READING ROMANS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA: RIGHTEOUSNESS AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY AND OTHER FAITH COMMUNITIES

- Daniel C. Arichea, Jr.

What qualifies me for this task? Nothing special or out of the ordinary. I simply happen to be a Filipino who has had the privilege of living in many other countries, among which are Thailand, Indonesia, and Hong Kong, and the United States. In addition I had the opportunity as well to visit and work with peoples and groups from many countries in Asia, in connection with my work in the United Bible Societies, first as a regional translation consultant and secondly as Regional Translation Coordinator. So what I cannot document by theoretical research, I can at least attest through first hand knowledge and experience.

Nevertheless, I have to express apprehension in dealing with the letter to the Romans. This letter is not one of the favorite biblical books in Southeast Asia. For one thing, it is one of the most difficult books in the whole New Testament. Having worked with the United Bible Societies for 26 years, I know that translators don¡¯t want to touch Romans until and unless they have to, and often that means never! The Gospels are much easier to translate than the letters anyway, and Romans is much more complicated than the other letters, perhaps with the exception of 1 Peter.

It is not that Romans is not used. In fact, it has been used as a tool for evangelism, with concentration on specific verses that are combined with other verses in the New Testament to come up with neat formulas for salvation. Thus, the more well known verses from Romans are 3.23, 6.23, and l0.9. You combine these three verses with Acts 2.38, Acts 16.30, and conclude with John 3.16, and you have the formula of salvation in a nutshell!

What I am trying to say is that I would rather be doing something else or reading another paper rather than presenting this paper on righteousness in the letter to the Romans. But to paraphrase Paul, what I don¡¯t want to do I have to do, all because in a moment of weakness I had suggested that I participate in the Romans seminar and prepare a paper on the concept of righteousness as found in the letter.

Admittedly, the concept of righteousness is one of the most important aspects of the letter, and consequently, it has been the focus of attention for the understanding and interpretation of the letter. Many commentaries are organized according to this concept. Here are a couple of examples:

Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 1998)

I. The Gospel as the Revelation of God¡¯s Righteousness (1:1-17)

II. God¡¯s Righteousness in His Wrath against Sinners (1.18-3.20)

III. The Saving Righteousness of God (3.21-4.25)

IV. Hope as a Result of Righteousness by Faith (5.1-8.39)

V. God¡¯s Righteousness to Israel and the Gentiles (9.1-11.36)

VI. God¡¯s Righteousness in Everyday Life (12.1-15.13)

VII. The Extension of God¡¯s Righteousness through the Pauline Mission (15.14-16.23)

VIII. Final Summary of the Gospel of God¡¯s Righteousness (16.25-27)

Peter Stuhlmacher, Paul¡¯s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster, 1994)

The Introduction to the Epistle (1.1-17)

Part One: The Righteousness of God for Jews and Gentiles (1.18-8.39)

Part Two: The Righteousness of God for Israel (9.1-11.36)

Part Three: The Testimony of the Righteousness of God in the Life of the Community (12.1-15.13)

Conclusion (15.14-16.27)

It is not the aim of this paper to present a thorough discussion of the concept of righteousness in Paul or in his letter to the Romans. I agree with Douglas Campbell when he notes that the debate about the Pauline concept of dikaiosyne and its cognates ¡°is so widespread and complex it defines any exhaustive analysis.¡±[1]

One important element in this discussion is the necessity of recognizing the multiplicity of meanings that are included in the term dikaiosyne together with the verb form dikaioo, as well as the adjectival form dikaios.

James Dunn gives us a table of the occurrences of these terms:[2]

Paul Romans NT as a whole

Dikaiosyne 57 44 91

Dikaioo 27 15 39

Dikaioma 5 5 10

Dikaiosis 2 2 2

Dikaiokrisia 1 1 1

The first usage that needs to be taken into account is when dikaiosyne is directly related to God. The obvious example is dikaiosyne tou theou, which is used by Paul in Romans 1.17, 3.21, and 3.22. But also included are expressions like ¡°God¡¯s righteousness¡±, which appears in Romans 3.25 and 10.13.

Secondly, there is the verb form dikaioo, with God as the actor or subject. In many cases, the verb is in the passive voice, but it is clear enough that the implicit subject is God. [3]

Thirdly, there are instances in which dikaiosyne is used of people; in some cases, this describes the relationship of people to God; in other cases, it refers to a person¡¯s character.

