Theology beacon dictionary of theology

Paul, on the other hand, gives major attention to man's present existence, though he does not overlook the future meaning of this term. He em­ploys the Greek verb dikaioo to carry the basic meaning of his teaching on this point. This pred­icate derives from the adjective dikaios, which means "just" or "righteous." Early Greek writers used this term with reference to persons who faithfully followed dike, that is, custom, rule, or right. In the religious realm, a "righteous" person was the one who regularly performed the duties owed to the gods. In biblical understanding the "righteous" or "just" person is that one who is approved by God or acceptable to God. Dikaidsis (justification) signifies the act in process of com­pletion, and dikaidma, also rendered "justifi­cation," signifies the act as already completed. Dikaidsune, regularly translated "righteousness," is the state or quality of life of one who is justi­fied or declared righteous (Rom. 8:10; 1 Cor. 1:30).

In the history of the church a difference of opinion evolved with respect to the proper trans­lation of dikaioo, whether it should be translated "to make righteous" or "to declare righteous." Ac­cording to some scholars, in its primitive usage the verb carries the former meaning, but in later usage, especially in the LXX, it bears the latter meaning.

When Paul writes in Rom. 5:1 that "we have been justified through faith" (niv), does he mean, "We have been declared righteous," or "We have been made righteous," or both? Also, when he asserts that the result of the one righteous act of Christ "was justification that brings life for all men" (v. 18, Niv), was he meaning that Christ's obedience provided God the basis for "pro­nouncing man righteous" or for "making him righteous," or both? Is the act of justification merely forensic or ethical or both? Does it result in imputed righteousness or imparted righteous­ness? Does God merely view the sinner as righ­teous through Christ, the sinner having accepted the saving work of Christ by faith, or does He transform the sinner, really making him righ­teous by His justifying act?

These lines were drawn sharply during the Reformation, particularly because the Reformers felt it necessary to make clear the pervasive na­ture of sin and to declare that salvation rested upon grace alone. In his earlier teaching, Luther described justification as a "being righteous" and a "becoming righteous." In his later teaching an imputative view prevailed. Calvin wrote: "We simply explain justification to be an acceptance, by which God receives us into His favor and es­teems us as righteous persons, and we say it con­sists in the remission of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ" (Institutes, bk. 3, chap. 11). Calvin's followers pressed his thinking on this subject to the point of asserting that the active obedience of Christ is so imputed to the elect as to render them legally as righteous as if they had themselves rendered perfect obedience to the law of God.

In the Tridentine Decrees of a.d. 1547, the Ro­man church defined its position in opposition to the Reformers. It stated that "justification is not the mere remission of sins, but also the sanctifi­cation and renovation of the inward man through the voluntary reception of grace and gifts of grace, whereby an unjust man becomes just, the enemy a friend, so that he may be an heir according to the hope of eternal life." The Holy Spirit imparts to each person a measure of righteousness. A contemporary writer expresses the same view: "Since, for Paul, justification and the reception of righteousness are one and the same thing, it follows that the concept of justifi­cation also must have a moral content which can be recognized as an essential component of his idea of righteousness" (Blaser, "Justification," Sac-ramentum Mundi, 3:454).

1. 
   The ground for justification is faith in the redemptive activity of God in Christ. This ex­cludes the view of good works as providing the basis for justification. While the meritorious ground is the Cross, the "conditioning cause" is faith, but as Vincent Taylor observes, it is the in­terfacing of both the atoning work of Christ and faith that brings one into right relations with God. This means that any righteousness created by the act of justification is real because of the ethical or moral dimension of faith. Moreover, faith is more than trust in God's Word, or assent to theological propositions, but essentially re­liance upon God and commitment to Him as the Redeemer. Thus, the righteousness is real and not imagined since one is forgiven and now stands in freedom before God.
   
2. 
   Justification is not only an act but also a state into which one is brought as a consequence of the divine declaration. This state is maintained by faith and is characterized by righteousness, which is the gift of the new relationship.
   

