Man and God, Chapter 7 Sedeq and S'daqah

S’daqah
THE PRACTICE OF S’DAQAH—“CHARITY”
READERS of the Bible are, of course, fully aware of the closeness of meaning between the two concepts we plan to discuss in this chapter. In fact, at times it would appear as if sedeq and s’daqah were identical and, therefore, interchangeable. Both terms are often translated as righteousness. The distinction between the two ideas seems to be altogether a difference in emphasis; sedeq being closer to the legal concept of justice, whereas s’daqah apparently stands for righteousness in a more general, less legalistic sense. Having, however, found that the biblical idea of justice (mishpat) itself is not to be understood in a strictly legalistic manner, that it keeps comfortable company with lovingkindness, mercy, and salvation, we are open to surprises in our investigation of the concepts of sedeq and s’daqah.

We shall first analyze s’daqah mainly because we believe that its meaning is more easily ascertained than that of sedeq.

In numerous places s’daqah occurs as the opposite to resha or rish’ah, evil, wickedness. The children of Israel, for instance, were warned not to imagine that God brought them into the promised land because they deserved it on account of their s’daqah. Rather, it was because of their wickedness that the original inhabitants were driven out from before Israel.¹Deut. 9:4–5. “Wickedness,” of course, is used here in its widest sense. It has no legal connotation of any kind. It is ethical and moral corruption. It includes any act of conduct which is objectionable on moral or religious grounds. This is borne out by the numerous other references in the Bible to the guilt of the original inhabitants of Canaan. This makes it somewhat difficult to define s’daqah, which is here opposed to “wickedness.” Would s’daqah have to be the complete opposite to everything that is here comprehended by “wickedness” or should we be justified in calling s’daqah any act or attitude that is contrary to any part of the evil, which is comprehended by the wider term, wickedness? As might be expected, Proverbs is quite rich in passages in which “evil” and “wickedness” are contrasted to s’daqah, but there, too, the terms are used in too general a sense to allow us to draw more exact conclusions from them. There is, for instance, the saying: “The establishing of s’daqah tendeth to life; but he that pursueth evil pursueth it to his own death.”²Prov. 11:19; cf. also ibid. 11:4–6; 13:6; 15:9. “The pursuit of evil” seems to include any kind of evil, in which case “the establishing of s’daqah” may mean any act of goodness which is the opposite to any kind of evil. Reading again in Proverbs that “the doing of evil is an abomination to kings, for the throne is established by s’daqah,”³Ibid. 16:12. it is easy to misunderstand “the doing of evil” as acting against the law safeguarded by the king, and to interpret s’daqah, accordingly, as righteousness in the sense of justice or the monarchic order. We know however, from other passages that the establishing of a throne is not only a question of law and justice, but also of hesed and emeth, of lovingkindness and faithfulness.⁴Cf. Isa. 16:5; Prov. 20:28; 29:14. (This, of course, is so because in the Bible, as we have shown, lovingkindness and faithfulness belong in the same category of values as “law” and “justice.”) Neither the evil, which is a king’s concern, nor s’daqah, which establishes his throne, should be taken to have a juridical significance. As everywhere else in the Bible, here, too, their implication is ethico-moral and religious.

Fortunately, there are also various passages in the Bible in which the term s’daqah is applied to specific deeds whose nature is clearly understood. When it once chanced that David could have rid himself of Saul, who was pursuing him, he did not put a hand on the king. Of this action he said:

And the Lord will render to every man his s’daqah and his faithfulness; forasmuch as the Lord delivered thee into my hand to-day, and I would not put forth my hand against the Lord’s anointed. And, behold, as thy life was much set by this day in mine eyes, so let my life be much set by in the eyes of the Lord, and let him deliver me out of all tribulation.⁵I Sam. 26:23.

The fact that David did not harm the king, that he valued his life when he could have justifiably killed him in self-defense, is considered an act of s’daqah and faithfulness. It would seem that the sparing of the life of an enemy was s’daqah, that the enemy was the king and God’s anointed, to whom normally people owe loyalty, was a deed of emunah, of faithfulness. What is here meant by s’daqah becomes even more clear by David’s wish. He hopes that God will return to him his s’daqah; he expresses the desire that God may extend to him the same consideration with which he treated Saul. May God set as much value by his life as he set by the life of Saul and may he, thus, deliver him “out of all tribulation.” S’daqah, here, is then valuing the life of another person and, on account of it, helping or protecting him in a situation of danger or trouble. It is very much in this sense that Samuel, too, uses the word s’daqah. Before giving Israel a king, for whom they have clamored, Samuel addresses the people saying:

It is the Lord that made Moses and Aaron, and that brought your fathers up out of the land of Egypt. Now therefore stand still, that I may plead with you before the Lord concerning all the acts of s’daqah, which he did to you and to your fathers.⁶Ibid. 12:6–7.

Now, the acts of s’daqah, which Samuel enumerates, are the sending of Moses and Aaron to them in order to lead them out of Egypt, as well as the sending of the Judges in order to save them from their enemies each time the children of Israel called to God from their tribulations. It is hardly proper to call such deeds acts of righteousness; they are more like acts of lovingkindness and saving mercy. The prophet Micah uses the same phrase, the Lord’s acts of s’daqah, and he uses it in exactly the same manner as it was used centuries before him by Samuel. His words are:

O my people, remember now what Balak king of Moab devised and what Balaam the son of Beor answered him; from Shittim unto Gilgal—that ye may know the acts of s’daqah of the Lord.⁷Mic. 6:5; cf. also Judg. 5:11

God’s undoing of the plans of Balak and Balaam, his continuous guidance for the children of Israel all along the way from Shittim to Gilgal, were God’s acts of s’daqah. They showed that God valued Israel and extended his protective care to them. This interpretation is strongly supported by a passage in Joel, where we read:

Be glad then, ye children of Zion, and rejoice

In the Lord your God;

For He giveth you the former rain for s’daqah,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

And the floors shall be full of corn,

And the vats shall overflow with wine and oil. (2:23–24)

The word s’daqah in this context has posed quite a problem for commentators and translators. The rendering of the phrase lis’daqah as “moderately” or as “in just measure,”⁸Cf. the R.V. and the J.P.S. translations. are more an illustration of the difficulty than a solution of the problem. In our opinion, s’daqah means here what we have found it thus far to mean, i.e., an act of help or of deliverance. The badly–needed rain would be given by God to the children of Zion for a deliverance from famine and poverty.

In the light of these examples we may say that s’daqah, like mishpat and emeth and emunah, represents a bond between the two that motivates the one to act toward the other with kindness and charity because one sets value by the other. S’daqah seems to be the action itself which is indicative of the bond that motivates the act. S’daqah may be enacted by a person toward another or by God toward man. It is, however, not to be expected that man could practice s’daqah toward God. Yet, there seems to be at least one such example in the Bible of a man doing s’daqah to God. When God promised Abraham that his seed would be as numerous as the stars in the heaven, the Bible says: “And he believed in the Lord; and He counted it to him for s’daqah.”⁹Gen. 15:6. To say that what is meant here is that God counted Abraham’s faith in Him for righteousness does not seem to make much sense. Not only is it difficult to accept the suggestion that to put faith in God’s promise could be adequately designated an act of righteousness. If such an act of faith could indeed be called righteousness, even greater would be the exegetic difficulty presented by the phrase, “and He counted it to him” as such. That God counted it to him for s’daqah implies that what Abraham did was not really s’daqah but, nevertheless, he was credited for it, as if he had performed an act of s’daqah. We suggest that here too, s’daqah means what we have found it to mean in the other examples, i.e., an act of kindness, of help, based on respect and acknowledgement of another person. Only, in this case, the other person was God. God’s promise was indeed incredible. Abraham and Sarah were both already advanced in years and they were childless. Nevertheless, contrary to all natural expectation, Abraham believed in God. This was, indeed, an act of “kindness” and “charity” toward God. We have put these words between quotation marks in order to indicate that they are not to be taken literally. No mere man can be kind or charitable toward God. One may render s’daqah only “to a son of man.”¹⁰Job 35:8. Yet, to put one’s faith in God’s promise, when every phase of the given situation contends against it, is an act that comes closest to s’daqah, which one may extend to a man. To believe in God’s word against all reason and all nature is like an act of helping kindness toward God. It is like it; it is not it, for God is never in any need. It is for this reason that the Bible says of Abraham’s faith that God “counted it to him for s’daqah.” While no man can act with s’daqah toward God, Abraham’s act of faith was counted to him as if he had performed an act of s’daqah toward God.

S’DAQAH RECEIVED—REWARD OR DELIVERANCE

There are, however, other passages which seem to indicate that s’daqah requires an entirely different interpretation as well. Having agreed with Laban that the speckled and spotted among the flock shall be his in recompense for his labor, Jacob says to Laban:

So shall my s’daqah witness against me hereafter, when thou shalt come to look over my hire that is before thee; every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats, and dark among the sheep, that is found with me shall be counted stolen.¹¹Gen. 30:33.

What could be the meaning of s’daqah in this context? Surely Jacob could not have meant that his righteousness (as the word is usually translated) should witness against him. It would make no sense at all. What he is saying is that should Laban wish to come and check on what Jacob took for his hire, any one sheep or goat in Jacob’s flock that would not have the color agreed upon will be a witness against Jacob’s honesty. How can one say that in such a case Jacob’s righteousness would be witness against him? In such a case Jacob’s righteousness would be in question and the stolen animal would be a witness against it. There is little doubt that s’daqah is here the actual reward given to Jacob by Laban for his work. The sheep and the goats which they agreed upon that should be Jacob’s share, would witness against or for Jacob. S’daqah would then mean something received in return for something else. But do we find the word to have this meaning in any other context? We are also curious to know whether it is possible to establish any connection between this meaning and the former one which we have established.

There are indeed a number of passages, all of the same kind, which require an interpretation very similar to the one which we have just given. In the case of a pledge that one takes from a poor man, the Bible says that one should restore it to him for the night “that he may sleep in his garment, and bless thee; and it shall be s’daqah unto thee before the Lord thy God.”¹²Deut. 24:13. We submit that to render s’daqah here as righteousness, as it is usually done, is meaningless. The statement would amount to nothing more than the empty tautology that the act of righteousness of returning the pledge would be regarded by God, too, as such an act of s’daqah. The same phrase that occurs here in relationship to one specific commandment is also applied to the fulfillment of all God’s commandments in general. Thus we read in Deuteronomy:

And it shall be s’daqah unto us, if we observe to do all this commandment before the Lord our God, as He hath commanded us.¹³Ibid. 6:25.

It is not at all convincing that to say that righteousness consists of doing all God’s commandments is a significant statement. Even less can one make peace with the phrase, “it shall be s’daqah unto us,” or, as in the previous quotation, “it shall be s’daqah unto thee.” Having observed such commandments, one will have practiced s’daqah. But we doubt that anyone is able to associate any good meaning with the statement that such a practice of doing God’s commandments will be s’daqah unto the one who pursues it.

We believe that the meaning of these two passages is well illuminated by some verses in Isaiah. The words are addressed to Israel in the name of God.

Oh that thou wouldest hearken to My commandments!