Fourthly, there is the adjective dikaios, sometimes qualifying God, and at other times qualifying people. It is used in the former sense only once in Romans (3.26), and six times in the latter sense. The adjective is used once to describe the law (7.22), and once to describe God¡¯s judgment (2.5)

The debate on righteousness has been primarily on the first and second category, namely, the term ¡°dikaiosyne theou¡± and the verb ¡°dikaioo¡± specifically when God is the subject either explicitly or implicitly. While these terms are different on the formal level, on the semantic level, they have practically the same meaning. Let me explain. .

In Romans 1.17, Paul asserts that the righteousness of God has been revealed in the gospel. This could be read in such a way that righteousness is s description of God¡¯s character, in which case God has the attribute of righteousness. On the other hand, if dikaiosyne in this context can be read not as an attribute of God, but primarily as an activity of God, then the primary meaning is not that God is righteous, or that God is just, but that God does what is right, or God rights something that is not right. Barclay Newman states it thus:

¡°In this context ¡¦ ¡®the righteousness of God¡¯ does not refer to God's own righteous character, but to his saving activity whereby he puts men in the right (as a judge declares a man innocent), or whereby he puts men in a right relationship to himself¡¦ Traditionally, this reference to "the righteousness of God" has been explained as "forensic righteousness," that is to say, "God declaring men right." ¡¦ However, the theological focus at this point seems not to be so much on God's declaration of man's imputed innocence as on the fact that he puts men in a new relationship to himself. It is man's confidence in God which puts men in a new relationship to himself. It is man's confidence in God which puts him in a new covenant relationship with God and thus establishes his ¡®righteousness.¡¯[4]

The term dikaioo, on the other hand, is also used by Paul to refer to God¡¯s activity of making things right. Again, to quote Newman:

So far the verb has appeared three times in this letter (2.13; 3.4, 20), while its related noun form has appeared four times (1.17; 3.5, 21, 22). The verb itself is a causative stem, and means something like "to make right." The analogy that Paul has in mind is that of a law court. This then is not an ethical term, as though God's pronouncement made men morally upright or virtuous; rather it is used to indicate that God pronounces men acquitted or not guilty in his sight. In other words this is merely another term used to describe the way in which God forgives. The simplest way to express this idea in today's English is to say that God puts man into a right relationship with himself.¡±[5]

When taken this way, the distinction between dikaiosyne theou and dikaioo as an act of God disappears, for both refer to the same act of God in making something right. Some translations of the Bible reflect this understanding, as for instance,

1.17

NEB "God's way of right and wrong", 3.24

Goodspeed "God's way of uprightness".

TEV ¡°how God put people right with himself¡±,

CEV ¡°God accepts everyone.¡±

Jerusalem Bible (JB), ¡°the justice of God¡±, but with a footnote: "the saving justice (cf. Isaiah 56.1) or God, 3.26, who fulfills his promise to save by giving salvation as a free gift."

Dikaioo, 3.24

CEV: God freely accepts us.

TEV: God puts right everyone.

As already noted, there is one occasion where the adjective dikaios is used as a qualifier for God. In this case, the term could refer to the character of God as just, or more probably to the character of God as one who puts things right. If this is the case, the term would be grouped semantically with dikaiosyne tou theou and dikaioo as primarily referring to God¡¯s activity of putting things right.

Finally, another thing to consider is when dikaios is used as a qualifier of people. When people are described as dikaios, what does that mean? In some cases, dikaios is primarily a relationship term, referring to people who are ¡°put right¡± by God, or in other words, who are accepted by God as being in a right relationship with God. In some other cases, the term is used in an ethical way, describing the proper lifestyle of people who have been ¡°justified¡± by God. This latter meaning is of prime significance, as we shall see later in this paper.

With all these nuances of meaning, it is not difficult for us to see the richness of the concept of righteousness in Paul and the difficulty of communicating such richness to people who are primarily dependent on translations for their understanding.[6] The impression seems to be given at times that dikaiosyne and its cognates are monolithic terns, or in other words, that every time the terms are used by Paul, they mean the same thing. This is re-enforced by translations of the Bible known as form-correspondent translations. Let me explain further.