Calvin taught that imputation in a strict sense means that the obedience of Christ is accepted for us as if it were our own. This is fictional. Wes­ley, however, taught an accommodated view of imputation which includes the truth of imparted life or righteousness. The righteousness of Christ is imputed to us in its effects, that is, in its merits. We are justified by faith in the merits of Christ. Vincent Taylor writes: "The righteousness springs from faith as it is related to its object; the object gives to it its character as the condition of righteousness."

This is another way of delineating between the objective and subjective aspects of justification. While God's justifying word is objective in that it has been sounded forth in the cross of Christ and is an act of grace on His part toward individual persons, it is also subjective in that it brings about a real change. Jeremias writes: "God's ac­quittal is not only forensic, it is not an 'as if, not a mere word, but it is God's word that works and creates life. God's word is always an effective word." Justification therefore is both a declara­tion and a renovation.

3. Justification is an instantaneous act re­sulting from the immediate response of God to the faith of the sinner in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Justification, therefore, is that gracious and ju­dicial act of God by which He grants the sinner full pardon of all guilt, releases him from the penalty of sins committed, and accepts him as righteous and makes him a new creature with initial righteousness, on the basis of the sinner's trustful and obedient response to the redeeming work of Christ on the Cross.

See NEW BIRTH, FAITH, IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS, IMPARTED RIGHTEOUSNESS, IN CHRIST.

See judaism, gnosticism.

For Further Reading: The Jewish Encyclopedia,
3:456-79; Sholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism,
119-350. Frank G. Carver
KAIROS. See chronos.

KENOSIS. The word kenosis means "an empty­ing." It comes from the Greek word kenod ("I empty") and appears in Phil. 2:7 where it is used of Christ's self-humiliation to become man.

While the divine Son might have given up temporarily His function of sustaining and provi­dentially caring for the universe, it is unthinkable to assume that He could have given up any attri­bute of Deity. Divine attributes belong only to God. To have any of them is to be God, and to be without any of them is to be less than God. Yet by many statements and deeds throughout His ministry Jesus showed himself to be both God and man.

In John 17:5 the Lord reveals that He had emp­tied himself of His glory (not an attribute) to be­come man. That was because: (1) otherwise, no earthling could have endured His splendor to come to Him (1 Tim. 6:14-16); (2) with such overwhelming evidence of Deity, the free exer­cise of volition to choose Him would have been impossible; (3) having such glory, no enemy would have dared resist Him and seek His death; (4) He could not have lived the life common to man nor demonstrate that God supplies grace to meet mankind's common trials; and (5) He could not have died to redeem sinners.

Jesus Christ was not without divine attributes; but He did limit himself in the use of them in order to accomplish His mission. So successful was He in it that many, even of those who had known Him from childhood, thought Him to be a mere man.

Paul spoke of Christ's self-emptying to encour­age his readers to imitate their Lord. "Let this mind be in you," he wrote (Phil. 2:5). Paul prac­ticed what he preached (3:4-15).

See christ, christology, mind of christ, hu­miliation of christ.

For Further Reading: Wiley and Culbertson, Intro-
duction to Christian Theology, 207-9; Strong, Systematic
Theology, 701-6. W. ralph thompson

KERYGMA. Kerygma is a Greek word meaning "that which is cried by the herald," "the com­mand," "the communication." In the LXX it is the summons to celebrate the Passover (2 Chron. 30:5) or the message of God to the Ninevites (Jo­nah 3:2; cf. Matt. 12:41; Luke 11:32). In most NT passages it signifies "the proclamation of the re­deeming purpose of God in Christ" (Rom. 16:25; 1 Cor. 1:21; 2:4; 15:14; 2 Tim. 4:17; Titus 1:3).

The herald or crier (kerux) was "a public ser­vant of the supreme power" (Cremer, 355). He summoned the assembly (ekklesia), conveyed messages, etc. In the NT, he is employed by God to proclaim salvation (1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11) or. righteousness (2 Pet. 2:5).

