Unfortunately, these words lose that sense in secular usage and do end up with a self oriented connotation. They are also not necessarily perceived as positive. When someone refers to a righteous man, I can interpret that as meaning I’m not, therefore falling short, or that he is some kind of goody goody and I am better.
I also find it very interesting that we talk about self justification without actually knowing the Biblical use, but end up using it indirectly in that very sense and with the somewhat negative connotation that comes with self rather than God.

FWIW, I like the Message provided it is used to gain a big picture view of the Bible, especially for new Bible readers and not in a line by line, or even worse a word by word approach. I like using it in conjunction with the ESV Study Bible.

Being a rather generalized paraphrase and not claiming to be more it was never intended for the rigorous analytical use that it is being put to here. So I find it somewhat ironic that it is knowingly degraded by scholars for something it wasn’t intend to be. Even if this particular verse isn’t word for word accurate is anyone saying that this particular verse misrepresents in general what Paul and many other Christians actually believe?

Eugene Peterson stated, “When I’m in a congregation where somebody uses it [The Message] in the Scripture reading, it makes me a little uneasy. I would never recommend it be used as saying, “Hear the Word of God from The Message.” But it surprises me how many do.”

But in most contexts, ‘righteousness’ seems to me to be about a person’s inherent virtue, whereas ‘justification’ is more about how they represent themselves to someone else, or in the Christian context, how God represents them to himself.

Interestingly, in the Christian context, both are seen as ‘good’ words, but when used in a secular context, if used at all, they tend to convey something slightly questionable. ‘Righteousness’, even if not preceded by ’self-’ often tends to convey smugness and ‘justification’, even if not preceded by ’self-’ often tends to convey making excuses and special pleading.

“and be found in him, not because I have my own righteousness derived from the law, but because I have the righteousness that comes by way of Christ’s faithfulness – a righteousness from God that is in fact based on Christ’s faithfulness.”

As for whether the genitive here should be translated as objective (“trusting Christ”) or subjective (“Christ’s faithfulness”), see the footnote for this verse in the NET Bible. I’ll copy it here:

“Or “faith in Christ.” A decision is difficult here. Though traditionally translated “faith in Jesus Christ,” an increasing number of NT scholars are arguing that p°stiv Cristo (pistis Christou) and similar phrases in Paul (here and in Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16, 20; 3:22; Eph 3:12) involve a subjective genitive and mean “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness” (cf., e.g., G. Howard, “The ‘Faith of Christ’,” ExpTim 85 [1974]: 212-15; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ [SBLDS]; Morna D. Hooker, “P°stiv CristoÂ,” NTS 35 [1989]: 321-42). Noteworthy among the arguments for the subjective genitive view is that when p°stiv takes a personal genitive it is almost never an objective genitive (cf. Matt 9:2, 22, 29; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom 1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1 Cor 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor 10:15; Phil 2:17; Col 1:4; 2:5; 1 Thess 1:8; 3:2, 5, 10; 2 Thess 1:3; Titus 1:1; Phlm 6; 1 Pet 1:9, 21; 2 Pet 1:5). On the other hand, the objective genitive view has its adherents: A. Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 248-63; J. D. G. Dunn, “Once More, PISTIS CRISTOU,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1991, 730–44. Most commentaries on Romans and Galatians usually side with the objective view.”

This seems rather obvious to me, so why do it, and why avoid the use of justification which can and has been used in english as equivalent to righteousness?

The Greek word that sort of transliterates dikaiosunin, doesn’t necessarily quite match what either justice or righteousness have come to mean in modern English. It is also confused by the fact that Jerome translates it into Latin as justicia, which is a false friend in many contexts. It is particularly misleading if the Vulgate is your familiar Bible, and your first language is not English.

Jerome’s choices are significant because, although some time had passed since the writing of the NT books, he was translating at a time when both Koine and Latin were still living languages. It’s a bit like the equivalent of translating Moliere into modern English.

‘Justice’ in modern English tends to relate to the public realm. Its obvious context is in terms of deciding between two or more people, the sort of thing a judge does. In the term ‘peace and justice’ it can also be used of political and social issues. ‘Righteousness’ tends to be used more of a person’s virtue and particularly of their relationship with God.

So it is potentially very important how one translates dikaiosunin in Matt 5:6. Is it “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.” or “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for justice, for they will be filled”. They mean something quite different in modern English. The difference has a profound bearing on what the Christian calling is about. Or are both translations inadequate?

Some translations attempt to translate this Beatitude without using either word, but the results do not always work very well.

In Phil 3:9 though, it looks fairly clear that Paul does mean something that corresponds more to the modern English usage of ‘righteousness’ for two reasons. The first is that in the context Paul appears to be talking about a person’s status before God, their relationship with him. The second is that because of the way these two words are used in English, if one substitutes ‘justice’ for ‘righteousness’ in most English translations of this verse, it will cease to make much sense.

I had a very interesting discussion with someone whose knowledge is much greater than mine, but who had not really thought about the point before, some 18 months ago. We concluded that the way the two words ‘justice’ and ‘righteousness’ have distinct meanings in English – useful though this may be – means that in some contexts neither is a totally adequate translation.

Php 3:8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ
Php 3:9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ–the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.

In 3:8 it looks to me like he is saying “everything a loss”, I would guess he means in the temporal and therefore less compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus

….considering other things like personal effort in trying to adhere to doing the Law, or personal interpretation of the Law, or man attemting to be perfect in the Law or anything else that resides in the realm of man, vs that which comes through faith the realm of God. To that extent he is saying it is better.

……Rubbish vs surpassing greatness…..imply to me inferior and superior, while not the exact words, could allow some to come to this conclusion. Furthermore, some people could also generalize the Law as a list of rules……go figure

Using the word robust to me means stronger, more lasting.

What you quote is a lovely, well-written, and persuasive passage that seems to me to be only tangentially related to the original Greek. (And I think this is typical of The Message.)

The contrast here between “petty, inferior” and “robust” is interesting — Are robust things better than fragile ones? Are the rules petty? Etc. — but I think this is more along the lines of creative writing than of translation.

I was just curious if any of the contributors and/or readers of this blog knew how translators choose when to use each word.

Grace and peace,
Tim Archer