Then would thy peace be as a river,

And thy s’daqah as the waves of the sea;

Thy seed also would be as the sand,

And the offspring of thy body like the grains thereof;

His name would not be cut off

Nor destroyed from before Me. (Isa. 48:18–19)

Undoubtedly, s’daqah in this context cannot mean righteousness. It belongs in one category together with the promise of peace and of the multitude of offspring. The idea of righteousness would be an ugly interruption in the unity of thought which is so poetically sustained by the metaphors of the river, the waves of the sea, and the sand. Quite clearly, s’daqah is here, like shalom and the blessing of children, the reward for hearkening to God’s commandments. S’daqah would then be what we found it originally to mean, an act of lovingkindness, of help and deliverance, as an expression of appreciation for the one to whom it is extended. If they observe God’s commandments they will be granted peace, help in trouble, and numerous descendants. It is in the same sense that the psalmist, too, uses s’daqah when he says:

But the lovingkindness [hesed] of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear Him, and His s’daqah unto children’s children; to such as keep His covenant and to those that remember His precepts to do them.¹⁴Pss. 103:17–18.

The juxtaposition of hesed and s’daqah is in itself sufficient to indicate that s’daqah is not to be rendered as righteousness. The psalmists’ idea is the same as that of Isaiah. God’s acts of lovingkindness and of his help and deliverance (i.e., s’daqah) are the lot of those who hear Him and live in accordance with his precepts. In Proverbs, Wisdom describes the rewards of those who follow her. Elaborating on what one may find with her, she says also:

Riches and honor are with me;

Yea, enduring riches and s’daqah. (8:18)

Here, too, it is quite impossible to render s’daqah as righteousness. As in Isaiah it is part of the reward, just like riches and honor in the same context. S’daqah will be granted to the one who follows hokhma; he will find honor, riches, and deliverance.

We may now return to a new consideration of the two passages in Deuteronomy with which we have opened this part of our discussion. The expression, l’kha tih’yeh s’daqah, in the case of a person who returns a pledge, should not be rendered as “it shall be s’daqah unto thee,” but as “thou shalt have s’daqah.” As is well known, the grammatical form of the phrase is the possessive. The translators had to disregard it because for them s’daqah meant righteousness. It made no sense to say that a person who returns a pledge would, as a result, acquire righteousness in the future. The meaning, however, is the same as in our quotations from Isaiah and the Psalms. The reward for fulfilling God’s commandment will be s’daqah, God’s help and protection. L’kha tih’yeh s’daqah, before the Lord your God, means thou shalt have, possess s’daqah, that God will grant you. This is also the meaning of the phrase, s’daqah tih’yeh lanu, in our second example from Deuteronomy. We shall have, we shall acquire s’daqah, help and deliverance, if we observe all God’s commandments. This passage is the exact parallel to the ones we have quoted from Isaiah and the Psalms.

We have found that s’daqah has a two-fold significance: it is the deed and it is also the fruit of the deed. The one who acts as David acted toward Saul, or as God has acted toward Israel, does s’daqah; whereas the one who receives the fruits of such a deed, as Saul did or as has been promised to the one who observes God’s commandments, has s’daqah. He has received and is in possession of what is the result of the act of s’daqah. One’s s’daqah may thus mean either the s’daqah that one does to others or the s’daqah that one receives from another. God’s s’daqah, of which we heard the psalmist say that it lasts unto children’s children, is the s’daqah that He practices. But when the psalmist speaks of the s’daqah of the man that fears God, he means the reward that is his. The phrase occurs twice in the same psalm. At first it is said of the man “that feareth the Lord, that delighteth greatly in His commandments” that:

the generation of the upright shall be blessed.

Wealth and riches are in his house;

And his s’daqah endureth for ever. (112:2–3)

A little further on in the same psalm it is also said of the same man:

He hath scattered abroad, he hath given to the needy;

His s’daqah endureth for ever;

His horn shall be exalted in honour.

The wicked shall see, and be vexed. (vss. 9–10)

In the first place s’daqah is used exactly as we found it in our quotation from Proverbs. Together with riches it was the reward of the pursuit of wisdom. Here it is part of the blessing of “the generation of the upright.” Here, too, it is the parallel to riches. The s’daqah given by God to the God-fearing man is an enduring blessing. But in the second part of our quotation, too, s’daqah has the same meaning. It is the act of providence granted to the man as a reward for his generosity, for his own act of s’daqah toward the needy. This interpretation is borne out by a careful reading of the text. It could hardly be stated that a man’s righteousness “endureth for ever”; nor is there anything to support such a statement in the fact that a person gave generously of his means to the poor. But one may very well say of God’s blessing, of the fruits of God’s s’daqah received by a man, that its substance will be enduring for a long time. It is exactly what the psalmist was indicating when he said of God’s s’daqah that it was “unto children’s children.” In fact, the very phrase that is used in this psalm about a man’s s’daqah is also applied, in the previous one, to God himself. There we read:

His work is glory and majesty;

And His s’daqah endureth for ever. (111:3)

While one may well say of God’s practice of s’daqah that it endures for ever, surely one cannot make the same statement about man’s doing of s’daqah. It is, however, properly held that when the fruits of God’s s’daqah have been bestowed upon a man, the substance of the s’daqah granted to him will endure for a long time, just because its origin is in God’s doing. One should also pay attention to the context. Immediately upon “His s’daqah endureth for ever” follow the words: “His horn shall be exalted in honor.” Now, this is, of course, the reward for the deeds of charity which were mentioned earlier. And so is also “his s’daqah”; it is the God-fearing man’s reward and it is an enduring one. S’daqah received is a reward or a grant given to a person. Thus, Jacob could well say to Laban: “So shall my s’daqah witness against me hereafter.” His s’daqah was the part of the flock which he was given for his labor. It is true that what Jacob was granted was his due as payment for his work. It would, however, appear from the discussion that preceded the agreement between the two that it was a rather unusual form of paying wages. Laban says to Jacob: “Appoint me thy wages, and I will give it.” But he is not answered directly. Instead, Jacob tells about his devoted service and about the blessing he brought for his father-in-law. “And now when shall I provide for mine own house also?” Laban understands. It is not ordinary wages that Jacob wants, but a house of his own. Laban repeats the question, but now he asks: “What shall I give thee?” No mention is made of wages any more. But Jacob’s answer is: “Thou shalt not give me aught; if thou wilt do this thing for me.” The arrangement between them was a most unusual one. This thing that Laban does for Jacob is not the norm between a flock owner and his shepherd. Laban does something for Jacob. What Jacob receives is not wages but a reward. It is his s’daqah.

With the help of the idea of s’daqah received, a number of other rather obscure passages become clear. When Sanballat and his group were attempting to interfere with the rebuilding of the walls around Jerusalem, Nehemiah said to them:

The God of heaven, He will prosper us; therefore we His servants will arise and build; but ye have no portion, nor s’daqah, nor memorial, in Jerusalem.¹⁵Neh. 2:20.

For our translations s’daqah suddenly becomes “right.” But how can right be placed stylistically between “portion” and “memorial”? In our opinion, s’daqah here is an actual possession as are “portion” and “memorial.” It is s’daqah received, a grant or a reward. What Nehemiah said to these men was that they had no share of any kind in Jerusalem. They had neither a portion in it, which would have belonged to them as of right; nor do they have a privilege which was given to them as s’daqah; nor do they even have as much as a memorial in the city. The usage here is very similar to what we find in II Samuel. Mephibosheth’s words to King David are:

For all my father’s house were deserving of death at the hand of my lord the king; yet didst thou set thy servant among them that did eat at thine own table. What more s’daqah do I have and to cry more unto the king?¹⁶II Sam. 19:29–31.

We translated literally in order to present the difficulty of exegesis. The J.P.S. translation has here: “What right therefore have I yet? or why should I cry any more unto the king?” We cannot accept it. Having stated that his entire father’s house deserved to be put to death, but yet the king made him sit at his table, it would be worse than tactless for Mephibosheth to continue exclaiming, what more right do I still have left. What he has already received was not of right but charity and kindness. Furthermore, the concluding phrase, or why should I cry any more unto the king? standing there by itself does not seem to make any sense. Why indeed should he? What is he talking about? We believe that from the point of view of syntax, the Revised Version is much closer to the Hebrew when it reads: “What right therefore have I yet to cry any more unto the king?” “What have I s’daqah and to cry” is clearly an idiomatic phrase and are not to be separated from each other. They are one phrase and express one idea. Thus far, we agree with the interpretation of the R.V. But the actual rendering of the Hebrew is unacceptable to us. Once again we are guided by the context. The Bible reports the king’s reply to the words of Mephibosheth. He said to him:

Why speakest thou any more of thy matters? I say: Thou and Ziba divide the land. And Mephibosheth said unto the king: yea, let him take all, forasmuch as my lord the king is come in peace unto his own house.

From the king’s answer we learn that Mephibosheth was not saying that he had no more rights or that he had no right to cry any more to the king. Mephibosheth was speaking about “his matters.” He was actually asking something of the king regarding his land. The king, believing the calumnies of Ziba about his master, had earlier given all Mephibosheth’s property to Ziba.¹⁷Ibid. 16:4. In his meeting with the king, Mephibosheth does mention that he was slandered by his servant. But he must have also raised this matter of his possessions which were given to Ziba. We have to find this, then, in the words which he addressed to the king. The Hebrew, za’aq el, is not the vague crying to somebody. It has the very definite meaning of asking something of someone. In our opinion, the sentence: what more s’daqah do I have and to ask more of the king? should be rendered as: what more s’daqah shall I ask of the king? The king preserved him in life and made him to sit among the king’s servants at the king’s table. What more could he ask for. Yet, he does ask, but in the typically ambiguous language of diplomacy. This is what caused the difficulty of translation. On the surface he seems to say that he has already received more than he deserved, yet there is also a hint in his words of a petition for more; a hint only, because he does not dare to express his request explicitly. The idiomatic phrase is awkward and need not be taken idiomatically. If one listens carefully to the halting manner in which Mephibosheth pushes from himself the idea of asking for any more, he does seem to ask: “What more s’daqah do I have?” By itself this means: what other privileges do I have? what else has been awarded to me? This is a complaint about the lands which have been taken away from him. It is a complaint which hardly uttered is immediately taken back by the words: “and to ask more of the king.” Now, linking up with the first part of the sentence, we get the idiomatic whole: what more s’daqah shall I ask of the king. Yet, there is something left of the suggestion of a petition, which is so close to the literal meaning: what other s’daqah do I own … and to ask more of the king … that is what I am here for. It is a masterpiece of ambiguity, a combination of obsequiousness and boldness. The king understood and with an obvious sign of annoyance he answered: “Why speakest thou any more of thy matters? I say: Thou and Ziba divide the land.”

In our quotation from Nehemiah we found s’daqah associated with heleq, portion. In a significant passage in Isaiah it is preceded by nahalah, heritage. God’s promise to Israel is:

No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper;

And every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn.

This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord,

And their s’daqah from Me, saith the Lord. (54:17)

In the expression of “their s’daqah from Me” both aspects of s’daqah are combined: s’daqah practiced and s’daqah received. The act of the promise is God’s s’daqah toward Israel; the substance of the s’daqah, given to Israel, becomes their possession, their s’daqah.

GOD’S S’DAQAH OR SALVATION; AND THE SYNDROME OF S’DAQAH, HESED, AND Y’SHU’AH

Practically in the entire Bible, God’s s’daqah belongs in the same category of divine attributes as his hesed, his goodness, charity, and salvation. The psalmist says, for instance:

They shall utter the fame of Thy great goodness,

And shall sing of Thy s’daqah.

The Lord is gracious, and full of compassion;

Slow to anger, and of great mercy. (Pss. 145:7–8)

God’s grace, compassion, and mercy are manifest in God’s deeds toward his creation. They constitute the fame of his goodness. Singing of God’s s’daqah, one praises him for his help and saving kindness. Occasionally, s’daqah appears as the parallel to hesed. We have already heard the psalmist declare:

But the hesed of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear Him,

And His s’daqah unto children’s children. (Pss. 103:17)

S’daqah is, not unlike hesed, an act of love and kindness. It is therefore natural in asking for God’s help to appeal to his s’daqah. Psalm 143 opens with the words:

O Lord, hear my prayer, give ear to my supplications;

In Thy faithfulness answer me, and in [or with] Thy s’daqah.

