{"id":985,"date":"2010-01-28T19:23:30","date_gmt":"2010-01-28T19:23:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/bibleandculture\/2010\/01\/gods-righteousness--in-2-corinthians.html"},"modified":"2010-01-28T19:23:30","modified_gmt":"2010-01-28T19:23:30","slug":"gods-righteousness-in-2-corinthians","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2010\/01\/gods-righteousness-in-2-corinthians.html","title":{"rendered":"God’s Righteousness– in 2 Corinthians"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Nashville<\/a><\/span> <\/p>\n

In the wake of Tom Wright’s recent book on Justification and righteousness, the discussion has once more become vibrant and even volatile in some quarters.  One of the major things that actually seems lacking in these discussions is a consideration of whether the term righteousness might well have ethical nuances as well as theological ones.  One of our bright Asbury students,  Luke Post, has surveyed the use of the righteousness language in 2 Corinthians, with some surprising and helpful conclusions.   The post that follows is Luke’s essay, See what you think.<\/p>\n

Ever since the “new perspective”
\nissued a challenge to Reformed theology, Paul’s dikaiosune<\/span> <\/span>language has
\nbeen at the center of a stormy debate. Though I am not na\u00efve enough to think
\nthat I can solve the debate in this essay, I do hope to demonstrate the truth
\nof one simple conclusion: when Paul speaks of righteousness in 2 Corinthians, ethical
\nbehavior is never far from his mind. That is to say, in each of its seven
\noccurrences in 2 Corinthians dikaiosune<\/span>
\nincludes ethical behavior.[1]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/p>\n

            <\/span>Given
\nthat righteousness was primarily an ethical term both to Jews and Gentiles (see
\nbelow), I presuppose that one needs strong contextual evidence to rule the
\nethical meaning out. Furthermore, I work from the assumption that Paul was not
\na systematic theologian and that he was comfortable with a continuum of ideas
\nbeing present in one term. My thesis is an attempt to simplify Paul by
\ncountering the tendency to read him through later systematic categories. <\/p>\n

I will proceed by
\na careful, though brief, analysis of the linguistic background. Then, I will
\nexamine each of the seven occurrences of dikaiosune <\/span>saving the controversial 5:21 for last. I can not possibly deal with every
\nsignificant exegetical issue while covering so much ground in an essay of this
\nlength. Therefore, I will approach the text with a broader look at each
\ncontext, trying to get a feel for the direction of Paul’s thought, while paying
\nattention only to the most significant exegetical issues.<\/p>\n

Background<\/b><\/p>\n

            <\/span>Most
\nscholars emphasize that Paul’s understanding of righteousness is primarily
\ninformed by Jewish thought.[2]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nAccording to this thought, dikaiosune<\/span> (saddiqa<\/span> in the Hebrew Scriptures) is
\nprimarily a relational term.[3]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nWhen a person is righteous, they are in the right covenant relationship with God. God
\nis righteous because he is faithful to the covenant relationship that he has
\nestablished with his people.[4]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

            <\/span>Though
\nPaul clearly does begin with a Jewish understanding of righteousness, it seems
\nthat most scholars have not fully appreciated the fact that he writes to largely
\nGreek audiences. Paul highlights his dikaiosune<\/span> <\/span>terminology
\nespecially when he writes to the Romans whom he had never met. While some
\nscholars argue that this points to the pervasive acceptance of the Jewish
\nunderstanding of righteousness (even among Gentile churches), there is a much
\nsimpler explanation available: Paul’s use of righteousness does not
\nfundamentally contradict the Greek understanding of righteousness. <\/p>\n

So what would a
\nnormal Greek citizen have understood by the term dikaiosune<\/span>?
\nThe lexical evidence unambiguously points to behavior that conforms to a moral
\nor legal norm.[5]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> As far
\nas I can tell, this is precisely the kind of behavior that is expected in the
\nJewish covenants. Because they had entered into a covenant relationship with God,
\nthey were responsible to behave as he commanded.[6]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>  <\/span>Even commands that carry no obvious ethical
\nsense (e.g. cultic commands) become ethical when a person is under covenant
\nobligation to fulfill them. It is the simple ethics of keeping one’s
\ncommitments. <\/p>\n

If there is no
\nfundamental conflict between relational and ethical righteousness, then Paul
\ncould write to Gentile believers without ever having explained to them the
\nnuances of righteousness in the Hebrew Scriptures and still expect them to get
\nhis point. They would recognize that being faithful to one’s promises is a form
\nof righteousness. The norm in this case arises from the covenant relationship,
\nbut it is no less a norm. <\/p>\n

