The Righteousnesses of the Saints - Glenn Conjurske

The Righteousnesses of the Saints

by Glenn Conjurske

It is written in the book of Revelation, chapter 19, verses 7 & 8, “Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.”

Observe first, the translation is not so clear as it could and should be. “Righteousness” is plural in the Greek, and the article appears before “saints.” The fine linen is said to be “the righteousnesses of the saints,” according to a perfectly literal translation of the original, and something equivalent to this is adopted by almost all the more recent versions. Thus:

Robert Young—-the righteous acts of the saints.

Revised Version—-the righteous acts of the saints.

Samuel Lloyd—-the righteous deeds of the saints.

NASV—-the righteous acts of the saints.

NKJV—-the righteous acts of the saints.

Berkeley version—-the righteous living of the saints.

NIV—-the righteous acts of the saints.

All agree upon the meaning of the text, and it cuts up by the roots the prevailing notion that the bride’s wedding garment stands for imputed righteousness. We could not for a moment consent to apply the white linen to imputed righteousness, though the word “righteousness” were singular, but as it is plural, such a notion has not the shadow of a leg to stand upon. Observe also, “his wife hath made herself ready.” She was not the passive recipient of this righteousness. She has done something herself, to make herself ready.

We do not mean to imply that the common English version is necessarily in error in rendering the Greek plural as an English singular. There is something to be said for that, and we shall allow Darby to say it. He translates the place “the righteousnesses of the saints,” but adds in a note—-to which I add the bold type, “The Hebrew plural of acts expressing a quality is used for the abstract quality itself. This may be the case, by analogy, here [though this is Greek, not Hebrew]. See Psalm xi.7, where in Hebrew it is ‘righteousnesses,’ but it is actual, not imputed.”

Yet many there are who are strongly determined that this white linen shall be imputed righteousness. We suppose that many of them are so disposed because they know very well that if they have no imputed righteousness, they have no righteousness at all—-for of “righteousnesses” they have none worth the name. They cling to the antinomian gospel precisely because it is easy. It requires nothing of them, and this suits them well. Whenever we (or the Bible) speak of righteousness, they flee immediately and instinctively to Isaiah 64:6, and triumphantly inform us that “all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.” They love to dwell on the word “all,” and to press it for all its worth, to prove that no saint can have any righteousness of his own. They find this doctrine very comfortable, and they bask in the lurid light of the dubious fact that at our best we are all filthy—-that all of our righteousnesses, not all our sins merely, are as filthy rags—-that we never “walk worthy of the Lord, unto all pleasing”—-never do anything at all which is pleasing to God—-that “the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord,” do not exist, in short, that all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags. This pleasing fantasy absolves them of all their responsibility to be anything other than filthy, while they fold their hands in balmy sleep, and dream of imputed righteousness.

But they have mistaken the case. According to their view of the matter, our text in Revelation must needs be rewritten, to say, “The marriage of the Lamb is come, and his strumpet hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in filthy rags, dirty and black, for the filthy rags are the righteousnesses of the saints.” Then they may hold this verse in one hand, while they hold in the other, “All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.” Then their Bible will be consistent, and their hope secure. Then they may take their place with all confidence in the bride of Christ. But as the Bible now stands, they must have a lie in either one hand or the other. And what would any first-grader conclude from the discrepancy? Why just this, that if the righteousnesses of the saints are fine linen, clean and white, then those righteousnesses which are filthy rags are certainly not the righteousnesses of the saints. It is not the saints who speak in Isaiah 64, but convicted sinners, of “the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” This really ought to need no proof, while Revelation 19:8 stands in the Bible—-nay, while its own context stands. To apply Isaiah 64:6 to saints is one of the most blatant examples possible of what I call “proof text theology.” By this method men take a sentence or phrase which seems to support their position, wrest it violently from its own setting, and use it to prove whatever they wish to believe. A simple reading of the context will be sufficient to prove that Isaiah 64:6 cannot be the language of saints. Taking the verse in connection with those which immediately precede and follow it, we read,

“Thou meetest him that rejoiceth and worketh righteousness, those that remember thee in thy ways: behold, thou art wroth; for we have sinned: in those is continuance, and we shall be saved. But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee: for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities.” Could any man in his senses apply this language to saints?

So very far from any notion that God will accept those whose righteousness is filthy rags, the immediate context tells us, “Thou meetest him that rejoiceth and worketh righteousness,” and the nature of the case requires us to understand this meeting as one of acceptance, as when the Father ran to meet the prodigal. Two of my Jewish translations (Isaac Leeser and I. M. Rubin) read, “Thou acceptest him that rejoiceth and worketh righteousness,” and Gesenius in his Hebrew lexicon defines the Hebrew word as meaning “to make peace,” and translates this verse “thou makest peace with him who rejoiceth to work righteousness.” So speak these Jews, but immediately lament, “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.” Yea, “there is none [among us] that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee.” This is clearly the language of convicted sinners, and to apply it to saints is as much against the text itself as it is against the theology of the whole Bible.

Glenn Conjurske

Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp
Pinterest
Email
0:00
0:00