We do not believe that a person in trouble, pleading with God that He may lend an ear to one’s prayer and entreaty, beseeching God that He answer one in accordance with His faithfulness, could conclude such a plea with the cold and impersonal: “and in Thy righteousness.” In our opinion, s’daqah is here what we have found it to be, an act of kindness and protective providence. The psalmist asks for God’s answer of faithfulness and saving help. He asks for an answer not in s’daqah but with s’daqah. The meaning becomes even clearer toward the close of the same psalm where we read:

For Thy name’s sake, O Lord, quicken me;

With Thy s’daqah bring my soul out of trouble.

And with Thy hesed cut off mine enemies,

And destroy all them that harass my soul.

Once again we have the parallelism of hesed and s’daqah. Again we maintain that no one ever turned to God that He may bring one’s soul out of trouble “in His righteousness.” One entreats God that He may do it with His s’daqah.¹⁸For other examples of parallelism between hesed and s’daqah, cf. Pss. 119:40; 36:10–11; 88:12–13.

The connection between s’daqah and God’s lovingkindness and mercy comes to appropriate expression in a prayer of Daniel as well. In that prayer occurs the plea:

O Lord, according to all Thy s’daqoth, let Thine anger and Thy fury,

I pray Thee, be turned away from Thy city of Jerusalem. … O my God, incline Thine ear, and hear; open Thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city upon which Thy name is called; for we do not present our supplications before Thee because of our s’daqoth, but because of Thy great compassion. O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, attend and do, defer not.¹⁹Dan. 9:16–19.

In both cases we left the plural form of s’daqah stand. All God’s s’daqoth are, of course, not God’s righteousness; they are God’s acts of s’daqah. Israel’s s’daqah is confronted with God’s. We do not rely, says Daniel, on our good deeds, but on God’s; we turn to God in prayer, “because of Thy great compassion.” This latter phrase is a variation on the subject of God’s s’daqah. God acts with s’daqah because of his compassion. Appealing to God’s s’daqah comprehends the many-fold request that he “hear, forgive, attend and do, and defer not.”²⁰It is true that in the same chapter in verse seven we read: “Unto Thee, O Lord, belongeth s’daqah, but unto us confusion of face”; but in a similar vein it is also said there, in the same context and in the same mood: “To the Lord our God belong compassions and forgiveness; for we have rebelled against Him” (ibid., vs. 9). In the verses, which we have analyzed in our text, God’s s’daqah is understood to be motivated by compassion; forgiveness is one of its manifestations. The reference in vs. 7 is to s’daqah in the same sense as the reference there to God’s compassions and forgiveness.

It is natural for the psalmist to appeal to God’s s’daqah when he prays for salvation. Such a prayer in which the idea of God’s s’daqah is referred to most often, is Psalm 71. It opens with the moving words:

In thee, O Lord, have I taken refuge;

Let me never be ashamed.

Deliver me by Thy s’daqah, and rescue me;

Incline Thine ear unto me, and save me.

“Deliver me in Thy righteousness” would be a jarring note here, much too intellectual and therefore destructive of the emotional longing and intimacy with which the psalmist turns to God. God’s s’daqah occurs repeatedly in the psalm, but usually in connection with his “mighty acts,” his “wondrous works,” and “the great things which he has done.” The works and acts are mighty deeds of rescue and salvation. The thought comes to complete expression in the verse:

My mouth shall tell of Thy s’daqah,

And of Thy salvation all the day;

For I know not the numbers thereof. (vs. 15)

It is for God’s s’daqah and salvation, which were granted to him, that the psalmist gives thanks and sings God’s praises toward the end of the psalm which reaches its conclusion in the words:

My lips shall greatly rejoice when I sing praises unto Thee;

And my soul, which Thou hast redeemed.

My tongue also shall tell of Thy s’daqah all the day;

For they are ashamed, for they are abashed, that seek my hurt.

There is little doubt that in this entire psalm s’daqah is synonymous with salvation; it is God’s act that brings redemption about. Thanksgiving and praise are offered for God’s s’daqah which was bestowed upon the psalmist. Indeed, the prophets occasionally use s’daqah in the form of the parallelism with y’shu’ah, help, salvation, or as having the same meaning. We find this quite often in Isaiah. God, apparently addressing himself to the enemies of Zion who are far removed from the practice of s’daqah, exclaims:

Hearken unto Me, ye stout-hearted,

That are far from s’daqah;

I bring near My s’daqah, it shall not be far off,

And My salvation shall not tarry;

And I will place salvation in Zion

For Israel My glory. (Isa. 46:12–13)

What God proclaims that he will “bring near” and that is “not far off” is tangible, material, actual help; it is the parallel to the salvation which will not tarry in its coming. In another place we read:

But My s’daqah shall be for ever,

And My salvation unto all generations. (Isa. 51:8)

This couplet recalls the lines in the Psalms which we have encountered already twice in our discussion, according to which God’s hesed is everlasting and his s’daqah unto children’s children. The terms hesed, y’shu’ah, s’daqah become practically interchangeable.

One of the most significant passages which illustrates our point is also found in Isaiah. In chapter 61 we read:

I will greatly rejoice in the Lord,

My soul shall be joyful in My God;

For He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation,

He hath covered me with the robe of s’daqah,

As a bridegroom putteth on a priestly diadem,

And as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.

For as the earth bringeth forth her growth,

And as the garden causeth the things that are sown in it to spring forth;

So the Lord will cause s’daqah and glory

To spring [literally, grow] forth before all the nations. (vss. 10–11)

Needless to say that it would be utterly meaningless to render here s’daqah as “righteousness.” To cover someone with the robe of righteousness does not seem to make much good sense. Nor may one attach much significance to God’s causing righteousness and glory to grow before all the nations. What is more, in both places in our quotation, s’daqah has the same meaning. If s’daqah cannot mean righteousness in the first place, neither will it have that meaning in connection with “glory” in the end. But neither is there any need for the far-fetched translation of s’daqah as “victory.”²¹See the R.V. and the J.P.S. translations. That s’daqah here has no other meaning than anywhere else one might guess by the verb samah, to grow, which is used in order to say that God will cause s’daqah “to spring forth.” Now this is a familiar expression in connection with s’daqah, but in the other places the growth of s’daqah never means “victory.”²²See Isa. 45:8; Jer. 33:15. Our quotation will best be understood if we compare it with a passage in the Psalms. We refer to the first verses of Psalm 98:

O sing unto the Lord a new song;

For He hath done marvelous things;

His right hand and the arm of his holiness, hath wrought salvation for Him.

The Lord hath made known His salvation;

His s’daqah hath He revealed in the sight of the nations.

He hath remembered His hesed and His faithfulness toward the house of Israel;

All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God.

The theme is the same as in the text from Isaiah; the terminology, too, is identical. S’daqah is given a place by the psalmist amidst y’shu’ah (salvation), hesed (love), emunah (faithfulness). There is no room here for “victory.” One cannot say that God reveals his victory in the sight of the nations. One reveals something that is present all the time but has remained hidden. The phrase cannot be applied to victory. Victory over Israel’s enemies would be an entirely new event which was nonexistent before. S’daqah here, as so often, is synonymous with the other terms with which it is associated. One may well say that in Israel’s salvation God reveals his s’daqah toward them. As everywhere else s’daqah is help, protection, an act of redemption. And indeed, according to the psalmist, when God reveals his s’daqah in the sight of the nations, then “all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God.”

Let us now have another glance at our quotation from Isaiah. “The robe of s’daqah” is the parallel to “the garments of salvation.” And, indeed, s’daqah brings about salvation. “The robe of s’daqah” is the robe of help or redemption. Similarly, the s’daqah which God will cause to grow forth “before all the nations” is Israel’s redemption of which the psalmist says that God will reveal it as His s’daqah toward Israel “in the sight of the nations.” Jeremiah uses the concept of s’daqah in the same sense when he declares:

The Lord hath brought forth our s’daqah;

Come, and let us declare in Zion

The work of the Lord our God. (51:10)

Here, too, the theme is the same as in our texts from Isaiah and the Psalms. In fact, the verb hozee, brought forth, is the same as the one used by Isaiah in the simile of the earth “that bringeth forth her growth” as God causes s’daqah to grow “before all the nations.” Jeremiah’s “brought forth” is identical with Isaiah’s “will cause to grow.” Jeremiah, too, speaks of God’s salvation and redemption that His work has brought about.

We are already familiar with the prophecy of Joel that God will give the children of Zion “the former rain for s’daqah.” It means, of course, he will give them rain for a salvation. Malachi, too, used s’daqah with the same signification when he let God speak in these terms:

But unto you that fear My name

Shall the sun of s’daqah arise, and with healing in its wings;

And ye shall go forth, and gambol

As calves of the stall. (Mal. 3:20)

We submit that “a sun of righteousness” does not make much sense in this context; the sun of redemption does. The prophet uses the sun as a symbol of healing; he speaks of the day that will bring help and healing to those who fear God’s name. Finally, there are the well-known words in the Psalms which are the answer to the question: “Who shall ascend into the mountain of the Lord? And who shall stand in His holy place?”

He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart;

Who hath not taken My name in vain,

And hath not sworn deceitfully.

He shall receive a blessing from the Lord

And s’daqah from the God of his salvation. (24:4–5)

When these words are fully translated, we usually get: “And righteousness from the God of his salvation.” If only we knew why the God of one’s salvation should be concerned about granting one righteousness. Not to mention the fact that we have not the slightest idea how a man of clean hands and pure heart, as he is described in the Psalms, may receive righteousness from God. He seems to possess it already in fullest measure. In fact, we cannot see how anyone may receive righteousness as if it were a gift. The truth is that there is no mention made here of righteousness. S’daqah here is the parallel to b’rakha, blessing. Just as God’s blessing is a reward to the man of clean hands and a pure heart, so is also s’daqah. Its meaning is help and redemption, which is—indeed—granted by the God of one’s salvation.

SEDEQ AND MISHPAT

We shall now turn our attention to the examination of the concept of sedeq. Its meaning seems to be rather close to that of s’daqah. In fact, some commentators and translators often treat the two as if they were interchangeable. We shall see whether this interpretation is correct.

On numerous occasions, sedeq appears as an attribute of mishpat, of the administration of justice. According to biblical injunction, one must not respect the person of the poor or favor the mighty in judgment; “but in sedeq shalt thou judge thy neighbor.” Of the judges, who had to be set up “in all thy gates,” it is said: “and they shall judge the people mishpat sedeq.” In the first example sedeq means “justice,” in the second “just.” Similarly, it is also said: “and judge sedeq between a man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.”²³Lev. 19:15; Deut. 16:18; ibid. 1:16. God is called a shofet sedeq, a just judge.²⁴Jer. 11:20; Pss. 9:4. Isaiah prophecies concerning the Messiah that he will judge the poor with sedeq.²⁵Isa. 11:4. Sedeq is also required of a man’s trading. The scales, the weights, the measures, they all must be sedeq, just.²⁶Lev. 19:36; Deut. 25:15. And who is not familiar with the biblical admonishment: “Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons; neither shalt thou take a gift; for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous. Sedeq, sedeq shalt thou pursue, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.”²⁷Deut. 16:19–20 Here, too, sedeq means justice. Looked at superficially it would seem to be rather removed from what we have found s’daqah to indicate. However, we should recall what has been said on the biblical concept of mishpat (justice) and immediately the gap between sedeq, in the sense of just or justice, and s’daqah will narrow considerably. The full significance of the idea of a judgment which is sedeq comes to clearest expression in the exultation of the psalmist over such a judgment.

Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice;

Let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof;

Let the field exult, and all that is therein;

Then shall all the trees of the wood sing for joy;

Before the Lord, for He is come;

For He is come to judge the earth;

He will judge the world with sedeq,

And the peoples in His faithfulness. (Pss. 96:11–13)

When God comes to judge the world with sedeq, it is an occasion for universal joy. As we have found his mishpat to be, so is his sedeq, a protecting and saving act. According to the psalmist, God’s judgment with sedeq is the parallel to His judging “the peoples in His faithfulness.” Sedeq is a form of justice that is the manifestation of faithfulness toward the people to whom justice is denied. Such justice is rather close to salvation. The joyous abandon, to which the psalmist calls all God’s creation, testifies to a sense of liberation as the outcome of God’s judgment with sedeq. Indeed, in one of the psalms, the psalmist links the theme of redemption with God’s judging the earth with sedeq. We have already quoted and analyzed the first part of this psalm in our discussion of s’daqah and we shall quote it, assuming the meaning we gave it in our analysis.

O sing unto the Lord a new song;

For He hath done marvellous things;

His right hand, and the arm of His holiness, hath wrought salvation for Him.

The Lord hath made known His salvation;

His s’daqah hath He revealed in the sight of the nations.

He hath remembered His hesed [love] and His faithfulness toward the house of Israel;

All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God.

Shout unto the Lord, all the earth;

Break forth and sing for joy. yea, sing praises.

Sing praises unto the Lord with the harp;

With the harp and the voice of melody.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof;

The world, and they that dwell therein;

Let the floods clap their hands;

Let the mountains sing for joy together;

Before the Lord, for He is come to judge the earth;

He judges²⁸The context indicates that yishpot here is not the future but the continuous presence. the world with sedeq,

And the peoples with equity. (Pss. 98)

It would seem to us that the psalm has one theme. The “new song” is a song of salvation, a song over s’daqah, redemption granted and hesed, love remembered in faithfulness. It is the same song to which “all the ends of the earth” are also called, for God has judged with sedeq. Judging with sedeq, he wrought salvation and revealed s’daqah and hesed. It is worth noting that, whereas in the previous psalm God’s faithfulness was the parallel to his sedeq, in our last quotation he remembers his love and his faithfulness. It is God’s faithfulness that causes him to judge with sedeq, the same faithfulness that induces him to work salvation and redemption.

While sedeq is used as an attribute of mishpat, when mishpat stands for judgment, sedeq is different from mishpat, when the latter means “justice.” Perhaps the best known example is the verse in Hosea:

Yea, I will betroth thee unto Me in sedeq, and in mishpat,

And in lovingkindness [hesed], and in compassion [rahamim]. (2:21)

The quotation shows that sedeq and mishpat are not identical. Similarly, it is said of God’s throne that sedeq and mishpat are its foundations.²⁹Pss. 89:15; 97:2–3. Proverbs is introduced as having the purpose, among other things, to communicate “sedeq and mishpat and equity.” In another place we read that through wisdom one understands “sedeq and mishpat, and equity, yea, every good path.”³⁰Prov. 1:3; 2:9. In our discussion of emeth we had occasion to quote the words of Isaiah:

And a throne is established through hesed,

And there sitteth thereon enduringly [safely, i.e., in emeth], in the tent of David,

One that judgeth, and seeketh mishpat, and is ready in sedeq. (16:5)

A number of other passages, too, show that mishpat in the sense of justice is not identical with sedeq.³¹Cf. Pss. 94:15; 37:6; Eccles. 3:16; 5:7. The question arises, how is sedeq to be understood, if it is distinct from justice and yet it is required of judgment that it be sedeq.

SEDEQ RECEIVED—REDEMPTION

As if to complicate matters further, sedeq, very much like s’daqah, is often identical with y’shu’ah, salvation or redemption. One finds this meaning in a famous passage in Isaiah, where we read:

For Zion’s sake I will not hold My peace,

And for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest,

Until her sedeq go forth as brightness,

And her y’shu’ah [salvation] as a torch that burneth.

And the nations shall see thy sedeq.

And all kings thy glory. (62:1–2)

Needless to say, in our present quotation, sedeq cannot have the meaning of either justice or righteousness. The passage reminds us of the two texts from Isaiah and the Psalms, which we have discussed earlier in this chapter, in which it was said of s’daqah that God reveals it before the nations. As s’daqah in those examples, so sedeq here seems to be synonymous with y’shu’ah. The theme is the same—God granting salvation and redemption to Israel in the sight of all mankind. Once this is seen clearly, a number of otherwise obscure passages in the Bible become illuminated. The psalmist, for instance, prays:

Answer me when I call, O God of my sedeq,

Thou who didst set me free when I was in distress;

Be gracious unto me, and hear my prayer. (Pss. 4:2)

We maintain that the rendering “God of my righteousness” is meaningless. The concept itself does not seem to have much sense. No intelligent notion may be associated with the “God of one’s righteousness.” What, indeed, could that be? Furthermore, there is certainly no room for such an idea in the context of our quotation. The psalmist turns in prayer to the God who “set him free when he was in distress.” It is the God who saved him in the past. He appeals to God’s graciousness and pleads for an answer to his call. In keeping with the subject and the mood of the plea, “God of my sedeq” should be rendered as, God of my redemption. “God of my salvation” is, of course, a familiar biblical concept.

Psalm 118 is the great psalm of thanksgiving. With exuberance the psalmist praises and thanks God for his deliverance. He was in dire straits, God chastened him sorely; but God became his refuge and salvation. In this mood of elation over his deliverance, the psalmist exclaims:

Open to me the gates of sedeq;

I will enter into them, I will give thanks unto the Lord.

This is the gate of the Lord;

The sadiqim shall enter into it.

I will give thanks unto Thee, for Thou hast answered me,

And art become my salvation. (vss. 19–21)

We have left the word sadiqim untranslated. As long as we do not comprehend the meaning of sedeq, it is hardly possible to know exactly what a sadiq might be. One thing, however, seems plausible. It is unlikely that the psalmist calls for the opening of the gates of righteousness. Why should he refer to the gates of righteousness when he wishes to enter through them in order to thank God for deliverance and salvation. It is more likely that, as in our previous example, here, too, sedeq means help and redemption. The psalmist calls God the God of his redemption (sedeq); by the same reasoning, the gates of God’s temple are the gates of redemption (sedeq). It is natural to enter such gates in order to offer thanks.

In Psalm 23 occurs the phrase, paths of sedeq. Standing by itself, it would not be difficult to interpret it as, paths of righteousness. Unfortunately, the context does not allow such an interpretation. Let us consider the words of the psalmist.

The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.

He maketh me to lie down in green pastures;

He leadeth me beside the still waters.

He restoreth my soul;

He guideth me in paths of sedeq for His name’s sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,

I will fear no evil,

For Thou art with me. (vss. 1–4)

Surely, the renderings “paths of righteousness” or “straight paths”³²Cf. R.V. and the J.P.S. translations. are no translations but rather destructive interruptions of the singular beauty in the sequence of the psalmist’s thought. The paths of sedeq are paths of redemption or deliverance, as the gates of sedeq are gates of divine salvation.

We are now in a position to clear up another, usually misunderstood, biblical passage. It is found in Isaiah. God’s Anointed, who is sent “to bring good tidings unto the humble” and “to proclaim liberty unto the captives,” also has the task

To comfort all that mourn;

To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion,

To give unto them a garland in place of ashes,

The oil of joy in place of mourning,

The mantle of praise in place of the spirit of heaviness;

That they might be called the terebinths of sedeq,

The planting of the Lord, wherein He might glory. (61:3)

Surely, the text does not tolerate the translation, “terebinths of righteousness.” In this great prophecy the mourners in Zion are promised divine consolation. The ashes on their heads will be replaced by a garland; their mourning will give room to joy, “the spirit of heaviness” will be taken from them. But why should God’s comfort and consolation cause them to be called “terebinth of righteousness”? Obviously, the theme of terebinth of sedeq is further elaborated by the phrase which follows immediately after it, the planting of the Lord. The terebinths of sedeq are God’s planting; God has planted them with sedeq. But we know from the context that God grants them new strength and a new life, plants them anew that they may grow like mighty terebinth, by binding up the broken–hearted and liberating the captives, by comforting them over their past, and bringing them joy for a new day. Because he does all this to them, they are called God’s planting and terebinth of God’s sedeq. Sedeq is then what God does for them, as he “plants” them anew. They are, therefore, properly called, terebinth of redemption, the planting of God’s acts of deliverance.

It is quite in keeping with our analysis thus far that we hear Jeremiah use the phrase, habitation of sedeq. It occurs in the following passage:

Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel:

Yet again shall they use this speech

In the land of Judah and in the cities thereof,

When I shall turn their captivity:

The Lord bless thee, O habitation of sedeq,

O mountain of holiness.

And Judah and all the cities thereof

Shall dwell therein together:

The husbandmen, and they that go forth with flocks.

For I have satiated the weary soul,

And I every pining soul I have replenished. (Jer. 31:23)

The theme of the passage is Israel’s redemption. There is no reason at all why in this connection one should refer to Jerusalem as the habitation of righteousness. But we recall Isaiah’s prophecy that “thou shalt call thy walls Salvation and thy gates Praise.”³³Isa. 60:18. In the same sense does also Jeremiah speak of Jerusalem as the habitation of sedeq, by which he means that Jerusalem has become the city of redemption. Recalling what has been said in our analysis of the concept of holiness, we may well see why “the city of redemption” is followed by the phrase, O mountain of holiness. As Jerusalem becomes the city of salvation, so is God’s closeness to Israel revealed anew which is symbolized by the Temple of Jerusalem. Jeremiah uses the expression “habitation of sedeq” in one other place. It occurs in the following context:

All that found them have devoured them;

And their adversaries said: We are not guilty;

Because they have sinned against the Lord, the habitation of sedeq,

Even the Lord, the hope of their fathers. (50:7)

The parallelism between sedeq and mikveh (hope) indicates that sedeq is unlikely to stand here for “justice.” The habitation of sedeq is the hope of their fathers. We, therefore, maintain that here, too, sedeq is to be understood as redemption. Surprising and most original, is the application of the term to God. God, who was the hope of the ancestors of Israel, is the dwelling of their salvation. The enemies of Israel believe that they are free of guilt for the cruelties they inflict upon them, because Israel has sinned against God who is their only hope and the only source of their redemption. We are already familiar with the psalmist’s appellation for God as sidqi, my salvation. It is in the same spirit that Jeremiah calls God, habitation of sedeq. Of course, Jeremiah himself also uses sedeq, directly refering to God, very much like the psalmist. It is found in a famous passage which occurs twice in Jeremiah Of “the shoot” that God will raise unto David it is said:

And he shall reign as king and prosper,

And shall do mishpat [justice] and s’daqah in the land.