In addition to the
\ncovenantal context, the forensic context is also significant for the Jewish
\nunderstanding of righteousness. Though this forensic aspect has historically
\nreceived an undue amount of attention, it is clearly present in both Jewish and
\nPauline usage.[7]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> When the
\nforensic nuance is present, a person’s righteousness is a status given or
\npronounced by the court. <\/p>\n

Though Protestant
\nscholars frequently set forensic righteousness in opposition to ethical
\nrighteousness, there is no necessary disagreement between the two. In Jewish
\nthought, a person is pronounced righteous by the court because they are
\nactually in the right. They are not guilty of violating the ethical norm. While
\nit is true that certain contexts emphasize the standing of the “justified”
\nperson, this meaning could never be totally detached from ethics in the Hebrew
\nmind. Right status has to do with right actions.[8]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/p>\n

Neither major
\ncontext for understanding righteousness in Jewish thought rules out an ethical
\nconnotation. In fact, a moral norm is assumed in both relational (covenantal)
\nand forensic contexts. Thus we do not have to rule out an ethical understanding
\neven when Paul is emphasizing some other aspect of dikaiosune<\/span>. As we will see, ethics is never far from Paul’s mind
\nin his second letter to the Corinthians.<\/p>\n

3:9–“Ministry of Righteousness”<\/b><\/p>\n

            <\/span>Throughout
\nthis letter, Paul is concerned to defend the nature of his apostolic ministry. As
\npart of his defense, he compares himself with those who bring “letters of
\ncommendation” from other churches (3:1). Paul argues that he does not need such
\nletters since his ministry is authenticated by the power of the Spirit. Indeed,
\nthe Corinthians themselves are a letter that recommends Paul since the Spirit
\nhas performed his work on their hearts through Paul’s ministry (3:2-3). This
\ncontrast between letter and Spirit merges into a contrast between the old and
\nnew covenants. The “letter [of the old covenant] kills, but the Spirit gives
\nlife” (3:6). <\/p>\n

            <\/span>Verses
\n7-11 continue this argument by a series of three contrasts which point to the
\ngreater glory of the new covenant. It is in this context that we first
\nencounter dikaiosu,nh<\/span> in 2
\nCorinthians. Picking up on verse 6, Paul says that the “ministry of death” is
\nsurpassed in glory by the “ministry of the Spirit” (vv 7-8). Then in verse 9 he
\nsays the same thing but this time the terms are “ministry of condemnation” and
\n“ministry of righteousness.”[9]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/p>\n

            <\/span>Noting
\nthe contrast with the forensic term, katakrisin
\n<\/b><\/span>(condemnation) commentators decisively prefer a forensic meaning for
\ndikaiosune<\/span> <\/span>in this passage.[10]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> It
\nis clear that condemnation is a forensic term and that Paul probably has
\nforensic ideas in mind when he speaks of righteousness here. But is it
\nnecessary to reduce dikaiosune<\/span> <\/span>to this meaning
\naltogether? There are several reasons for thinking that it is not.<\/p>\n

            <\/span>First,
\nas noted above, the forensic notion itself is usually tied up with ethics. The
\nperson who was righteous before the law in ancient Judaism was the person who had
\ndone the right thing (or had not done the wrong thing). The law “condemned”
\npeople by sentencing them to death when they disobeyed it.[11]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nTherefore, even if Paul means to emphasize the forensic nature of righteousness
\nhere, he may not wish to distance it from ethical righteousness.<\/p>\n

            <\/span>Second,
\neverything in the context seems to indicate that ethical righteousness is not
\nfar from Paul’s mind. Paul is emphasizing that his ministry is authentic
\nbecause of the powerful, obvious work of the Spirit in human hearts. In the
\nsame way that he parallels “death” with “condemnation,” so he parallels
\n“Spirit” with “righteousness.” The Spirit is the one who “gives life” (v. 6)
\nwhich repeatedly in Paul involves much more than “right-standing” with God.[12]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Furthermore,
\nPaul is appealing to a concrete work of the Spirit among them which the
\nCorinthians had witnessed. Therefore, it is highly likely that when Paul
\nmentions the Spirit’s ministry, he is thinking of the heart-changing work that
\nsets sinners on the right path.<\/p>\n

            <\/span>This
\ninterpretation receives confirmation when we continue to follow the argument.
\nOne must remember that the theme of glory is hovering over this entire passage.
\nAfter ending his series of contrasts in verse 11, Paul engages in some
\ninteresting midrash regarding the veil on Moses’ face and the veil over Jewish
\nhearts (vv 12-16). Whatever the meaning of the details of this passage, Paul
\narrives at a clear point in verse 16. It is in Christ that the veil is removed
\nand people can see clearly.<\/p>\n