Most if not all translations of the Bible in Asia before l970 follow the principle of one-to-one correspondence, which means that a term in the source language (in this case, Greek or Hebrew) is translated consistently by one corresponding term in the receptor language. To give a concrete example, in the Indonesian Bible of 1972, dikaiosyne is almost always rendered as kebenaran, and dikaios as benar, dikaioo as membenarkan or dibenarkan. It is very easy for a person using this translation to assume that dikaiosyne has only one meaning in Paul¡¯s letters, and in fact, in the whole New Testament, since dikaiosyne in Matthew 6.33 and Romans 1.17 are translated in exactly the same way. Furthermore, the word kebenaran does not include the component of ¡°justice,¡± which in Bahasa Indonesia is an entirely different word, namely, ¡°keadilan.¡± The situation gets more complicated when another factor is considered, and that is, that kebenaran itself is ambiguous in Bahasa Indonesia, for it is the same word that translates aletheia (truth). In such a translation, one would not know whether in Matthew 1:19 Joseph is a righteous man or a true man! And what did Jesus say in John 14.6? Did he say, ¡°I am the way, the truth, and the life,¡± or ¡°I am the way, the righteousness and the life¡±?

It is imperative then to help Asians to better understand the Pauline concept of dikaiosyne not only in using secondary sources, but also in directly going to Paul¡¯s letters. However, it is not enough for them to use what we have already referred to as formal correspondent translations. Fortunately, through the efforts of the National Bible Societies, and with the help of the United Bible Societies,[7] new kinds of translations are now available. These are referred to as dynamic (or functional) equivalent translations, and bear one or more of the following characteristics:

1. They are interconfessional translations, involving many churches, including the Roman Catholic Church.

2. They are common language translations, which means they are easier to understand than formal equivalent translations.

3. They are meaning-oriented translations, which means that they are more interested in making clear the meaning of the biblical text rather than retaining its form.

It is in these translations that technical biblical terms are translated according to their meaning in specific contexts. For the purposes of this paper, let us look at a few examples of how the concept of dikaiosyne is treated in two Indonesian translations, namely the formal correspondence translation that was printed in 1972, known as the Terjemahan Baru (TB, or New Translation), and the dynamic equivalent translation that was published in 1978, known as the Bahasa Indonesia Sehari-hari (Everyday Indonesian) or BIS. .

Romans 1.17 dikaiosyne theou

TB – kebenaran Allah (righteousness of God)

BIS – Allah menunjukkan bagaimana hubungan manusia dengan Allah nemjadi baik kembali (God shows how the relationship of people with God can be put right).

3.5 dikaisyne theou

TB: kebanaran Allan (righteousness of God)

BIS: keadilan Allah (the justice of God)

3.21 dikaisyne theou

TB: kebenaran Allah

BIS: Allah sudah menunjukkan bagaimana manusia berbaik dengan Dia (God has already shown how people can be righted with him).

4.3 eis dikaisynen

TB: kebanaran

BIS: orang yang menyenangkan hati Allah (people who make glad the heart of God)

6.19 doula te dikaisyne

TB: hamba kebenaran (slaves of righteousness)

BIS: hamba bagi kehendak Allah (slaves for the will of God).

It remains for us now to single out specific aspects of the concept of righteousness and apply them to the situation in Southeast Asia.

1. One thing that is quite helpful and readily applicable to the Southeast Asian situation is the observation that Paul¡¯s concept of dikaiosyne is related to the Old Testament concept of tsedhaqah.[8] This concept focuses on the relationship between God and God¡¯s covenant people, and defines God¡¯s faithfulness to the covenant as well as to the covenant community. So Dunn writes,

¡°The righteousness of God¡¦ denotes God¡¯s fulfillment of the obligations he took upon himself in creating humankind and particularly in the calling of Abraham and the choosing of Israel to be his people¡¦ God¡¯s righteousness could be understood as God¡¯s faithfulness to his people. For his righteousness was simply the fulfillment of his covenant obligation as Israel¡¯s God in delivering, saving, and vindicating Israel¡¦¡±[9]

This has tremendous implications for Southeast Asia, and for that matter, all of Asia. Christianity came to Asia by way of the West, primarily through Western missionaries. This statement is true both of Roman Catholics and Protestants. However, I will limit my discussion to the Protestant side. In general, Protestant missionary activity has focused on the individual rather than the group. There are of course reasons for this. For one thing, this focus on the individual seems to be supported by the New Testament itself, especially the letters of Paul. For another thing, Western culture tends to give greater attention and importance to the individual. This is one of the bases for the emphasis on individual human rights. As a result of all this, the message proclaimed by Protestant missionaries was aimed at the individual rather than the group, so much so that individual response to the gospel was sought, and this ften created tension and conflict in the group.