In his days Judah shall be saved,

And Israel shall dwell safely;

And this is his name whereby he shall be called,

The Lord—our sedeq. (23:5–6; see also 33:16)

We have already indicated in our discussion that the phrase, the God of our righteousness, is unintelligible. So is also the expression now before us: the Lord (is) our righteousness. As to the context, quite clearly there is no occasion here for mentioning either justice or righteousness. Raising the Messiah, who practices mishpat and s’daqah, and in whose days Judah is saved and Israel dwells safely, is neither justice nor righteousness. It is an act of salvation. The Messiah will be known by what God does through him for Israel. Through him God will be revealed as the Lord—our sedeq, our redemption. We may now revert once again to Isaiah’s formulation which we have discussed earlier, terebinth of sedeq. According to Isaiah, Israel—comforted and saved by God—will be called: the terebinths of sedeq, the plantings of the Lord. Bearing in mind that sedeq is occasionally an appellation for God, we may very well say that here sedeq is synonymous with “the Lord,” in the phrase which follows the parallelism would then be complete. The inhabitants of Zion will be known as the terebinths of Redemption, i.e., as God’s terebinths, the work of his planting.

We have found that like s’daqah, sedeq, too, is used in the two-fold meaning of sedeq done and sedeq received. Since sedeq received is synonymous with redemption or deliverance, we have a fair idea of what is meant by the practice of sedeq. May we conclude from this that sedeq and s’daqah are identical? There are a number of passages in the Bible which exclude the possibility of such identification. Isaiah, for instance, says:

Drop down [i.e., cause to rain], ye heavens, from above,

And let the skies pour down sedeq;

Let the earth open that they may bring forth salvation,

And let her cause s’daqah to spring up together;

I the Lord have created it. (45:8)

A careful reading of the text will show that sedeq and s’daqah here have different meanings. Sedeq comes from on high; it is compared to the rain. Salvation and s’daqah grow from the earth which has been rendered fruitful through sedeq. They are the earth’s response to the blessing from the heavens. It is as little possible to identify sedeq with s’daqah as it is to identify the rain with the flowers of the field or the fruits of the trees. According to this text sedeq is instrumental in bringing forth y’shu’ah (salvation) and s’daqah. We have already had occasion to refer to the allegory of growth from the earth which is applied to s’daqah. It is used by Jeremiah as well as by Isaiah.³⁴Cf. Jer. 33:15. It is, however, interesting to note that the relationship between sedeq and s’daqah which we have just established in the style of Isaiah exists also for Hosea. The relevant verse is:

Sow to yourselves for s’daqah

Reap according to hesed [love].

Break up your fallow ground;

For it is time to seek the Lord,

Till He come and cause sedeq to rain upon you. (10:12)

The first line in our quotation is rather difficult to interpret. We do not follow the Revised Version because li-s’daqah does not mean in righteousness, just as l’phee hesed should not be rendered as in mercy. The J.P.S. translation of the latter phrase as, according to mercy, is more correct; yet we cannot follow it when in the first line it reads according to righteousness. While it does make good sense to say that one reaps according to the love that was spent on the act of sowing, it is difficult to see how one sows to oneself according to righteousness. “Sow according to righteousness” may be acceptable, but not, sow to yourselves according to it. However, in our discussion of the concept of s’daqah we have analyzed the meaning of such expressions as, l’kha tih’yeh s’daqah or s’daqah tih’yeh lanu (thou shalt have s’daqah or we shall have s’daqah). We have found that they meant that acting in accordance with God’s commandments would yield s’daqah, reward, help from God. In this sense does Hosea say: sow to yourselves for s’daqah. Live so that God may grant you his s’daqah. The actions of man are the seeds that will yield s’daqah for him in the end. However, in the allegory of Hosea, man’s work is like that of the tillers of the soil. One breaks up the fallow ground, one plants the seed. But for the seed to grow, rain is needed. God’s sedeq from on high turns man’s sowing into s’daqah for man. The relationship between sedeq and s’daqah is the same as in Isaiah. S’daqah is the fruit which has been made to grow by God’s sedeq from above. We shall yet return to a further consideration of this connection between the two concepts. For the time being suffice it to show that sedeq and s’daqah are not identical. This is also indicated in the following words of the psalmist:

I have made known sedeq in the great congregation,

Lo, I did not refrain my lips;

O Lord, Thou knowest.

I have not hid Thy s’daqah within my heart. (Pss. 40:10–11)

Again we are unable to follow the R.V. and the J.P.S. edition which read the first line as I have preached righteousness. The Hebrew bisser does not mean to preach, but to tell, to make known, to announce some news. It is the exact parallel to the phrases that follow, i.e., “I have not hid,” “I have declared,” “I have not concealed.” Verses 10–12 form one theme. However, if one does not distinguish between sedeq and s’daqah, the line with s’daqah becomes redundant. Since, however, bisser does mean to make known and not to preach, the conclusion we have to draw from this psalm is that sedeq and s’daqah are not identical.

SEDEQ AND GOD’S LAWS AND COMMANDMENTS

It appears that we have still not exhausted all the connotations that sedeq has. According to Isaiah those who pursue sedeq are seekers of God and those who know sedeq are the ones who have God’s law in their heart.³⁵Isa. 51:1, 7. In keeping with these ideas, the doing of sedeq is equated by the psalmist with the fulfilling of God’s commandments. When the psalmist prays that he be rewarded according to his sedeq and the cleanness of his hands, he elaborates his meaning by saying:

For I have kept the ways of the Lord,

And have not wickedly departed from my God.

For all his ordinances were before me,

And I put not away His statutes from me.

And I was single-hearted with Him,

And I kept myself from mine iniquity.

Therefore hath the Lord recompensed me according to my sedeq,

According to the cleanness of my hands in His eyes. (Pss. 18:22–25)

This psalm gives us practically a definition of sedeq. It is something akin to the cleanness of one’s hands in the sight of God. It is accomplished by keeping the laws and ways of God and being “single-hearted with Him.” In this sense one might well say that he who pursues sedeq is a God-seeker and he who knows sedeq has God’s law in his heart.

Isaiah, too, seems to associate such a comprehensive meaning with sedeq. We find it in one of his most famous passages.

Is not this the fast that I have chosen?

To loose the fetters of wickedness,

To undo the bands of the yoke,

And to let the oppressed go free,

And that ye break every yoke?

Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry,

And that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house?

When thou seest the naked, that thou cover him,

And that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?

Then shall thy light break forth as the morning,

And thy healing shall spring forth speedily;

And thy sedeq shall go before thee,

The glory of the Lord shall be thy rearward. (58:6–8)

It would seem that the observance of “the fast,” as described by the prophet, would constitute one’s sedeq. Sedeq would then be all that “the fast” requires: the crushing of the power of evil, the liberation of the captives, the shattering of all yokes that oppress men, the feeding of the hungry, the clothing of the naked, and the housing of the poor. All this would be one’s sedeq which would walk ahead of a man like a protective shield. It would be identical with the psalmist’s definition of sedeq as the keeping of the ways of God. However, the position of sedeq in our quotation is somewhat ambiguous. It is preceded by the light and the healing that will break forth for the benefit of the one who observes “the fast” as it should be observed. But the light and the healing are the results of this kind of observance. It would then follow that sedeq in the same context is not what one does, but the outcome of one’s doing. Parallel to light and healing, sedeq would then have the meaning that we have found it to have quite often, i.e., salvation. The symbolism of God’s salvation walking ahead and his glory following behind as a rearguard would be most appropriate. There are, however, other passages, too, which seem to give us the comprehensive view of sedeq. Of the Messiah, for instance, God says through his prophet:

I the Lord have called thee in sedeq,

And have taken hold of thy hand,

And kept thee, and set thee for a covenant of the people,

For a light of the nations;

To open the blind eyes,

To bring out the prisoners from the dungeon,

And them that sit in darkness out of the prison-house. (Isa. 42:6–7)

The theme here is very similar to the one in our previous quotation. We assume that God’s calling the Messiah in sedeq is a reference to the purpose for the sake of which the Messiah is called. His function is to implement sedeq. He fulfills his task by being a light for the people, making the blind see, and by liberating the prisoners from their dungeons. Doing this would then be the doing of sedeq. We may now take up the discussion of a passage in Psalms, a part of which we already had occasion to refer to, when we showed that sedeq and s’daqah are not identical. It reads in full as follows:

I have made known sedeq in the great congregation,

Lo, I did not refrain my lips;

O Lord, Thou knowest.

I have not hid Thy s’daqah within my heart;

I have declared Thy emunah [faithfulness] and Thy salvation;

I have not concealed Thy hesed and Thy emeth [enduring lovingkindness] from the great congregation. (40:10–11)

We are by now familiar with the concepts of s’daqah, emunah, and hesed—and—emeth. But what position does sedeq have in our quotation? We believe that the entire passage has one common theme. This is indicated by the parallelism of “I have made known,” “I have not hid,” “I have declared,” and “I have not concealed.” The unity of the theme is further underlined by the repetition of the phrase, qahal rab, great congregation. We understand the relationship between s’daqah, emunah, and hesed—and—emeth. The deed of s’daqah toward the psalmist God enacted in faithfulness to him; the deed itself, God’s salvation, was a manifestation of God’s enduring lovingkindness toward him. These terms are closely knit into one interrelated complex of ideas. How does sedeq refer to this complex? We note that sedeq appears in a grammatical form which is different from that which the other constituents of the one theme have in common. They all have the suffix, which corresponds to the possessive pronoun, thy. Sedeq alone does not have that suffix. It is a stylistic indication that sedeq is outside the complex of ideas formed by s’daqah, emunah, y’shu’ah (salvation), and hesed—and—emeth. Yet, it is part of the one theme. We believe that verse 10 of our text is the thesis and verse 11 is its elaboration. The psalmist declares that he made known sedeq in the great congregation; he did not refrain his lips from announcing it. And now follows the explanation. How did he do it? By not hiding God’s s’daqah in his heart, by declaring His faithfulness and His salvation, by not concealing His enduring lovingkindness from the great congregation. The declaration of sedeq is the theme. One declares sedeq by revealing God’s s’daqah, emunah, y’shu’ah, hesed—and—emeth. These latter would then add up to sedeq. The psalmist speaks here about sedeq received from God. But such comprehensive definition of sedeq received would correspond to the comprehensive idea of sedeq which is to be practiced and which consists in following the ways of God. Being a light unto others, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, freeing the captives, and breaking the yoke of iniquity, as the doing of sedeq, imply the enacting of s’daqah, emunah, y’shu’ah, and hesed—and—emeth.

Thus far, we have found that sedeq is consistent with a number of meanings. It may apply to mishpat in the sense of just or justice. It may stand for redemption or salvation performed or received. It may also have the meaning of what is right in the widest sense of the word, as following the ways of God and fulfilling his law. Such sedeq again may have the meaning of sedeq practiced and sedeq received. We noted that sedeq may qualify mishpat, it is not identical with it. Similarly, we have established that, while there exists some relationship between sedeq and s’daqah, s’daqah seems to be subordinated to sedeq. What, then, is sedeq?

Before attempting to answer the question, we shall survey the uses that the term sadiq has in the Bible.

THE SADIQ

The sadiq is, of course, the opposite to the rasha, the wicked. The examples are too numerous to require proofs from the sources. We are concerned with the special qualities that characterize a sadiq. In connection with mishpat, sadiq seems to have a purely negative significance. In the courts, a sadiq is he who is free from guilt or has the right on his side. It is in this sense that sadiq is used in Exodus: “Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause. Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and the sadiq slay thou not for I will not justify the wicked.”³⁶Exod. 23:7. Sadiq here does not stand for a positive characteristic of the person. It is the one who is not guilty in the case before the judges. Similarly, Abimeleh pleads with God: “Lord, wilt Thou slay even a nation that is sadiq. … In the simplicity of my heart and the innocency of my hands have I done this.”³⁷Gen. 20:4. Here, too, sadiq is not a positive trait of personality. It is absence of guilt and innocence. Since the purpose of mishpat is to protect the poor whose right is denied, the sadiq, the innocent, the man who has the right on his side, is often found among the ranks of the weak and the humble. Thus, Amos castigates Israel for selling the sadiq for silver and the needy for a pair of shoes. Among their many sins weighs heavily that they “afflict the sadiq, take a ransom and turn aside the needy in the gate.”³⁸Amos 2:6; 5:12. The needy, who cannot defend himself when justice is denied him, is also the sadiq in such a situation. It is for this reason that in the same context, in which the psalmist speaks of God’s executing judgment for the oppressed, he also has reason to mention that “the Lord raiseth up them that are bowed down; the Lord loveth the sadiq.”³⁹Pss. 146:8.