            <\/span>And
\nhere again the Spirit shows up as the agent of enlightenment (v. 17).[13]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nThe Spirit takes away the veil from the human heart so that it can clearly
\nbehold the glory<\/i> of the Lord. As this
\nhappens, “we are being transformed” into the image of Christ from “glory to glory”<\/i> (v. 18). Now the
\nsurpassing glory spoken of in the three contrasts of verses 7-11 is none other
\nthan Christ-likeness, an ethical righteousness. The ministry of the Spirit
\nwhich came “with even more glory” is the ministry which makes people into the glorious
\nimage of Jesus. <\/p>\n

I am not arguing
\nthat Paul must mean exactly the same thing by “ministry of the Spirit” and
\n“ministry of righteousness.” Indeed, it seems that righteousness in this
\ncontext calls to mind a forensic situation not overtly present in the parallel
\nphrase. What I am arguing is that we should not think of Paul as radically
\nshifting gears between such semantically and logically related statements.[14]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> The
\nclose relationship between “death” and “condemnation” indicates that there
\nshould also be a close relationship between “Spirit” and “righteousness.” To
\nmake righteousness entirely<\/i> forensic
\ndestroys the parallel and, to some degree, detaches dikaiosune<\/span> <\/span>from its context.<\/p>\n

 <\/span>Furthermore, it is simply unnecessary to do
\nthis with a term as rich and layered as dikaiosune<\/span>.[15]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nGiven the frequent association of dikaiosune<\/span> with
\nethical behavior, it is at least plausible that, when it occurs in a highly
\nethical context, we should not exclude all ethical content from its definition.
\nRather than expecting the Corinthians to follow him as he moved subtly in and
\nout of systematic categories (from sanctification back to justification in this
\ncase), it is more likely that Paul viewed dikaiosune <\/span>as a term that could be loaded with multiple meanings at once.<\/p>\n

 <\/span>This interpretation finds a remarkable
\nparallel in Romans 8:1-4 where Paul explicitly rehearses the sentence of “no
\ncondemnation.” But this sentence is only given to those “who do not walk according
\nto the flesh but according to the Spirit” (v. 4). The whole package of “sin and
\ndeath” is overturned by the “Spirit of life” (v. 2). It appears that part of
\nPaul’s answer to the problem of forensic condemnation involves the ethical work
\nof the Spirit. <\/p>\n

            <\/span>Finally,
\nit is important to consider what the Gentiles at Corinth were likely to think
\nwhen they listened to this text read aloud. Is it really likely that they would
\nhear Paul describing his ministry as one of dikaiosune
\n<\/span>in a context that emphasizes the glorious transforming work of the
\nSpirit and think only of a forensic declaration? Though the contrast with
\ncondemnation would certainly bring their right-standing to mind, there is no
\ngood reason why we must limit dikaiosune<\/span> <\/span>to this meaning
\nalone. <\/p>\n

11:15–“Ministers of Righteousness”<\/b><\/p>\n

            <\/span>It
\nis appropriate at this point to skip forward to Paul’s final mention of dikaiosune<\/span> <\/span>since here again he uses ministry
\nterminology. This phrase occurs in the highly polemical chapters 10-13 where
\nPaul’s opponents are the “super-apostles” who are concerned to demonstrate
\ntheir superiority to Paul. These men, who are really “ministers of Satan” (v
\n15), present themselves as “ministers of righteousness.” This phrase is
\nparallel to the previous phrase, “apostles of Christ.”[16]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nIn other words, these opponents pretend to be what Paul really is.[17]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

            <\/span>Though
\nsome scholars prefer a descriptive translation for the genitive (i.e. “good” or
\n“true” ministers),[18]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nthe parallel with “apostles of Christ” seems to indicate a more nuanced meaning
\nhere.[19]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nThese are specific ways in which they seek to be like Paul who is not just any
\n“apostle” but an apostle of Christ, who is not just any “minister” but a
\nminister of righteousness. Therefore, it is better to take the genitive as
\nobjective.[20]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> These
\nministers serve or bring righteousness.<\/p>\n

            <\/span>In
\nwhat way did they pretend to bring righteousness? Did they present themselves
\nas ministers of forensic justification? As most commentators have concluded,
\nthis is unlikely. There is almost no evidence that justification by faith is an
\nissue in 2 Corinthians and particularly not in chapters 10-13. The problem throughout
\nthese chapters is the self-serving lifestyle that these apostles recommend and
\nabout which they boast.[21]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nTherefore, the righteousness that they mimic but do not have is ethical
\nbehavior. <\/p>\n

So the point must
\nbe emphasized. Paul uses a phrase just barely different from the one in 3:9 to
\nindirectly describe his ministry (as the ministry that the false apostles seek
\nto imitate). But here it is a ministry that includes ethical righteousness.
\nThis not only indicates that Paul is comfortable describing his ministry as one
\nthat brings about ethical righteousness, it raises serious doubts as to whether
\nPaul would have wanted to exclude ethical righteousness from the similar phrase
\nin 3:9.<\/p>\n

