20.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 20, no. 4 (2010): 479–502.
• Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 1-13. Vol. 33A. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, 1995.
• ———. Matthew 14-28. Vol. 33B. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, 1995.
• Kampen, John. “‘Righteousness’ in Matthew and the Legal Texts from Qumran.” Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 23 (1997): 461–87.
• Martínez, Florentino García, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2019.
• McCuistion, Paul Raymond, Colin Warner, and Francois P Viljoen. “Fulfilment of Righteousness: Historical and Ontological Perspective of Matthew 3:15.” In die Skriflig 48, no. 1 (2014): 1–8.
• Meier, John P. Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel: A Redactional Study of Matt.5:17-48. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976.
• Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1-36. Edited by Klaus Baltzer. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.
• Nickelsburg, George W. E., and James C. VanderKam. 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012.
• Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
• Paul, Kolawole Oladotun. “A Critical Examination of the Concept of Righteousness in the Gospel of Mathew.” Asia-Africa Journal of Mission and Ministry 20 (2019): 97–106.
• Pennington, Jonathan T. Reading the Gospels Wisely: A Narrative and Theological Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012.
• Przybylski, Benno. Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1981.
• Turner, David L. Matthew. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.
• Weingreen, Jacob. “Title Môrēh Tsedek.” Journal of Semitic Studies 6, no. 2 (1961): 162–74.
• Wilson, Walter T. “A Third Form of Righteousness: Theme and Contribution of Matthew 6.19-7.12 in the Sermon on the Mount.” New Testament Studies 53, no. 3 (2007): 303–24.