However, not only the innocent in court is considered a sadiq; the judge, too, who judges justly, is a sadiq. Ezekiel announces that Oholah and Oholibah will be judged by men who are sadiqim.⁴⁰Ezek. 23:45. According to Proverbs, the sadiq knows the cause of the poor.⁴¹Prov. 29:7. In this case, of course, the term sadiq is not a mere indication of innocence but it becomes a positive expression of character. Sadiq is a person who is just, who enacts sedeq, in the sense in which sedeq applies to the dispensation of justice. But the idea of the sadiq has to be broadened further. Jeremiah, for instance, who describes “the shoot” that God will raise unto David as a sadiq, says of him that he will execute mishpat and s’daqah in the land.⁴²Jer. 23:5. Shall we then say that the practice of mishpat and s’daqah makes one a sadiq? At the same time we also find that being a sadiq is associated with being merciful and charitable. According to the Psalms, whereas the wicked borrows and does not pay back, the sadiq is merciful and gives.⁴³Pss. 37:21; see also ibid. 112:4–5. Of the sadiq it is said that he regards even the life of his beast, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.⁴⁴Prov. 12:10. Since the compassionate consideration of the life of a beast or charity shown to others are acts of s’daqah, it would seem that he who practices s’daqah may be called a sadiq. The most comprehensive view of the sadiq is that he is a servant of God. In the words of Malachi, on the day on which God will spare Israel like a man spares his son who serves him, they shall know how to discern “between the sadiq and the rasha, between him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not.”⁴⁵Mal. 3:18. This, too, corresponds to a definition of sedeq. It is the one that we have found to comprehend the search for God, having his law in one’s heart, and following his ways. All that constitute sedeq and he who acquires and practices it serves God, he is a sadiq. This most comprehensive idea of the sadiq is spelled out in full detail by Ezekiel in the following great passage.

But if a man be a sadiq and do mishpat and s’daqah, and hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath he lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath he defiled his neighbor’s wife, neither hath he come near to a woman in her impurity; and hath not wronged any, but hath restored his pledge for a debt, hath taken nought by robbery, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; he that hath not given forth upon interest, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed enduring [reliable] justice between man and man, hath walked in My statutes, and hath kept Mine ordinances, to deal faithfully; he is a sadiq, he shall surely live, saith the Lord.⁴⁶Ezek. 18:5–9.

This, of course, is a tall order. Yet, it describes the sadiq of Malachi, who serves God. Ezekiel’s definition of what might be called the sadiq in the total sense contains all the elements of sedeq in its most comprehensive connotations.

It would seem that the concept of the sadiq retains its various connotations appropriately, when it is used as an attribute of, or an appellation for, God. God is Sadiq as a party to a suit in which He might be engaged by man for the treatment that God may mete out to him. In such a confrontation with God’s punishment Pharaoh concedes that he has sinned and God is the Sadiq. Faced with God’s punishment, who delivered them into the hands of Shishak, King Rehobeam and the people of Israel exclaim: “The Lord is sadiq.”⁴⁷Exod. 9:27; II Chron. 12:6. In a famous passage, speaking for Zion, Jeremiah laments: “The Lord is sadiq; for I have rebelled against His word.”⁴⁸Lam. 1:18; cf. also Jer. 12:1; Neh. 9:33. It is true, of course, that in our examples there is also present the idea that God is the just judge. His punishment is his judgment. However, the reference to God the Sadiq, who dispenses mishpat, occurs also explicitly. The prophet Zephaniah calls God Sadiq, who brings his mishpat to light every morning. The psalmist exclaims: “Thou art Sadiq, O Lord, and upright are Thy judgments [mishpatim].”⁴⁹Zeph. 3:5; Pss. 119:137. But God is Sadiq not only because he is just; God who is Sadiq loves acts of s’daqah. The psalmist, praying to God for the deliverance of his soul, affirms: “Gracious is the Lord and sadiq; yea, our God is compassionate.” God is appealed to as sadiq, who practices sedeq in the sense in which it is closest to s’daqah, i.e., as mercy and deliverance.⁵⁰Pss. 11:7; 116:5. Because, as we saw, sedeq does have the meaning of deliverance or redemption and is, thus, synonymous with y’shu’ah, salvation, God could say of himself through his prophet Isaiah that he was a God who was a Sadiq and a Savior.⁵¹Isa. 45:21. The reference there is not to God’s justice, but to his redeeming acts. The call to man in the same context is: “Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth.” He who practices sedeq in its significance as redemption is indeed the Savior Sadiq. Since sedeq has the connotation of deliverance and since God is called Sadiq in his capacity as Savior, Isaiah does not say, at the conclusion of the same passage, as his words are usually rendered, that Israel will be justified in the Lord. The subject of that passage is not justification but salvation. What he says should be rendered as follows: “In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be redeemed and shall glory.”⁵²Ibid., vs. 25. Bearing this significance of the term of sadiq in mind, we are in a position to interpret an otherwise difficult use of it by Ezra. At the conclusion of one of his prayers, Ezra said: “O Lord, the God of Israel, Thou art sadiq; for we are left a remnant that is escaped.”⁵³Ezra 9:15. It is difficult to interpret sadiq here as “just” or “righteous,” for in the same prayer Ezra also maintained that God punished Israel less than they deserved and left them a remnant. The escape of a remnant was, therefore, the result not of God’s justice or righteousness, but of his mercy. What Ezra meant by calling God a Sadiq was the same that Isaiah had in mind when he referred to God as El Sadiq u-Moshia, a God Deliverer and Savior. That is what God was to Israel in the days of Ezra, for they were “left a remnant that escaped.”

Corresponding to the most comprehensive meaning of sedeq, as far as it is applicable to God, God is referred to as Sadiq in the most comprehensive sense in Deuteronomy. It is in the well-known verse:

The Rock, His work is perfect;

For all his ways are mishpat;

A God of emunah and without iniquity,

Sadiq and upright is He. (32:4)

We recall what we have said in the interpretation of the second line of our quotation in our discussion of the subject of mishpat. Only if one does not narrow the meaning of the term to “justice,” only if we understand mishpat as the cosmic principle of preservation and providence by the balancing of all contending tendencies in the universe, can we say that all God’s ways are mishpat. As we saw, it is a mishpat that often requires acting with hesed and rahamim, with lovingkindness and mercy. God does this with emunah, in loyalty and enduring faithfulness toward his creation. Thus, there is no iniquity with him and all his work is perfect. This indeed is the Absolute Sadiq who is the divine counterpart to the one described by Ezekiel whom we called the sadiq in the total sense.

TOTAL SEDEQ—THE GOOD

It would seem that sedeq is the most comprehensive concept for that which is right. It is the idea of the Good. It subsumes mishpat, s’daqah, emunah or emeth, and y’shu’ah. All these are aspects of sedeq. Thus, sedeq qualifies mishpat. Mishpat is a manifestation of sedeq, therefore it should be appropriate to it. This has to be emphasized in the case of the administration of justice because it is possible to distort mishpat. Often mishpat is not sedeq. There is no need to urge that the other aspects of sedeq should be adhered to in sedeq, because it is not possible to practice s’daqah, emunah, or to work for y’shu’ah, without sedeq.⁵⁴Only once do we find sedeq qualifying s’daqah. In Psalm 119:142, we have: “Thy s’daqah is everlastingly sedeq and Thy law is emeth.” Now, as superfluous it would be to state that God’s law was true, even more pointless would it be to declare that His s’daqah was sedeq. Simply, because not only His but everybody’s s’daqah by definition cannot be anything but sedeq. However, as we saw in our discussion of the idea, emeth means enduringly reliable. Emeth here parallels sedeq l’olam in the first half of the verse. As in the case of the Torah the thought expressed is not that the Torah is true, but that it is enduringly valid; so in the case of s’daqah the idea is not that it is sedeq, but that it is everlasting. Sedeq is not a legal concept, but the highest moral good. It is for this reason that mishpat could not be defined in purely legal terms. As an expression of sedeq it continually tends to merge with hesed, rahamim, s’daqah, and y’shu’ah.

As to the significance of sedeq as y’shu’ah, it follows logically from its meaning. Only we have to bear in mind that, as s’daqah, sedeq, too, at times means sedeq done, at others sedeq received. Because sedeq is the good in its comprehensive sense, when it is done to someone, the recipient of it has received his salvation or deliverance. In this sense, sedeq and s’daqah have the same connotation. Yet, there is a difference. Often s’daqah, as help or reward, may indicate something specific and concrete, as the reward given to Jacob by Laban or David’s action toward Saul or Mephibosheth’s request for the award of the land. Sedeq, on the other hand, never seems to have this concrete significance. It always has the meaning of redemption in the abstract and is the result of varied activities that together bring salvation. This distinction would agree with our understanding that s’daqah is one specific and limited aspect of sedeq.

In order of values we would place sedeq first, to be followed by mishpat and s’daqah. Mishpat is the practice of sedeq in balancing the claims of two parties against each other. S’daqah is the doing of sedeq in one specific manner without paying attention to the balancing of one’s own claim as against the claim of the other party. The Bible seems to consider mishpat of greater importance than s’daqah. Almost always in the Bible sedeq preceeds mishpat, just as mishpat preceeds s’daqah. For instance:

Then shalt thou understand sedeq and mishpat,

And equity, yea, every good path. (Prov. 2:9)

Yea, I will betroth thee unto Me in sedeq, and in mishpat,

And in hesed and in rahamim [compassion]. (Hos. 2:21)

Thus for sedeq and mishpat, but in the case of mishpat and s’daqah we have:

And David executed mishpat and s’daqah unto all his people.

(II Sam. 8:15)

Then mishpat will dwell in the wilderness,

And s’daqah shall abide in the fruitful field. (Isa. 32:16)

The Lord is exalted, for He dwelleth on high;

He hath filled Zion with mishpat and s’daqah. (Isa. 33:5)⁵⁵Cf. also Pss. 72:2; 89:15; 97:3; Prov. 1:3; Isa. 32:1; I Kings 10:9; Isa. 28:17; 56:1; 59:9, 14; Jer. 9:23; 23:3, 5; Ezek. 33:14, 19; Amos 5:7, etc.

Of interest is a passage in Jeremiah where both associations occur in the same context.

Woe unto him that buildeth his house without sedeq;

And his chambers without mishpat;

That useth his neighbour’s service without wages,

And giveth him not his hire.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Did not thy father eat and drink, and do mishpat and s’daqah?

Then it was well with him. (22:13–15)

There are a few exceptions which can be explained.⁵⁶Sedeq follows on mishpat only once in Pss. 119:121, and twice in Eccles. 3:16; 5:7. As to the Pss., see the note in Minhat Shay. It may very well be that “I have done mishpat and sedeq” should be rendered as: “I have done mishpat and it was sedeq.” As to the passages in Ecclesiastes they have in common that they deal with the violation of sedeq and mishpat. It is not impossible to theorize why when one deplores the absence of these two, the distortion of mishpat should precede that of sedeq.
S’daqah precedes mishpat in Gen. 18:19; Pss. 33:5; Prov. 21:3. (One or two similar cases we do not consider belonging in this category.) Again these exceptions have one thing in common. They deal with God’s evaluation of mishpat and s’daqah. This may have some bearing on the change in the order of their listing. The rule, however, is that mishpat follows sedeq and s’daqah, mishpat. It suggests the order of values as: sedeq, mishpat, s’daqah.