6:7–“Weapons of Righteousness”<\/b><\/p>\n

            <\/span>Of
\nall the occurrences of dikaiosune <\/span>in 2
\nCorinthians, this one provides the fewest contextual clues concerning its
\nmeaning. Paul is continuing his ministry defense having explained his role as
\nan agent of reconciliation (5:14-21) and having appealed to the Corinthians to
\nbe reconciled themselves (5:20; 6:1). After listing hardships (vv 4-5) and
\nvirtues (v 6), he comes to ministerial equipment and this military metaphor:
\n“weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left” (v 7c).<\/p>\n

There are several
\npossibilities for the genitive here. [22]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span> David
\nGarland takes it as a subjective (“weapons provided by righteousness”) where
\nrighteousness becomes a metonym for God.[23]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> This
\nunderstanding would parallel the “power of God” (v 7b) well. However, the
\nappeal to metonymy seems like a stretch. How do we know that the Corinthians
\nwould have recognized such a disguised reference to God (when other options
\nwere readily available)?<\/p>\n

It is more likely
\nthat this is an epexegetic use of the genitive (“weapons consisting of
\nrighteousness”), and thus it is a reference to ethical behavior. An almost
\nexact parallel occurs in Romans 6:13 where the meaning clearly has to do with
\nethical behavior. In the presence of such contextual ambiguity, this parallel
\nmust be given considerable force.<\/p>\n

In addition, we
\nshould keep in mind that throughout 2 Corinthians and particularly in 2:14-7:4,
\nPaul is concerned to demonstrate the integrity of his ministry in the face of
\naccusations.[24]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> He is
\ndetermined to show the “righteousness” of his conduct towards the Corinthians
\n(in contrast to his opponents; 11:15). His opponents’ ministry is one that
\nglories in external appearances (5:12). Paul glories in hardships (6:5). Their
\nministry is characterized by deception and greed (2:17). Paul’s is
\ncharacterized by righteous behavior (6:7). Once again, in the absence of any
\ncontextual factors that suggest otherwise, dikaiosune<\/span>
\nprobably carries an ethical flavor.<\/p>\n

6:14–Wickedness and Righteousness<\/b><\/p>\n

            <\/span>In
\n6:14-7:1, Paul is urging the believers to remove themselves from the temple
\ncults and the sinful practices that surround it.[25]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nThis context and the direct contrast with “wickedness” removes all ambiguity
\nconcerning the meaning of dikaiosune<\/span>. In
\nthe same way that Christ is distinct from “Belial” (v.15) and that light is
\ndistinct from darkness (v.14), so righteousness has nothing in common with
\nwickedness. The ethical nuance is unmistakable.<\/p>\n

9:9-10–“His Righteousness”\/”Harvest of Righteousness”<\/b><\/p>\n

            <\/span> <\/span>In chapters 8-9, Paul appeals to the
\nCorinthians concerning the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem. At 9:6,
\nhe begins using a farming metaphor to encourage the Corinthians to sow
\ngenerously and to reap bountifully. After stating that God would graciously
\nsustain them so that they could engage in “every good deed” (v. 8), he quotes
\nPsalm 111:9:[26]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> “He
\nscattered abroad. He gave to the poor. His righteousness endures forever” (v.9).
\nThen he comments, “Now He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food
\nwill supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your
\nrighteousness” (v. 10).<\/p>\n

            <\/span>Much
\ndebate surrounds the referent of “his” in verse 9. The original Psalm is
\nreferring to a pious man but the surrounding context in this letter has God as
\nthe subject. On balance, it seems best to go with the latter option. In verse
\n8, God makes grace overflow to the Corinthians. In verse 10, God supplies seed
\nto the sower, etc. It is unlikely that Paul would expect his audience to be so
\nfamiliar with a somewhat obscure Psalm that they would ignore the subject suggested
\nby the present context. Furthermore, the very next verse indicates that Paul
\ndoes not mind changing the subject of an Old Testament text in order to make it
\nfit his argument.[27]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

            <\/span>The
\npoint to note is that whether this passage is referring to God’s righteousness
\nor to man’s, it still has a strongly ethical flavor.[28]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> The
\nrighteousness here involves giving to the poor. Whether God or man does it, it
\nis a “good deed” (v. 8).<\/p>\n

            <\/span>In
\nverse 10, the dikaiosune<\/span> belongs to
\nthe Corinthians. What is “the harvest of your righteousness”? Barnett argues
\nthat it is a right-standing which yields a harvest of generosity.[29]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> But
\nright-standing is not suggested by anything in this passage, unless one assumes
\nit is present in the word itself. <\/p>\n