Asian culture on the other hand tends to focus on the group rather than on the individual. Since the group is of prime importance, the individual can be sacrificed for the sake of the group. The basic social group is the family, and beyond that is the extended family, then a group of families, and so on.

There is therefore a tension between the individualistic message of the Christian faith and the Asian focus on community. Thus many Asians have become schizophrenic when it comes to their faith. As individuals they are believers, but their faith is limited to themselves and their relationship to God; it has nothing to do with their relationship to the society in which they live. There is a sharp distinction between church and world, between soul and body, between heaven and earth, with faith being relevant only on one side of the equation. The holistic view of the world, which continues to be present in Asian society, is somehow undermined by the Gospel with its primary message to the individual.

We can see then how important it is to recapture this relationship component that is contained in Paul¡¯s concept of righteousness. This would mean that the gospel could once again speak not only to the individual, but also to society in general. Furthermore, this would mean taking the gospel message seriously not only in ¡°spiritual¡± or ¡°religious¡± areas, but also in secular concerns, such as politics, government, economics, the environment, and other concerns related to the whole created universe.

It is here where we see the importance of some theological developments in Asia, where Asian values are taken seriously and where the Gospel is interpreted through Asian eyes and Asian hearts. While there is a great deal of diversity in Asia, there is at least one element that seems to be in common in all the attempts of doing theology in Asia, namely, the emphasis on the importance of people in community.[10] Two examples of these theological developments are the Min-Jung theology in Korea, and Dalit theology in India, where clearly the focus is not the individual but the mass. It is also here where we see the importance of focusing on the life of Jesus in the Gospels rather than on the letters of Paul. The Gospels present a Jesus who was with the ochloi, the crowds, and who interacted with all kinds of people in society, including those who were despised by society, such as tax collectors, prostitutes and people afflicted with leprosy. Jesus thus becomes the model for Christian life, and his teachings become the new law of the new community. It is this aspect of Christology that many Asian theologians are rediscovering.[11]

2. Secondly, a recovery of the real intent of dikaiosyne theou and dikaioo in Romans has tremendous implications for Christians in Southeast Asia as they relate to people of other faith communities. Let me elaborate.

The concept of dikaiosyne in Paul is sometimes (even often) understood as a judgment on those who are not in a faith-relationship with Jesus Christ or with the Christian God. For example, Romans 1.17 is interpreted as an invitation for everyone to put their faith in Christ, and those who reject the invitation will suffer the judgment of God. While this can be deduced as part of the meaning of the text, yet this is not its primary intention. Here Krister Stendahl is very helpful in his assertion that the main focus of Paul¡¯s concept of justification, especially as found in the letter to the Romans, is to give a rational for the Gentile mission, that is, for the acceptance of Gentiles as part of God¡¯s people.[12] If Stendahl is correct, and I think he is, then to use Romans 1.17 as a way of excluding non-Christians from the orbit of God¡¯s grace is to misunderstand, misinterpret and misuse Romans 1.17. Instead of being a text of exclusion, Romans 1.17 is in fact a text of inclusion, opening up the possibility of non-Jews to be counted among God¡¯s people without going through the process of first becoming Jews through the ¡°works of the law.¡± ¡°Law¡± in this expression refers to the Jewish Law, the Torah, in which case ¡°the works of the law¡± does not refer to any human effort, but actions that result from following the Jewish Law. Does this mean then that following the Jewish law is wrong, and that it is a way of seeking salvation by one¡¯s own efforts? This indeed is the popular understanding, in which case, following the law is lumped together with any human effort in order to obtain the blessings of God.