The verb kerussd means to proclaim, preach, or discharge a herald's office. It is used 60 times in the NT, once of the public reading of the law of Moses (Acts 15:21) but generally of the declara­tion of the gospel of Christ. The verb has as its object: gospel (evangelion), gospel of the King­dom (Matt. 4:23), gospel of God (Mark 1:14), Christ (Acts 8:5), Jesus (9:20), kingdom of God (20:25), Christ crucified (1 Cor. 1:23), or Christ Jesus (2 Cor. 1:19, all nasb). Kerygma lays more stress on the publicity of the proclamation. Gos­pel emphasizes the nature of the good news of salvation.

Cremer relates proclamation (kerygma) and gospel (evangelion, good news) to akoe, hearing, and rhema, word (82). The proclaimed gospel is what is heard, what has gone abroad, news, tra­dition. The akoe is the message heard, the com­munication received. The rhema is the word containing the message. So reference is made to the "word of hearing" (Heb. 4:2, nasb marg.). This "word of hearing" that was received from Paul was indeed the word of God, faithfully pro­claimed by the apostle and received by the hear­ers (1 Thess. 2:13).

There is a difference between the kerygma (the gospel proclamation) and didache (teaching, i.e., the doctrinal and practical implications for life situations). The proclaimed gospel of redemption in Christ Jesus is the central core of the paradosis —the divinely given tradition or trust handed down from Christ through the apostles and faithful hearers (2 Thess. 2:15; 2 Tim. 2:2). God manifested His saving word through oral and written kerygma (Titus 1:3; 1 Cor. 1:21; 2 Thess. 2:15). The kerygma produced the Church. The Church did not produce the kerygma.

See didache, gospel. evangelism, preaching.

For Further Reading: Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lex-
icon of New Testament Greek; Girdlestone, Synonyms of
the Old Testament; Ridderbos, The Authority of the New
Testament Scriptures; Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and
Its Development. WlLBER T. DAYTON



3
I—KEYS OF THE KINGDOM

00

KESWICK, KESWICKIANISM


KESWICK, KESWICKIANISM. This term desig­nates the teaching on the victorious, Spirit-filled life propagated in the main by an annual con­vention for the promotion of "practical holiness" held at Keswick, England. Keswick teaching, like that of the American holiness movement which originally inspired the convention's beginnings in 1875, emphasizes a "second blessing" or "sec­ond crisis" in Christian experience subsquent to justification in which the Holy Spirit completely fills the wholly consecrated Christian. This Spirit baptism enables the believer to live a consistent Christian life.

However, at the point of the nature of the Holy Spirit's operation in the heart in relation to origi­nal sin, a continuing tension has existed between Keswick and Wesleyan teachers from the earliest history of the convention. The former have maintained that in the Spirit-filled life, the Holy Spirit counteracts the nature of sin which con­tinues to remain in the heart of the believer; the latter believes that the nature of sin is cleansed from the heart by the Spirit's application of the finished work of Christ.

This point of difference between the two movements arises out of the fact that from the first Keswick Convention the movement was di­rected largely by evangelical Anglican leaders. Their theology commonly was based on the teachings of John Calvin, who taught that the conflict in the believer between the flesh and the Spirit could not be finally resolved before the point of death. The American holiness move­ment, following the teachings of John Wesley, be­lieved that the heart could be entirely sanctified and freed from inbred sin by faith in the full re­demption wrought by Christ. Both believe that the Spirit-filled life is a life characterized by vic­tory over sin and power for service.

The first Keswick Convention sprang from ho­liness evangelism in England by Rev. William E. Boardman, Presbyterian author of The Higher Christian Life (1859), and Quaker lay evangelists Robert Pearsall Smith and his wife, Hannah Whitall Smith, author of The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life (1870). In 1873 to 1875 a series of breakfast meetings was sponsored by Mr. and Mrs. Cowper Temple (later Lord and Lady Mount-Temple), to introduce the American holi­ness evangelists to their British friends. Subse­quently, larger holiness conventions were held in England at Oxford (1874) and Brighton (1875). In these meetings future Keswick leaders such as Revs. Evan Hopkins and T. D. Harford-Battersby, both Anglicans, and Robert Wilson, Quaker, tes­tified to a new intensity of Christian experience.