            <\/span>The
\nclear flow of the passage is that God makes the Corinthians sufficient to give
\n(v 8). As they respond in cheerful giving, God blesses them more so that they
\ncontinue to give (vv 9-11). All of this giving and receiving spirals into
\nbountiful thanksgiving to God (vv 11b-15). In verse 9, righteousness involves
\nthe sowing, the generous giving. There is no reason why it should not be taken
\nthe same way in verse 10. In fact, “seed for sowing” seems to be set in
\nparallel with “harvest of…righteousness” in this verse.[30]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nGod increases both in response to the Corinthians’ generosity. Therefore the
\nharvest is what God gives in response to the righteousness of generous giving.[31]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> <\/p>\n

5:21–“The Righteousness of God”<\/b><\/p>\n

            <\/span>It
\nis impossible to give such a significant passage a thorough treatment in this
\nlimited format. Instead, I will once again look at the broader context to argue
\nthat ethical righteousness can not be eliminated from the meaning of dikaiosune<\/span>. The famous text reads: “He [God]
\nmade him [Christ] who knew no sin to be<\/i>
\nsin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him.”<\/p>\n

            <\/span>Traditionally,
\nthis genitive has been understood as either an objective genitive or a genitive
\nof origin. Either way, righteousness is viewed as something belonging to man.
\nMany who hold this view believe in some kind of forensic transfer. Two basic
\narguments are offered for their position.<\/p>\n

First, verse 19
\nmakes it clear that forgiveness of sins is in view. Indeed, part of being
\nrighteous is having a right-standing with God based on his forgiveness. But did
\nPaul intend to limit dikaiosune<\/span> to this
\nmeaning alone in this passage? The context indicates otherwise.[32]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

            <\/span>Second,
\nthey argue that the parallel with “sin” in verse 21 indicates that
\nrighteousness is only forensic. Jesus obviously did not become sin in any
\nethical way.[33]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> But
\nthis forces the language too much. For while it is true that Jesus did not sin,
\nit is also true that no one literally <\/i>becomes
\nthe righteousness of God (regardless of how it is defined). Whether
\nrighteousness is “covenant faithfulness,” an imputed quality, or a moral
\nquality, it is impossible for a person to literally become dikaiosune<\/span> (simply because persons can not
\nbecome abstract qualities). The point is “that Christ came to stand in that
\nrelation to God that normally is the result of sin…”[34]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nAnd so we come to stand in a new relation to God as well. But context must
\ndirect us as to the exact nature of this new relationship.<\/p>\n

            <\/span>When
\nwe look closely at the context, ethical righteousness comes into the
\nforeground. We should remember that Paul began emphasizing the validity and
\ncharacter of his ministry in 2:14 and that he has not stopped since (though he has
\noccasionally diverted his attention to a related topic). Paul’s ministry,
\nthough characterized by outward weakness, is actually glorious because of the
\npower of the Spirit who works through him (3:1-18). Even though he suffers
\nphysically, he does not lose heart (4:1, 16) because his inglorious ministry
\nworks to God’s glory now (4:15) and will lead to his own glory in the future
\n(4:16-18; 5:1-10).<\/p>\n

            <\/span>Paul
\nindicates that his ministry is motivated both by “fear of the Lord” (5:11) and
\n“love of Christ” (5:14). Then he concludes that Christ’s sacrificial death
\nshould motivate all people to live for him (5:15). All those in Christ are a
\n“new creation” (v 17) which implies a different way of living and a different
\nway of knowing (v 16). <\/p>\n

                <\/span>Though
\nPaul is referring primarily to himself throughout this passage, he clearly
\nintends for others who belong to Christ to take the same attitude.[35]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nN.T. Wright’s argument that this passage refers only to Paul, who is a living
\nmanifestation of God’s covenant faithfulness, does not do justice to the
\nrhetorical contrast within the verse itself. In addition, the plural “us” in
\nverse 21 likely refers to more than Paul alone.[36]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>           <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

            <\/span>In
\nthe midst of all this talk about himself and others living for Christ and being
\na new creation, Paul introduces the crucial descriptor of his ministry: it is a
\n“ministry of reconciliation” (v.18).[37]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nReconciliation is primarily a relational term and clearly involves being set in
\nright relationship with God.[38]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nAnd clearly for God to accept us in this relationship he must forgive our sins
\n(v.19). However, common sense indicates that a right relationship maintains
\nbehavior that is appropriate for that relationship. This behavior is part of
\nbeing a new creation, part of living for Christ. <\/span><\/p>\n