There is however another way of interpreting this expression and its meaning, and that is, that the Law itself is a product of God¡¯s grace, and therefore, doing the ¡°works of the law¡± is a legitimate response to God¡¯s initiative of calling Jews to become God¡¯s people. Here E.P. Sanders is very helpful. In his book Paul and Palestinian Judaism[13] he proves very convincingly that Judaism is indeed a religion of grace rather than of works. It was God who chose the Jews to be God¡¯s people, and therefore following the law was not a way of becoming God¡¯s people but rather a way of staying within the covenant community. Sanders terms this ¡°covenantal nomism,¡± and defines it as ¡°the view that one¡¯s place in God¡¯s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression.¡±[14] He further writes, ¡°Election and ultimately salvation are considered by God¡¯s mercy rather than human achievement.¡±[15]

But if the Jews were not mistaken in doing the works of the law as a response to God¡¯s grace, then why would Paul cast aside following the law as the way of experiencing God¡¯s grace and being included among God¡¯s people? Paul gives an answer. God is one, and therefore God is the God not only of Jews but also of Gentiles. Now, if the way to be put right with God is only through the works of the law, then God would only be the God of the Jews, and Gentiles would be excluded, unless of course they first become Jews, and then they would be justified by their obedience to the law.[16]

But again, if the Jews did what was right in pursuing righteousness through the works of the law, then why all this negative attitude towards them as God¡¯s people? Again, James Dunn offers help: Doing the ¡°works of the law¡± ¡°came to re-enforce the sense of Israel¡¯s privilege, the law as marking out this people in its self-apartness to God¡±[17] This statement is supported by the text. Paul rebukes the Jews because of their arrogant attitude as a result of their relationship with God. He notes that the Jews ¡°boast¡± of their ¡°relationship to God¡± (2.17b). Instead of understanding their being chosen to be God¡¯s people as something undeserved and as a call to responsible service to the world, they have used it instead as an occasion for pride and even arrogance. Instead of understanding their being chosen as God¡¯s people as a call to be a blessing to all nations, they have instead used it as a reason to be separate from other nations. It is to check this kind of attitude that a new way of righteousness has been revealed. So 3.21ff:

²¹ But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, ²² the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, ²³ since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; ²⁴ they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, ²⁵ whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; ²⁶ it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus.

²⁷ Then what becomes of boasting? It is excluded. By what law? By that of works? No, but by the law of faith. ²⁸ For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law. ²⁹ Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, ³⁰ since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. ³¹ Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Isn¡¯t it interesting, that when we examine the situation in Southeast Asia, the attitude of the Jews as portrayed above is often seen and acted out by Christians. It is Christians, and not Jews who are legalistic, who demand from people a special response in order for them to be part of God¡¯s people. It is Christians and not Jews who condemn anyone who dares to disagree with the ¡°Christian¡± position.

Of course these are generalizations, and generalizations are usually dangerous. But the attitude does exist, and is fueled by no less than the doctrine of justification by faith.

That is why it is so important to recover for Southeast Asian Christians and the Christian community as a whole, the real meaning and intent of Paul¡¯s concept of the righteousness of God. Such a recovery will contribute tremendously to a better attitude of the Christian community to those who belong to other faiths. The assertion that the righteousness of God was not meant to exclude but rather to include will mean that the Christian community will have to struggle with the challenge of making the gospel of faith much more inclusive than it is now. If the righteousness of God made it possible for Gentiles to become part of God¡¯s people, and this possibility was primarily an expression of God¡¯s grace, apart from any human quality or merit, then that would lead the members of the Christian community into an attitude of humility and prevent them from assuming an attitude or pride or arrogance. And finally, if the righteousness of God has the intention of asserting that God is indeed One, and that God is the God of all peoples, then that would lead the Christian community to explore its relationship with other faith communities, engaging in dialogue and discovering areas of cooperative endeavors, while at the same time, continuing to play its role as a community that is touched transformed by the Gospel.

Already this is happening. Let me just give one example. The Philippines is in the news these days primarily because of the turbulence in the South, particularly in the island of Mindanao, which is home to some 5 million Moslems. The conflicts there are much more complicated than they are depicted in the media, which usually concentrate on the spectacular, and which often give the impression that the turbulence in the South is more widespread and covers more territory than it really does. But while the news is full of accounts of violence, murder, kidnappings, and displacement of vast communities, there is no mention of peace efforts that are promoted by no less than religious leaders in Mindanao. In addition to many dialogues among Christians and Moslems, Catholic, Protestant and Muslim leaders have come together to form the Bishops-Ulama Forum in 1996, which has held quarterly dialogues since then. In addition, there are marches for peace where Moslems and Christians walk hand in hand, and there are various interfaith social and economic programs going on in many part of Mindanao.[18] I am pretty sure that similar activities are happening in Indonesia and other parts of Southeast Asia.

