What is the righteousness of which the Spirit will convict the world?

Explanation:

In John 16:8 John uses the future tense of the verb ἐλέγχω to introduce the effect that the Spirit will produce when he enters the world. The verb can be translated with a number of meanings, including to convict, to expose, to rebuke, and to reprove. The New Testament uses the verb a total of eighteen times and in more cases than not, the sense of the verb has to do with exposing sin for the purpose of calling one to repentance. For example, in 2 Timothy 4:2 we read, Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove [ἔλεγξον], rebuke, and exhort with complete patience and teaching. It is hard to see how Paul could be commanding Timothy to patiently reprove without intending to stir repentance. Similarly, in Matthew 18:15 we read, If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault [ἔλεγξον]…. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. This passage is obviously referring to repentance. And there are other examples. If the most appropriate translation of ἐλέγχω entails repentance, and the translation supports the plain reading of the text, the notion that the Spirit means to produce the effect of conviction which leads to repentance should be accepted as the most likely candidate.⁵ It is hard to see why the Spirit would convict the world to repent over someone else’s righteousness, so it makes the most sense to take righteousness as referring to the object who is being convicted, which is the world.

Counterargument:

The meaning of the verb ἐλέγχω is rich with possible meanings, and the context is simply not clear enough to make a definitive judgment.⁶ While it is true that passages such as Matthew 18:15, and 2 Timothy 4:2 only make sense if ἐλέγχω is linked to repentance, this choice of translation is clear because of their respective contexts. The context of the passage from John simply lacks the powerful indicators that one would need to conclude that the verb ἐλέγχω must be connected with repentance.

Response to counterargument:

While it is true that the context of John leaves more interpretive possibilities for the verb ἐλέγχω (to convict) than those in passages such as Matthew 18:15 and 2 Timothy 4:2, this itself is not enough to conclude that therefore the exegete can make whatever interpretive decision they please, as long as it does not do damage to the passage. Rather, it means that the exegete should withhold judgment before taking into account a fuller analysis of the verb’s usage within the New Testament. By doing so, the interpreter will discover that conviction leading to repentance is the most appropriate option.

Explanation:

The Greek is highly symmetrical, as evidenced by John’s use of repeated words and phrases, and parallelism. Further, John introduces three clauses with the same conjunction, ὅτι. The ὅτι conjunction can be translated differently depending on the context. For example, ὅτι can be used as a substantive to introduce a clause that stands in for a noun. In such an instance ὅτι is translated with that. Another use is the causative, which is when ὅτι is used to introduce the cause of an effect. This is arguably the most appropriate way to identify the ὅτι conjunction in this passage.⁷ In John 16:8, the verb to convict with the prepositional phrase concerning sin and righteousness and judgment introduces an effect on the direct object the world. In John 16:9–10, ὅτι introduces the cause of the effect. In other words, in John 16:8 we learn that the Spirit is going to convict the world concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment, and in John 16:9–10 we learn why: the Spirit is going to convict the world of sin because [ὅτι] they do not believe in me; the Spirit going to convict the world concerning righteousness because [ὅτι] I am going to the Father, and you will see me no longer. The symmetry of the ὅτι clauses as causal supports the translation of the verb ἐλέγχω (to convict, v. John 16:8) in the sense of conviction for the sake of repentance. And this translation makes the most sense if the repentance has to do with the world’s own righteousness.

Counterargument:

There is more than one way to translate a ὅτι clause, and given the context, an explicative use of ὅτι is just as likely as the causative use. In other words, ὅτι is introducing a fuller explanation of the fact that the Spirit is convicting the world concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment. The Spirit is convicting the world concerning sin, in that [ὅτι] they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, in that [ὅτι] I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer (John 16:9–10).

Response to counterargument:

Interpreting the ὅτι as explicative seems to do harm to the translation no matter how one takes the verb ἐλέγχω (to convict). For example, even if we take ἐλέγχω to mean something like to convict, it is hard to paraphrase the ὅτι clause as explicative in any meaningful sense. The causal ὅτι is a much more intuitive translation. The causative use of ὅτι clarifies the text by offering a plausible reason for why the Spirit will cause the effect of convicting the world of its false righteousness. Jesus was perfectly righteous, and his presence was enough to show the world her unrighteousness. Now that he has gone to the Father the world will no longer be convicted to repent of her unrighteousness by Jesus’ presence, so the Holy Spirit is sent to do that work.

Possible weaknesses:

The possible weaknesses in this view are as follows.

1. If John is referring to the world’s righteousness, he must be using righteousness in an ironic sense. But this is not the ordinary way that we think about righteousness. Often when biblical writers use the term, they have in mind a virtuous quality that we should all desire to live up to. One does not automatically consider righteousness as a negative. Such a conclusion requires one to wrestle carefully with the text.

2. The structure of the Greek is important, but we must be wary of pushing the point too hard. To be sure, John’s use of repeated words and phrases as well as parallelism is done in order to help convey his message. Still, for the interpretation to focus too heavily on the composition, and not enough on the theology of the Gospel of John, could cause one to identify certain theological aspects incorrectly.