                <\/span>Therefore,
\nas God’s ambassador, Paul “begs” them: “Be reconciled to God” (v 20). This
\nappeal is apparently directed to the Corinthians. The parallel in 6:1 (“I urge
\nyou”) indicates that the Corinthians, by drifting from Paul, had actually
\ndrifted from God and were in danger of apostasy. The mention of the “day of
\nsalvation” (6:2) makes it difficult to distinguish a general salvific appeal in
\n5:20 from a personal appeal for repentance in 6<\/span>:1.  <\/span>This language is of the same piece, all
\npointing to one climatic moment.[39]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> This
\nclimax is then picked up in 6:11-18 and 7:1-2 as an appeal for holiness and
\nreconciliation to Paul.<\/span><\/p>\n

            <\/span>How does
\nverse 21 fit into all this talk about reconciliation, forgiveness and right
\nliving? It is possible that Paul just wanted to throw in a short note
\ndescribing how the atonement happens. But there is a much better contextual
\noption available. The parallel of “in him” in verse 21 with “in Christ” (v 17)
\nindicates a close connection between the “new creation” (v. 17) and
\n“righteousness of God” (v. 21). In Christ we are a new creation. In Christ we
\nbecome the righteousness of God.[40]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

In light of this parallel, verse 21
\ndoes not appear to be so sudden and strange. Paul is continuing along the same
\nbasic path he has been traveling, arguing for the significance of his ministry.
\nHis ministry places persons “in Christ” where as a new creation they experience
\nreconciliation with God. And this reconciliation involves both forensic and
\nethical righteousness. Therefore, the larger context and the direct parallel of
\nverses 17 and 21 suggests that when we become the righteousness of God, we
\nbecome both forensically and ethically righteous. <\/span><\/p>\n

This understanding
\nwould allow us to agree with the growing scholarly majority that the genitive
\nin this phrase should be a possessive (“a quality of God”) or a subjective (“an
\nactivity of God”). Perhaps we could combine the two and say that the
\nrighteousness of God is his righteous character by which he acts righteously
\ntowards his people (and towards the world). When we become the righteousness of
\nGod, we become like him in our being and in our actions, especially by
\nparticipating in his work of reconciliation.[41]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nThis righteousness includes forensic righteousness as well, but is by no means
\nlimited to it.[42]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/b><\/p>\n

            <\/span>I
\nhave argued that ethical righteousness is included within the meaning of dikaiosune<\/span> <\/span>in each of its seven occurrences in 2
\nCorinthians. In each case, contextual clues indicate that ethical concerns are
\npresent in Paul’s mind. Given that dikaiosune<\/span>
\ntypically carried an ethical nuance in both Jewish and Greek thought, this
\nbroader context becomes decisive. <\/p>\n

In addition, I
\nhave argued that what Paul “has joined together,” we should not “put asunder.”
\nPaul was completely comfortable with loaded terms and package answers. If we
\nare to interpret him correctly, we must be comfortable with such things as
\nwell. Particularly, we should become comfortable with dikaiosune<\/span> including both forensic and ethical righteousness.<\/p>\n