Out of their enthusiasm for their newfound sense of peace and joy, Battersby and Wilson ar­ranged for a convention for the promotion of ho­liness to be held at the former's vicarage at Keswick in the north of England. The Smiths, who were to be the speakers, did not attend be­cause of personal tragedy in the ministry of Pear­sall Smith which threatened the whole revival for a time (see J. C. Pollock, The Keswick Story, 34-37).

The success of the first meeting, however, as­sured its future; it continues to the present. The early patterns of the convention, many of which have become characteristic of Keswick, indicate their American holiness camp meeting lineage. Spontaneity of spirit, a minimum of prearrange-ment of program, direct appeal to Spirit lead­ership, extemporaneous addresses—all centered in promoting the victorious life of Christian holiness—were common to both.

By the turn of the century, Keswick speakers and evangelists such as F. B. Meyer, Andrew Murray, Otto Stockmayer, and R. A. Torrey were spreading the Keswick victorious life teaching. A number of small Keswick Conventions were sub­sequently established and continue to be held annually around the world. As a result, much of Calvinistic evangelicalism in England, Europe, the United States, and Canada continues to be infused with higher-life teaching.

Keswick has often been charged with fostering an inner Christian quietism at the cost of out­reach and social concern. Such accusations must be countered by the active inner-city mission movement in Germany led by people committed to Keswick teaching and the widespread foreign mission efforts inspired by such early par­ticipants as Hudson Taylor, founder of the China Inland Mission, and Amy Carmichael, founder of Dohnavur Fellowship, India.

See WESLEYANISM, HOLINESS, COUNTERACTION, ERADICATION, HIGHER LIFE, HOLINESS MOVEMENT.

For Further Reading: For the Wesleyan-holiness view of Keswick teaching, see Hills, Scriptural Holiness and Keswick Teaching Compared (1910); For Keswick history and teaching, see Barabas, So Great Salvation (1957); Pollock, The Keswick Story (1964); Sloan, These Sixty Years (1935); For the American holiness movement ori­gins of Keswick, see Dieter, "The Holiness Revival in Nineteenth Century Europe," WTJ, Spring, 1974, 15-27; and The Holiness Revival of the Nineteenth Century.

Melvin Easterday Dieter

KEYS OF THE KINGDOM. The "keys" of the King­dom have a twofold significance in the NT. Lirst, they symbolize Christ's authority delegated first to Peter (Matt. 16:13-20) and then to the 11 disci­



pies also (John 20:19-23), to open or close the doors of God's spiritual kingdom to the souls of men. "The power of the keys is authority in the dispensing of the word of grace and judgment" (Jeremias, Kittel, 3:752).

Christ's commission to Peter and the Eleven was not without its OT antecedent (Isa. 22:22). As Eliakim was divinely invested with the key of responsible stewardship over the house of David to "open" and "close" its doors, so Peter, as repre­sentative of Christ's disciples, was given respon­sibility for the keys of God's kingdom to "open" or "close" those doors to the souls of men through the proclamation of and witness to, or withholding of, the saving gospel of Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:18-20). Evangelistically this was first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles (Acts 1:8; 2:38-39; 26:16-18; 2 Cor. 5:19-20).

This delegated disciplinary authority is limited to expulsion ("binding") and reinstating ("loos­ing") of believers for certain doctrinal and moral offenses within the Church. It does not extend to the divine prerogative of forgiveness and con­demnation of sin against God. That authority be­longs exclusively to Christ (Matt. 9:6). Wesley says: "In the primitive church absolution meant no more than to discharge from church censure" (Notes, on Matt. 18:18; so Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Luther).

That the keys of the Kingdom remain ulti­mately in Christ's possession, and that with them He will finally free men from death through the resurrection, is explicitly declared by Him who unlocked His own tomb and came forth a victor over death and the grave (Rev. 1:18; 3:7; cf. Luke 24:5-7; John 11:25; Acts 2:24; 1 Cor. 15:20).

See KINGDOM OF GOD, CHURCH GOVERNMENT, DIS­CIPLINE, GREAT COMMISSION.