3. A third (and final) element that we want to focus on is when dikaios refers to the actual quality of the lives of people who have been affected in a positive way by the righteousness of God. It is here where Ernst Kasemann offers some very helpful insight. In his famous essay ¡°The Righteousness of God in Paul¡±[19], he resolves the tension in the relationship of ¡°declare righteous¡± and ¡°make righteous¡± by describing the righteousness of God as both gift and power. So he writes:

¡°The gift itself has thus the character of power¡¦ Paul knows no gift of God that does not convey both the obligation and the capacity to serve. A gift which is not authenticated in practice and passed on to others loses it specific content.¡±[20]

What all this means is that there is an ethical dimension in the concept of righteousness, and therefore to say that a Christian is righteous means that the Christian is expected to live in such a way as to reflect God¡¯s righteousness. In other words, Christians are to reflect certain attitudes and virtues that define them as righteous, that is, as people who are reconciled to God and who now exemplify in their lives a certain lifestyle that defines them as God¡¯s people.

In the letter to the Romans, examples of such a lifestyle are found in the paranetic part of the letters, chapters 12 through 15. This paper will concentrate on chapter 12.

Chapter 12 is very interesting. It is definitely addressed to the Christian community as the people of God. A few observations will suffice. The tension of being in the world but not of the world (or more properly stated, being a part of the world but qualitatively different from the rest of the world) is stated in the first two verses. The chapter contains a lot of negative admonitions: don¡¯t do this, don¡¯t be that. Two of these remind us of Paul¡¯s admonition to the Jews not to boast of their status as the chosen people of God. ¡°I say to everyone among you not to think of yourself more highly than you ought to think.¡± (v.3). ¡°Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are.¡± (v.16). Is it possible that even during Paul¡¯s time, Christians were beginning to boast about their special relationship with God?

But the main theme of the chapter is knowing the will of God as a result of God¡¯s transforming activity. So verse 2: ¡°Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed (by God of course!) by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God – what is good and acceptable and perfect.¡±

But what is the will of God? It has relevance for the individual, for the community of faith, and for those who are outside the faith community. The personal aspect is primary in verse 3, which is a plea for humility. The community aspect is emphasized in vs.4ff, with the focus on unity in the midst of diversity (many members and many gifts in the one body). Furthermore, the members of the community are exhorted to show genuine love and affection, to be zealous in serving the Lord, to persevere in their sufferings, to share their material resources with needy fellow Christians, and to extend hospitality to Christian travelers.

But chapter 12 goes beyond the Christian community, and deals with the relationship of Christians to those outside the church. We see allusions here to the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew. Does this mean that Paul himself was aware of some of the teachings of Jesus? If it does, it would also mean that there is an aspect of the concept of righteousness in Paul that is parallel to the concept of righteousness in Matthew. In Matthew, righteousness primarily refers to what God expects and demands of people in order for them to be pleasing to God. That Matthew¡¯s concept of righteousness does not focus on God¡¯s act of restoring people to a right relationship with God is most probably due to the fact that Jesus was not talking to people who needed to be reconciled to God, since they were already part of God¡¯s people. But here again, there is a parallel between Paul and Matthew: in Paul, the ethical aspect of righteousness comes after God¡¯s act of making people right with Himself. The beginning of Romans 12 is intentional: ¡°I appeal to you, therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God¡¦¡±

If this position is valid, then the 12^th chapter of Romans helps to define the ethical relationship of Christians to their neighbors who are members of other faith communities. This then would have tremendous implications for the Christian communities in Southeast Asia. We must bear in mind that in continental Asia, Christianity is a very small segment of the total population. In Southeast Asia, the only country that can be described as ¡°Christian¡± in terms of its population is the Philippines. In the rest of Southeast Asia, Christianity is small and insignificant. If we go beyond Southeast Asia to East and South Asia, the minority position of Christianity is even more marked.[21]

Now a few words to sum up all of these things. First, if the righteousness of God is defined in exclusive terms, namely that it is a way of limiting those who can be considered part of God¡¯s people, then we have consigned to hell and damnation two thirds of the world¡¯s population. How can such a position agree with our conception of a righteous God, that is, a God whose will is to restore all people to a right relation with God?