Thomas (Luke)  Post <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\n

[1]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> I assume
\nthe controversial view that 2 Corinthians is one literary unit. For a good
\ndefense of this view see Murray J. Harris, 
\n<\/span>The Second Epistle to the
\nCorinthians: A Commentary of the Greek Text <\/i>(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005),
\n8-54.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[2]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> See for
\nexample James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of
\nPaul the Apostle<\/i> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 341.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[3]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> K.N.
\nOnesti and M.T. Brauch, “Righteousness, Righteousness of God” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters<\/i> ed.
\nGerald H. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin <\/i>(
\nDowners Grove: IVP, 1993), 827-37.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[4]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> This
\nview is common even among scholars who do not wish to reduce righteousness to
\nthe strict definition of “covenant faithfulness.” <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[5]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Colin
\nBrown gen. ed., New International
\nDictionary of New Testament Theology<\/i>, Vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
\n1986), 352-73.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[6]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Robert
\nH. Gundry, “The Non-Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness” in Justification: What’s at Stake in the
\nCurrent <\/i>Debates ed. Mark Husbands and Daniel Treier (Downers Grove, IL:
\nIVP, 2004), 17-45. Gundry notes that the covenant itself is based on God’s
\nmoral character (“You shall be holy, for I am holy,” Lev. 11:45 and elsewhere).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[7]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Jack
\nCottrell, What the Bible Says About God
\nthe Redeemer<\/i> (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1987).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[8]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Mark A.
\nSeifrid, “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism” in
\nJustification and Variegated Nomism: The
\nComplexities of Second Temple Judaism<\/i>, Vol. I ed. D.A. Carson, Peter T.
\nO’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 415-42.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[9]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> The
\nfinal contrastive clause changes the focus from the nature of the ministries to
\nthe duration of the ministries. Therefore, it is not directly relevant to our
\ndiscussion here. As for the genitives in question, most commentators choose
\neither the objective meaning (i.e. “a ministry which brings”) or the
\nadjectival\/qualitative (i.e. “ministry which deals in”). Either meaning is possible
\nfor any of the four phrases and neither seems to make a big difference in the
\noverall point of the passage.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[10]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Of all
\nthe commentaries I consulted in this research, only one Catholic scholar
\nallowed for righteousness to be more than forensic here. See Frank J. Matera, II Corinthians: A Commentary<\/i>. New
\nTestament Library <\/i>(Louisville, KY:
\nWestminster John Knox, 2003), 88-89.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[11]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> At this
\npoint, it seems to me that a number of scholars are assuming they can read
\nRomans back into 2 Corinthians. That is, in Romans they see Paul teaching a
\nforensic sentence of “no condemnation,” which is separate from any ethical
\nrighteousness, and they assume that the same reading should work here. Not only
\nis this a debatable understanding of Romans, it is also questionable methodology.\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[12]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Though
\nit may include this as well. See Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul<\/i>
\n(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 896-99.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[13]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Ben
\nWitherington III, Conflict &
\nCommunity in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1-2 Corinthians<\/i>
\n(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 382.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[14]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> R.Y.K.
\nFung, “Justification by Faith in 1 and 2 Corinthians” in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to F.F. Bruce <\/i>ed. D.A. Hagner and
\nM.J. Harris (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 253. Fung notes that since there is
\na logical relationship between death and condemnation, we would expect a
\nlogical relationship between Spirit and righteousness.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[15]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Again,
\nFung points out that Paul could have chosen di,kaioj
\n<\/span>which is the strict counterpart to kata,krisij
\n<\/b><\/span>if he had wanted to ensure a forensic interpretation, 253.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[16]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nMargaret E. Thrall, II Corinthians. <\/i>The
\nInternational Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 696.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[17]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Thus,
\nBarnett’s argument that these are Judaizers appears wrong. They would not pretend
\nto be like Paul if in reality they were Judaizers. Cf. Harris, 775-76.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[18]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> So
\nVictor P. Furnish, II Corinthians: <\/i>The
\nAnchor Bible (USA: Doubleday, 1984), 495. This would clearly be an ethical
\nmeaning of righteousness.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[19]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> So also
\nThrall, 696.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[20]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Harris,
\n775.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[21]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Some
\nscholars deny the forensic view because they believe that the opponents are
\nJudaizers. If they were, they would be openly opposing Paul’s teaching about
\njustification by faith.  <\/span>For a
\nrepresentation of this view see C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians<\/i>, (London: A
\n& C Black, 1973), 287.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[22]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> See
\nHarris, 477 for an overview of the possibilities for the genitive.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[23]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> David
\nE. Garland, 2 Corinthians. <\/i>The New
\nAmerican Commentary (USA: Broadman and Homan, 1999), 310-11.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[24]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Matera,
\n154.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[25]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Paul
\nBarnett, The Second Epistle to the
\nCorinthians<\/i>. The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand
\nRapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 341.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[26]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> 112:9
\nin English translations.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[27]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Here he
\nchanges the subject of Isaiah 55:10-11 from the earth to God.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[28]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> As I
\nargued above, covenant faithfulness is a kind of moral faithfulness (though I
\ndo not adhere to the common view that God’s righteousness = covenant
\nfaithfulness).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[29]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\n441-442.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[30]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nFurnish, 450.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[31]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> A
\nsubjective genitive.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[32]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> As I
\nwill presently argue.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[33]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Harris,