SEDEQ, THE COSMIC PRINCIPLE OF CREATION

There is, however, one other rather important connotation of sedeq which requires careful consideration. It is mainly associated with God’s sedeq. On numerous occasions the subject of sedeq is introduced by reference to God’s creative power and activity. God’s address to the Messiah, who is called in sedeq, is introduced with the words:

Thus saith God the Lord,

He that created the heavens, and stretched them forth,

He that spread forth the earth and that which cometh out of it,

He that giveth breath unto the people upon it,

And spirit to them that walk therein: (Isa. 42:5)

Upon this introduction follow the words: “I the Lord have called thee in sedeq.” Similarly in the case of Cyrus, the introductory statement reads as follows:

Thus saith the Lord,

The Holy One of Israel, and his Maker:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I, even I, have made the earth,

And created man upon it;

I, even My hands, have stretched out the heavens,

And all their host have I commanded. (Isa. 45:11–12)

Only after such introduction do we hear the words: “I have roused him up in sedeq.” In both examples the introductory statement describes God’s work of creation. One cannot help wondering what connection there may be between God’s creative activity and His calling or arousing His respective Anointed? Even more puzzling, at first sight, is the following passage which is found in the same chapter in Isaiah from which our previous quotation stems:

For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens,

He is God;

That formed the earth and made it,

He established it,

He created it not tohu [a waste],

He formed it to be inhabited:

I am the Lord, and there is none else.

I have not spoken in secret,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I said not unto the seed of Jacob:

“Seek ye Me tohu”;

I the Lord speak sedeq,

I declare things that are right. (vss. 18–19)

Once again, the theme of creation introduces the subject of sedeq. But one may well be mystified attempting to establish a logical connection between the first part of our quotation which appears unlike its concluding idea. We have left the word tohu untranslated because it is the link between the subject of creation and that of sedeq, the vital bridge which is lost completely in the translation. Tohu is the formless and worthless, that which is without purpose and without meaning. God created the world not that it be tohu. The act of creation was not a mere manifestation of might and power. It was a purposeful act; he formed it to be inhabited. Creative might was purposefully directed. And when God asked to be acknowledged by Israel, he did not demand it for the sake of tohu, as the worthless worshipping of divine might, as one may pay homage to a tyrant. God did not ask of them tohu; he spoke to them sedeq and declared to them that which is right. The word of God to Israel, His law to them, was a continuation of God’s act of creation. Both had the same goal. The goal is the rejection of tohu. The plan of creation that “the earth be inhabited” was continued when God spoke to Israel sedeq and revealed to them that which is right. Sedeq is the opposite to tohu. The concept of tohu molds the two parts of our text into one theme. The act of creation was not an act of tohu but an act of divinely planned purpose; just as the word of God is not the word of tohu but the word of sedeq. This gives us an equation which tells us that the act of creation was an act of sedeq.

There is at least one more passage in Isaiah which shows sedeq and tohu as opposites. It is expressed in the following words:

None sueth in sedeq,

And none pleadeth in emunah,

They trust in tohu, and speak lies. (59:4)

The rejection of sedeq is reliance on tohu, just as affirmation of sedeq is rejection of tohu. However, these words also add another feature to our understanding of both ideas of sedeq and of tohu. “They trust in tohu” implies that one should not trust in tohu, but in sedeq. Tohu is not only the unformed, that which is without meaning and value; it is also not to be relied upon. It has no future. The valueless is also without strength, without staying power.

It is in keeping with the entire complex of these ideas that Hosea says, in continuation of a subject which we have discussed in our analysis of s’daqah:

For it is time to seek the Lord,

Till He come and cause sedeq to rain upon you. (10:12)

The verse recalls Isaiah’s statement that God did not ask to be sought in tohu, but offered sedeq. It is for this reason that the seeking of God leads to “sedeq to rain upon you.” We also recall that Isaiah, as we have heard, refers to those who pursue sedeq as seekers of God. It is, however, noteworthy that Hosea, after calling upon Israel to seek God and to wait for His sedeq, continues as follows:

Ye have plowed wickedness, ye have reaped iniquity,

Ye have eaten the fruit of lies;

For thou didst trust in thy way,

In the multitude of thy mighty men.

They did not seek God, they did not pursue sedeq, but trusted in their own way, in their own might. It corresponds to what Isaiah calls trusting in tohu. Once again we have an identification between tohu and the futility of might without sedeq. Sedeq is not only the good but also power. Thus the psalmist may exclaim:

With wondrous works dost Thou answer us with sedeq,

O God of our salvation;

Thou the confidence of all the ends of the earth,

And of the far distant seas;

Who by Thy strength settest fast the mountains,

Who art girded about with might;

Who stillest the roaring of the seas, the roaring of their waves,

And the tumult of the peoples. (Pss. 65:6–7)

Whereas in the passages quoted earlier from Isaiah, the description of God’s work of creation is the introduction to the theme of God’s sedeq, the psalmist praying for God’s sedeq and salvation, supports his plea by referring to God’s might and power over all creation. The God of sedeq is the Lord of the universe and “the trust of all the ends of the earth.” His is indeed might which is not tohu. Within God, mightiness and sedeq are one. The act of creation was manifestation of might and right in one. In God alone might is right and right is mighty. That God’s sedeq is mighty in saving comes to expression in some passages in Isaiah and the Psalms. God addresses these words to Israel, his servant, and Jacob, whom he has chosen:

Fear thou not, for I am with thee,

Be not dismayed, for I am thy God;

I strengthen thee, yea, I help thee,

Yea, I uphold thee with my right hand of sedeq. (41:10)

The psalmist, too, speaks in much the same vein of God’s right hand when he declares:

As is Thy name, O God,

So is Thy praise unto the ends of the earth;

Thy right hand is full of sedeq. (Pss. 48:11)

As is well-known, God’s right hand is the symbol of divine might. When, according to Isaiah, God encourages Israel not to fear, promising them strength and help, He assures them sedeq which is the sedeq of His might. Similarly, the psalmist praises God because His might is might of sedeq. God’s right hand of sedeq is the might with which he created the earth not for tohu, but so “that it be inhabited.”

We may now be in a better position to appreciate the full significance of two phrases to which we have referred earlier in our discussion. God calls the Messiah “in sedeq.” The description of God’s creative activity, which forms the introduction, is the statement that God created the world with sedeq, with might that serves the Good which is comprehended in the idea of sedeq. With this very same sedeq God calls the Messiah, giving him the strength that he needs to fulfill his redeeming function in history. It is for this reason that, after announcing to the Messiah that he is called “in sedeq,” the text continues:

And have taken hold of thy hand,

And kept thee, and set thee for a covenant of the people,

For a light of the nations. (Isa. 42:6)

He who is called in sedeq is granted strength and is destined to become a light to the nations. It is in this two-fold sense that Cyrus, too, was “roused in sedeq.” His ways were made level for him, who was to build God’s city.⁵⁷Isa. 45:13. The sedeq in which the Messiah is called is the strength that is right and the right become mighty. Thus it is possible for Isaiah to say of him that “sedeq shall be the girdle of his loins.” The girdle of one’s loins is what gives support, that which strengthens a man in battle. The Messiah will need no such support. With him sedeq will turn into might. Thus, he will be able to “smite the land with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.”⁵⁸Ibid. 11:4–5. He will rule by the mightiness of the spirit.

This insight may help us to understand more fully a passage in Jeremiah. It occurs twice in the book with but little variation. It is a passage with which we are already partly familiar. It reads as follows:

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord,

That I will raise unto David a shoot of a sadiq,

And he shall reign as king and prosper,

And shall execute mishpat and s’daqah in the land. (23:5)

Now, the same passage occurs in chapter 33 in the following version:

In those days, and at that time,

Will I cause a shoot of s’daqah to grow up unto David;

And he shall execute mishpat and s’daqah in the land. (vs. 15)

“A shoot of s’daqah” may mean a shoot that is granted to Israel as an act of God’s s’daqah toward them. Or it may simply be rendered as a root of redemption. The significant divergence between the two versions is to be seen in the fact that the first version “the shoot of a sadiq” is followed by a reference to his kingship. The second version, however, that has “a shoot of s’daqah” omits the reference entirely. It would seem to us that the sadiq in our text is the Messiah, is the man of sedeq, the one who is called in sedeq, the girdle of whose loins is sedeq. He is the man in whom, through God’s call, sedeq is history-working mightiness. Because of that the sadiq has power, the authority of kingship; this sadiq is a ruler.⁵⁹In one place in the Bible, sadiq is used for hero or mighty, without any ethical or religious significance. Cf. Isa. 49:24–25. It is properly said of him that “he shall reign as king and prosper.” S’daqah, however, does not carry the connotation of mightiness. Thus, “the shoot of s’daqah” is not followed by reference to kingship.

There is but one more point left in our discussion of sedeq. We have found earlier that occasionally sedeq appears as a heavenly power that exercises its influence upon the earth like the rain from on high. As the rain causes the earth to yield its fruit, so does sedeq from above cause salvation and s’daqah to grow in the earth. We shall repeat one of the most characteristic passages which expresses this symbolism:

Drop down, ye heavens, from above,

And let the skies pour down sedeq;

Let the earth open, that they may bring forth salvation,

And let her cause s’daqah to spring up together,

I the Lord have created it. (Isa. 45:8)

This was one of the passages which showed us that sedeq and s’daqah were not identical. But now we are better able to appreciate the reference to the work of creation with which the verse concludes. What is its significance? The great problem of human history is the suffering of the weak, the exploitation and the persecution of the poor. Salvation tarries for ever and s’daqah does not have much of a chance. Those who trust to tohu do seem to prosper. Nevertheless, the vision of salvation will not be confounded for ever, the day of s’daqah is sure to dawn. Because God created sedeq; because creation itself is an act of sedeq. The universe incorporates the principle of sedeq which is one with the principle of creation. Because God’s sedeq is the cosmic principle alive in the world, in the final reckoning it will bring forth the triumph of salvation and s’daqah on earth. The sadiq, who will reign as king and prosper, who will execute mishpat and s’daqah, in whose days Judah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell safely, may tarry; yet come he will. God, our Sedeq, is the guarantor.

Summing up our findings in the last three chapters, it would seem that the three concepts, sedeq, mishpat, emunah, all apply to God and in this their application they represent cosmic principles by which God relates himself to the universe. Sedeq is the very principle of creation. It is the principle of potency in fullest identity with the Good. Mishpat is the principle of the appropriate balancing and “measuring” of the universe which is responsible for the law and orderliness intended by God’s plan. Emunah is God’s faithfulness in maintaining His creation; it is the principle of universal continuity sustained by God’s loyalty toward His handiwork. They are principles of being, foundations of cosmic reality. As God’s ways with the world, they are archetypes of values. Because the world came into being in sedeq, because it is ordered by mishpat, because it is sustained in emunah, man, too, in imitation of God, should strive in sedeq, order his life in mishpat, and act toward all life with emunah.