Secondly, if righteousness has an ethical dimension, then that should influence the relationship of Christians to the rest of the Asian population, particularly to those who publicly acknowledge their membership in and adherence to other faith communities, such as Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. And here, as we have already said, Romans 12 is very helpful: ¡°Ask God to bless those who persecute you, ask God to bless, not to curse¡¦¡± ¡°If someone does you wrong, don¡¯t repay him/her with a wrong.¡± ¡°Don¡¯t take revenge¡¦, instead, let God¡¯s anger do it¡¦¡± ¡°If your enemies are hungry, give them something to eat, if they are thirsty, give them something to drink.¡± ¡°Don¡¯t let evil defeat you; instead, overcome evil with good.¡±

We have a long way to go in order to show that we believe in a righteous God and we are God¡¯s righteous people!

Daniel C. Arichea, Jr.

Duke Divinity School

October 12, 2002

Appendix

Religion in Asian Countries

Afghanistan

Population 23.7

Islam – 98%

Christianity – undetermined

Bangladesh

Population 129.2

Islam 85.8

Hindu 12.4

Christian 0.7

Buddhist 0.6

Brunei

Population 322,000

Islam 64.4

Buddhist 9.1

Christian 7.7

Cambodia

Population 11.4

Buddhist 95

Islam 2.2

Christian 0.4

China

Population 1.2 billion

Non-Religious 50.3

Traditional beliefs 32.6

Buddhist 8.4

Islam 1.5

Protestant 6.5

RC 0.6

East Timor

Population 885,000

RC 89.9

Protestant 2.3

Fiji

Population 813,000

Christian 56.8

Hindu 33.3

Islam 6.9

Hong Kong

Population 6,7

Non-Religious 58.5

Taoist 15.5

Buddhist 14.9

Protestant 5

RC 4

Islam 0.9

India

Population 1 billion

Hindu 82.8

Islam 11/8

Christian 2.3

Sikh 2

Buddhist 0.8

Indonesia

Population 203.5

Islam 82.2

Protestant 6

RC 3.6

Hindu 1.8

Buddhist 1

Iran

Population 66.1

Islam 98.8

Christian 0.4

Baha¡¯I 0.5

Jewish 0.1

Japan

Population 126.7

Shintoist 50.2

Buddhist 42

Protestant 0.8

` RC 0.3

Islam 0.2

North Korea

Population 22,3

Non-Religions 71.2

Confucian 12.9

Traditional 12.3

Christian 2.1

Buddhist 1.5

South Korea

Population 47.7

Non-religious 40.3

Buddhist 23.1

Protestant 18.1

RC 6.6

Unification 1.1

Laos

Population 5.6

Buddhist 48.8

Traditional Beliefs 41.7

Non-religious 5.4

Christian 2.1

Chinese Folk Religion 1.5

Islam 0.4

Macau

Population 437,000

Non-religious 60.9

Buddhist 16.8

Roman Catholic 6.7

Protestant 1.7

Mormon 0.1

Baha¡¯I 0.1

Malaysia

Population 22.2

Islam 47.7

Chinese folk religion 24.1

Christian 8.3

Hindu 7.3

Buddhist 6.7

Traditional Beliefs 3.4

Maldives

Population 269,000

Islam 99.2

Buddhist 0.6

Christian 0.1

Micronesia

Population 440,162

RC 84.2

Protestant 26.6

Buddhist 1.6

Mormon 1.5

Traditional Beliefs 2.1

Mongolia

Population 2.4

Non-religious 39.7

Traditional beliefs 31.7

Buddhist 22.5

Islam 4.8

Christian 1.3

Myanmar

Population 50

Buddhist 89.3

Christian 4.9

Islam 3.8

Hindu 0.5

Traditional beliefs 0.2

Nepal

Population 24.3

Hindu 76.7

Buddhist 8.2

Tradition.al Beliefs 6.9

Islam 3.9

Christian 2.4

Pakistan

Population 130.5

Islam 96.1

Chrisitan 2.5

Hindu 1.2

Papua New Guinea

Population 4.9

Protestant 65.1

Catholic 30.