\n455.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[34]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nBarrett, 180.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[35]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>  <\/span>Morna Hooker, “On Becoming the Righteousness
\nof God: Another Look at 2 Corinthians 5:21” in Novum Testamentum<\/i> Vol. 50 (2008), 358-375. This is evidenced not
\nonly by the content itself, but by the shift to the third person in verse 15. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[36]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> A.
\nKatherine Grieb, “So That in Him We Might Become the Righteousness of God (2
\nCor. 5:21): Some Theological Reflections on the Church Becoming Justice” in Ex Auditu<\/i> Vol 22 (2006), 58-80.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[37]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> The
\ngenitive should be taken in the same way as one understands the genitive in
\n3:9. Either adjectival or objective is best.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[38]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> See
\nBrown, 166-174.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[39]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nFurnish, 350.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[40]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>
\nBarrett’s claim (181) that the “righteousness of God” serves as the ground for
\nthe “new creation” looks like a clear example of doing exegesis in light of
\none’s theology.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[41]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Onesti
\nand Brauch, 836.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[42]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a> Though
\n“covenant faithfulness” seems to be one primary way in which God demonstrates
\nhis righteousness, it is reductionistic to limit righteousness to this meaning
\nalone. See Seifrid, 424.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the wake of Tom Wright’s recent book on Justification and righteousness, the discussion has once more become vibrant and even volatile in some quarters.  One of the major things that actually seems lacking in these discussions is a consideration of whether the term righteousness might well have ethical nuances as well as theological ones. …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":199,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-985","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\nGod's Righteousness- in 2 Corinthians - The Bible and Culture<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2010\/01\/gods-righteousness-in-2-corinthians.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"God's Righteousness- in 2 Corinthians - The Bible and Culture\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In the wake of Tom Wright’s recent book on Justification and righteousness, the discussion has once more become vibrant and even volatile in some quarters.  One of the major things that actually seems lacking in these discussions is a consideration of whether the term righteousness might well have ethical nuances as well as theological ones. …\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2010\/01\/gods-righteousness-in-2-corinthians.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"The Bible and Culture\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-28T19:23:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/bibleandculture\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2010\/01\/Nashville%20049-thumb-500x375-11078.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ben Witherington\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"God's Righteousness- in 2 Corinthians - The Bible and Culture","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2010\/01\/gods-righteousness-in-2-corinthians.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"God's Righteousness- in 2 Corinthians - The Bible and Culture","og_description":"In the wake of Tom Wright’s recent book on Justification and righteousness, the discussion has once more become vibrant and even volatile in some quarters.  One of the major things that actually seems lacking in these discussions is a consideration of whether the term righteousness might well have ethical nuances as well as theological ones. …","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2010\/01\/gods-righteousness-in-2-corinthians.html","og_site_name":"The Bible and Culture","article_published_time":"2010-01-28T19:23:30+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/bibleandculture\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2010\/01\/Nashville%20049-thumb-500x375-11078.jpg"}],"author":"Ben Witherington","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2010\/01\/gods-righteousness-in-2-corinthians.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2010\/01\/gods-righteousness-in-2-corinthians.html","name":"God's Righteousness- in 2 Corinthians - The Bible and Culture","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2010\/01\/gods-righteousness-in-2-corinthians.html#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2010\/01\/gods-righteousness-in-2-corinthians.html#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/bibleandculture\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2010\/01\/Nashville%20049-thumb-500x375-11078.jpg","datePublished":"2010-01-28T19:23:30+00:00","dateModified":"2010-01-28T19:23:30+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/#\/schema\/person\/d1fd6c7893819eabc624db38ecfd8426"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2010\/01\/gods-righteousness-in-2-corinthians.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2010\/01\/gods-righteousness-in-2-corinthians.html"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2010\/01\/gods-righteousness-in-2-corinthians.html#primaryimage","url":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/bibleandculture\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2010\/01\/Nashville%20049-thumb-500x375-11078.jpg","contentUrl":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/bibleandculture\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2010\/01\/Nashville%20049-thumb-500x375-11078.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2010\/01\/gods-righteousness-in-2-corinthians.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"God’s Righteousness– in 2 Corinthians"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/","name":"The Bible and Culture","description":"All Things Biblical and Christian","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/#\/schema\/person\/d1fd6c7893819eabc624db38ecfd8426","name":"Ben Witherington","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/75e\/75ec11e1916a2008bc4cc638a0a0de2fx96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/75e\/75ec11e1916a2008bc4cc638a0a0de2fx96.jpg","caption":"Ben Witherington"},"description":"Bible scholar Ben Witherington is Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary and on the doctoral faculty at St. Andrews University in Scotland. A graduate of UNC, Chapel Hill, he went on to receive the M.Div. degree from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and a Ph.D. from the University of Durham in England. He is now considered one of the top evangelical scholars in the world, and is an elected member of the prestigious SNTS, a society dedicated to New Testament studies. Witherington has also taught at Ashland Theological Seminary, Vanderbilt University, Duke Divinity School and Gordon-Conwell. A popular lecturer, Witherington has presented seminars for churches, colleges and biblical meetings not only in the United States but also in England, Estonia, Russia, Europe, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Australia. He has also led tours to Italy, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, and Egypt. Witherington has written over thirty books, including The Jesus Quest and The Paul Quest, both of which were selected as top biblical studies works by Christianity Today. He also writes for many church and scholarly publications, and is a frequent contributor to the Beliefnet website. Along with many interviews on radio networks across the country, Witherington has been seen on the History Channel, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, The Discovery Channel, A&E, and the PAX Network.","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/author\/bwitherington"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/985","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/199"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=985"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/985\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=985"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=985"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=985"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}