Explanation:

Jesus became incarnate with the purpose of revealing God the Father to the world (John 14:6–11). As such, Jesus revealed the Father by living a sinless life and never failing to do the will of God. Jesus’ life exemplified righteousness, and yet the world falsely accused Jesus, brought him to trial, and had him crucified to death on a cross. Still, God raised Jesus from the dead before he ascended into heaven. The fact that Jesus now stands before the Father vindicates Jesus’ righteousness. The world had accused him of sin, but now that he stands before the Father, the world is accused, and Jesus is shown to be victorious.

Counterargument:

While this is a plain reading of the text it overlooks the Greek construction which seems to indicate that John intends for a more nuanced reading. The arguments for this have been presented under Interpretation 1.

Response to counterargument:

For many, the noun righteousness is almost synonymous with Jesus’ life. For anyone reading John in a language other than Greek, when they encounter the word righteousness in an ambiguous context, the most obvious interpretive option is to connect the term to Jesus. John 16 is arguably one such ambiguous case and applying the righteousness to Jesus in this way fits well with the rest of the Gospels.

Explanation:

In John 16:8 we read that the Spirit will convict the world concerning righteousness because Jesus is going to the Father. Without considering the nuance of the verb ἐλεγχω we might simply interpret that verb to mean to convict. If we do this and take the conjunction because as causative, then it seems natural to infer that the righteousness is Jesus’. The world will be convicted by the Spirit concerning Jesus’ righteousness because Jesus has been raised from the dead, shown to be righteous, and now stands before the Father in heaven.

Counterargument:

For Jesus to go to the Father implies that he will reside in a spiritual realm, but if Jesus will reside in a spiritual realm, it is hard to see how that could cause anyone to be convicted about his righteousness. If people did not believe in Jesus when they could see him, and speak with him, and witness his miracles, why they would believe in him when he goes to a spiritual realm with the Father where they will see him no longer?

Response to counterargument:

Jesus is not suggesting that people will believe in him because they will somehow perceive that his future location is with the Father and deduce that Jesus is divine and therefore righteous. Rather, when Jesus says that he is going to the Father, he implies that he will die on the cross, and after three days, be miraculously raised from the dead. After spending time around Jerusalem, he will then ascend into heaven. By witnessing all these things the world will know that Jesus was who he claimed to be when the Spirit convicts them of Jesus' righteousness.

Possible weaknesses:

The problem with this view is twofold.

1. An analysis of the Greek text favours that the verb ἐλέγχω is translated to mean something more than to convict. Based on its overall usage in the New Testament, the most appropriate application is to take the verb in the sense of convicting for the sake of repentance. If this is true, then it is hard to see how the righteousness would be anyone’s other than the world’s, because why should the world be called to repent over Jesus’ righteousness?

2. This view overlooks the theological significance of the Spirit’s assistance in terms of the proclamation of the gospel. The world stands condemned before God because it does not put its faith in Christ, but God desires for all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). This implies that the world needs the Spirit to convict it of its unrighteousness before the world will understand that it needs to put its faith in Jesus’ righteousness.

Explanation:

When John 16:10 is read without considering the wider context of the passage, it seems to be ambiguous, simply stating that the Spirit will convict the world concerning righteousness, because Jesus is going to the Father. At first glance, it is hard to see how Jesus’ going to the Father will cause the Spirit to convict the world in terms of righteousness. If the two are supposed to be in a straightforward cause-and-effect relationship, it is not clear precisely why Jesus’ going before the Father would cause the Spirit to convict the world concerning righteousness. The notion that the righteousness belongs to the disciples is a way of trying to resolve the ambiguity issue. Jesus dies on the cross and stands before the Father. For what purpose? To declare that those who have faith in him are righteous. And so, the world will be convicted that the followers of Jesus are declared righteous.

Counterargument:

To suggest that the righteousness is that of the disciples seems to overlook the context of the passage by importing theological ideas related to imputed righteousness that are foreign to the text.

Response to counterargument:

Because of the ambiguity of the text, no matter how one tries to interpret John 16:10, one is forced to make interpretive decisions with little contextual guidance. There is a strong tradition in the church that Jesus imputes his righteousness to his followers by going to God and declaring them righteous. Since John 16:10 has to do with going to God, we can imply that the verse is about imputed righteousness.

Possible weaknesses:

The problem with this view is that based on the context of the passage and the construction of the Greek, it is difficult to see why John would refer to the disciples’ righteousness. Other than by importing the theological notion of imputed righteousness, the text simply does not contain enough to justify such an interpretation. Plus, Interpretation 1 offers a tidy resolution to the ambiguity of John 16:10. If we take righteousness as the world’s, we could say that Jesus’ presence on earth revealed to the world that its righteousness is inadequate. Now that Jesus will no longer be on earth, the Holy Spirit will be sent in his stead to continue the work of exposing the world’s false righteousness.