Traditional beliefs 3.6

Baha¡¯I 0.8

Philippines

Population 76.5

RC 83

Protestant 9

Islam 5

Samoa

Population 220,000

Protestant 65.2

RC 21.9

Mormon 9.1

Baha¡¯I 2.3

Singapore

Population 4

Chinese folk religion 42.7

Islam 18.4

Buddhist 14.5

Christian 12.2

Hindu 5.1

Non religious 4.7

Sri Lanka

Population 18.7

Buddhist 68.4

Hindu 11.3

Chrsitian 9.4

Islam 8

Thailand

Population 60.6

Buddhist 93.3

Islam 4.8

Christian 1.7

Taiwan

Population 23.5

Buddhist 82

Taoist 13

Protestant 3

RC 1.5

South Pacific

Population 2.5

Protestant 56.4

RC 21.2

Hindu 11.4

Mormon 2.9

Islam 2.6

Baha¡¯I 1.4

Solomon Islands

Population 455,000

Protestant 77.5

RC 10/2/02

Bahai 0.4

Vietnam

Population 77.3

Buddhist 49.5

Non-religious 20.5

Traditional Beliefs 9.5

Christian 8.3

Islam 0.7

Chinese Religions 5.3

[1] Douglas A. Campbell, The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3.21-26 (Sheffield: Academic Press, 1992), p. 138

[2]James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1998), p. 341. .

[3] This term is appears 8 times in the letter to the Galatians, where the meaning is the same as in Romans.

[4] Barclay M. Newman and Eugene Nida, A Translator¡¯s Handbook on Paul¡¯s Letter to the Romans (London: United Bible Societies, 1973).

[6] Western scholarship is not easily accessible to many Asians, considering the fact that books from the West are very expensive. Also, in some Asian countries, theological education is carried on with the use of indigenous languages. Some of the countries in this category are Indonesia, Thailand, Korea, Japan, and China. The countries that were colonized by English speaking countries continue to use English extensively in theological education. Included in this category are India, Sri Lanka and the Philippines.

[7] The United Bible Societies is the umbrella organization for national bible societies throughout the world.

[8] See Dunn, Theology of Paul, pp. 341-342. Campbell (pp. 147-155) includes in his discussion the Qumran scrolls and intertestamental literature. See also E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973).

[10] There are many publications describing theological development in Asia. A few can be mentioned:

Asian Christian Theology: Emerging Themes (ed. Douglas J. Elwood), Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1980.

Frontiers in Asian Theology: Emerging Trends (ed. R.S. Sugirtharajah), New York: Orbis Books, 1994.

Doing Theology and People¡¯s Movements in Asia (ed. Yeow Choo Lak), Singapore: Chopmen Publishers, 1987.

Asian Expressions of Christian Commitment (ed. T. Dayanandan Francis and F.J. Balassusndaram), Madras: Christian Literature Society, 1992.

[11] An example of this is represented by Carlos Abesamis, A Third Look at Jesus (Quezon City:Claretian Press, 2000). He says that his emphasis is more on telling the story of Jesus rather than ¡°drafting formulas about Jesus and his nature¡± (p.3). See also Asian Faces of Jesus (ed. R.S. Sugirtharajah), New York: Orbis Books, 2001.

[12] Krister Stendahl, Final Account: Paul¡¯s Letter to the Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995). He writes: ¡°Paul only mentioned justification by faith when he discussed the status of his Gentile converts. Speaking about justification by faith was ¡¦ his way of defending the right of the Gentiles to be included in the consummation and redemption now underway – by faith.¡± (p. 4).

[17] Dunn, p. 358. Dunn also makes the same point in ¡°The Justice of God¡±, Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 43, 1992, p. 11, where he remarks that the boasting that is mentioned in Romans 2.17 and 23, is ¡°not the boast of self-confidence, but of Jewish confidence, the boast of one conscious of his privilege as a member of the people of Israel.¡±

[18] For a fuller account, see Hilario M. Gomez, Jr., The Moro Rebellion and the Search for Peace: A Study on Christian-Muslim Relations in the Philippines. (Zamboanga City, Philippines: Silsilah Publications, 2000), especially pages 205 to the end of the book.

[19] In New Testament Questions for Today (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965, pp. 168-182).

[21] I have appended to this paper the religious composition many countries of Asia and the Pacific. The data is from the United Bible Societies.