Concluding Notes

It is doubtful that among the many ideas of the Hebrew Bible any have suffered more from misunderstanding, and often biased misrepresentation, than the concepts of sedeq, mishpat, and s’daqah. The guilt of numerous Bible scholars can hardly be exaggerated. Speaking of the biblical concept of sedeq, Robinson, for instance, unburdens himself in the following manner:

The idea of “righteousness” is not to be confused with that of “morality” or that of “holiness.” Morality is properly actual “rightness” of conduct, judged by the customs of the society.… But the primary conception in the idea of righteousness is not actual rightness, nor Godlikeness; it is forensic, a product of the primitive court of justice. … In the realm of religion therefore, the righteous man is not the man morally perfect, but he who is acquitted at the bar of God. (The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament, p. 168)

For generations the interpretation of the biblical ideas of justice and righteousness as purely forensic and juridical has been the treasured contribution of Christian scholars to biblical scholarship. How such ideas could be maintained in face of the rich biblical material to the contrary (which we have quoted and analyzed) is a mystery to us. N. H. Snaith makes the observation that the Hebrew mishpat means much more than a legal term in the courts. The full meaning of the idea “has been largely lost because the Old Testament came to us first in a language other than the original Hebrew” (The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament, p. 74). We wonder whether the insufficient knowledge of Hebrew provides an adequate explanation for such a long history of misunderstandings, which in actual fact meant a misrepresentation of basic biblical teaching. Thus, von Rad is correct in stating that the German rendering of s’daqah as Gerechtigheit (justice, righteousness) “is unfortunately not only a very inadequate rendering of the Hebrew s’daqah, but is often virtually misleading” (Old Testament Theology, p. 374). The remark applies not only to the German, but also the English rendering; and not only to the rendering of s’daqah, but also to that of sedeq and mishpat. Our discussion has shown that all translations of these concepts are mostly misleading.

Von Rad is very close to the meaning of the Hebrew text when he declares:

It cannot be held that this Old Testament concept of righteousness is specifically forensic, for it embraces the whole of Israelite life, whenever men found themselves in mutual relationships. And in particular, conduct loyal to a relationship includes far more than mere correctness or legality, that is, righteousness in our sense of the word. Such dependence upon one another demanded the showing of kindness, faithfulness, and, as circumstances arose, helpful compassion to the poor or the suffering. (op. cit., pp. 373–74)

All this is borne out in detail in our discussion of the subject. Both Davidson (The Theology of the Old Testament, p. 144, 271) and Snaith (op. cit., pp. 69–70, 77) show an understanding and insight which would let them underwrite von Rad’s opinion.

While our own position touches occasionally upon ideas set forth by Davidson, Snaith, and von Rad, we regret that, notwithstanding their deeper insight into the spirit of the Hebrew Bible, they—like most Bible scholars—do not distinguish between sedeq and s’daqah, nor do they give us an adequate analysis or definition of the concept of mishpat. Snaith, for instance, writes explicitly: “The Hebrew words for ‘righteousness’ are sedeq (masculine form), s’daqah (feminine). There is no difference in meaning. The choice … is a matter of style or caprice” (op. cit., p. 72). Other writers use the term interchangeably. The classical Jewish commentators disagreed on this point. Some maintained that sedeq and s’daqah were identical; others insisted that they differed in meaning from each other. We have shown the distinction between the two ideas. In fact, s’daqah never has any forensic or legal connotation and should therefore never be rendered as righteousness. Because Davidson does not see this clearly, he interprets the rain, which God, according to Joel (2:23) promises to grant Israel li–s’daqah as “a token of righteousness, right standing with God” (op. cit., p. 139). As we have shown in our discussion, as everywhere else, here, too, s’daqah is an act of kindness and preserving and saving faithfulness. It has nothing whatever to do with righteousness. God promises them rain for their salvation.

While the connection between sedeq or s’daqah and salvation and redemption is often recognized (see, for instance, Sellin, Die Theologie des Alten Testaments, pp. 29–30; Snaith, op. cit., p. 69), the distinction between s’daqah (or sedeq) practiced and s’daqah (or sedeq) received is not adequately appreciated. Thus, for instance, von Rad (op. cit., p. 380) struggles with the difficulty of interpreting Job 33:26 which he paraphrases as follows: “If [then] he prays to God, then God is gracious to him, he can see God’s face with joy, and God gives him back his righteousness.” To this rendering von Rad attaches the comment: “This too obviously alludes to a ritual, according to which a prayer of penitence was followed by a declaration of righteousness by Y.” In our opinion the ritual, of which he speaks, exists only in the imagination of the author. The expression “to return to someone his s’daqah” (not his righteousness) is an idiomatic phrase in Hebrew. The meaning of the idiom may be seen clearly in I Samuel 26:23–24. a passage which we interpreted. “To return to someone his s’daqah” means to reward someone for his deed of s’daqah. As to Job 33:26, the idiom is not used merely in reference to penitential prayer, as von Rad understands it, but in connection with the theme of the entire context. This theme is indicated in verses 23–24; “If there be for him an angel, an intercessor, one among a thousand, to vouch for man’s uprightness; then He is gracious unto him and saith: ‘Deliver him from going down to the pit, I have found ransom.’ ” Man’s uprightness is constituted by the s’daqah he does. This his s’daqah is “returned” to him when God delivers him from going down to the pit. The meaning in Job is exactly the same as in I Samuel 26:23–24.

As to mishpat, even an author like Snaith, who sees clearly how misleading the familiar translations often are, is not quite certain about the exact significance of the idea. He rightly observes that mishpat is quite removed from the strictly legalistic concept which is suggested by the Septuagints rendering of the term as dikaioma or the Vulgate’s judicium (op. cit., p. 76). We wholeheartedly agree with his statement that

there is to the Hebrew no Ananke (Necessity) and no Dike (Justice) to which both gods and men must conform. God is His own necessity. Justice is what God wills because such is His nature. If His thoughts were as our thoughts, then He would insist upon justice first, which usually means retribution, as dike tended to do among the Greeks. If His ways were our ways, then He would seek first to establish a Kingdom of Justice. (op. cit., p. 77)

He is among the very few Bible scholars who have realized that in the Bible there is no room for “Justice, blindfoldedly holding the scales in just equality” (ibid., p. 72). This is also the conclusion that we have reached. Yet, in another place, he reveals his uncertainty by saying that justice represents only “in part” the “will of God, because God’s will is wider than justice. He has a particular regard for the helpless ones of earth to rescue them from the clutches of those that are stronger than they” (op. cit., p. 70). It is, of course, true that God’s will is wider than justice. For Snaith this wider will of God is sedeq. What, however, he calls sedeq is still not more than mishpat. As we have seen, it is God’s particular regard for the helpless ones that motivates him to execute mishpat. It would have been more to the point had Snaith insisted that justice in the Western sense was only “in part” God’s will, since mishpat is wider than mere justice, for in instituting mishpat God has “particular regard for the helpless ones of the earth, etc.”

On the whole, however, Snaith and von Rad come nearest to our analysis. Von Rad is, probably, somewhat more definite in his grasp of the idea of mishpat. We are in full agreement with him, when he writes:

If we start from a preconceived idea of “justice,” we can certainly say that the characteristic permeating quality of Israel’s religion prevented her from achieving an objective justice…. Here it is no neutral law, but Y himself in person, that is addressing men. Thus law was for Israel something much more personal: it was God’s will for order, which in the end could never become really stabilized and objective. (op. cit., pp. 94–95)

The objective, neutral, stabilized justice or law is the dikaioma or judicium of the West, impersonal, absolute. As we saw, it is not what the Bible means by mishpat.

If we overlook the mistaken equation of sedeq and s’daqah and the lack of a distinct order of values as between the two and mishpat, the most penetrating comment on the entire complex of our present discussion comes again from von Rad. This is a key passage in his discussion of the subject:

Theology has for long now ingenuously explained the concept [of s’daqah] in the light of her own presuppositions, that is, in the presupposition of the West. Its content seemed to be given by the translation in the Vulgate (iustitia), and by the German word Gerechtigkeit, namely a man’s proper conduct over against an absolute ethical norm, a legality which derives its norm from the absolute idea of justice. From this absolute norm, it was supposed, issued absolute demands and absolute claims. In social respects justice so understood watches with complete impartiality over these claims and takes care that each man gets his own (iustitia distributiva). Thus, the only remaining question was, what is the norm that the Old Testament presupposes? But, oddly enough, no matter how urgently it was sought, no satisfactory answer to this question of an absolute norm could be found in the Old Testament. The reason was that the question itself was a wrong one, and in consequence the statements in the Old Testament simply could not be brought into harmony with this way of thinking. … As we now see it, the mistake lay in seeking and presupposing an absolute ideal ethical norm, since ancient Israel did not in fact measure a line of conduct or an act by an ideal norm, but by the specific relationship in which the partner had at the time to prove himself true.

Von Rad is able to clarify his position further with a quote from H. Cremer’s Biblisch-Theologisches Wörterbuch (7th ed. Gotha, 1893). As Cremer puts it:

Every relationship brings with it certain claims upon conduct, and the satisfaction of these claims, which issue from the relationship and in which alone the relationship can persist, is described by our term, sedeq. The way in which it is used shows that sedeq is out and out a term denoting relationship, and that it does this in the sense of referring to a real relationship between two parties … and not to the relationship of an object under consideration of an idea. (cf. von Rad, op. cit., pp. 370–71)

This is admirably expressed. We would only add that it applies not only to sedeq, but also to s’daqah and mishpat. So that in addition to such penetrating insight, one must still attempt to define the three ideas each one by itself.

Since we found that the wider meaning of sedeq was not the forensic righteousness but the comprehensive ethical idea of the good and the right, we did not interpret the term, sadiq, doer of sedeq, in the comprehensive sense, as righteous. Since sedeq is much more than righteousness, so must also be the sadiq, in the appropriate context. We found, therefore the phrase in Isaiah (45:22) of an El Sadiq u’Moshia, a God who is a Sadiq and a Savior, a most natural one. To save is the vital function in the doing of sedeq. The misleading and distorting translation is, of course, “a righteous God and a Savior.” We are in full sympathy with Davidson’s comment on this expression. He writes: “The antithesis which in dogmatics we are familiar with is a righteous or just God and yet a Saviour. The Old Testament puts it differently—a righteous God, and therefore a Saviour. It is His own righteousness that causes Him to bring in righteousness” (op. cit., p. 144). Of course, he is right in stating that in the Hebrew Bible there is no antithesis between the sadiq and the moshia. The relationship between the two is one of casual nexus. Because God is Sadiq, He is Savior. But is Davidson right in saying: a righteous God, and therefore a Saviour? He would have to put righteous in quotation marks, indicating that the Hebrew equivalent is different from the English, righteous. Without such qualification, he ought to reverse his concluding remark. Instead of: “All His redemptive operations are performed in the sphere of His righteousness,” he should have said: All His righteousness and justice are performed in the sphere of His redemptive attribute. Indeed, the sedeq practiced by God is much nearer to redemption than to righteousness. But perhaps that is what Davidson had in mind. For in another place he speaks of God’s nature being “the standard of His action. What might be called the tone or disposition of His being is a redemptive disposition toward men.” (ibid., p. 211). Now, if His disposition is a redemptive one, then both mishpat and s’daqah, which He enacts, must themselves be manifestations of His redemptive disposition. This redemptive disposition is the all-embracing sedeq, within which mishpat and s’daqah find—as we have established—their subordinate place.

The most penetrating interpretation of the idea of sedeq we find in Davidson’s work. Having said that sedeq meant a standard of behavior, Davidson continues:

But there are other passages which seem to go further, and to show that Y’s actions, which are b’zedeq, were some of them anterior to His relation to Israel, and that His forming this relation illustrated His zedeq—in other words, they rise to the elevation of making the salvation of Israel, and through Israel that of the world, to be the thing which is conformable to the Being of Y, and expresses it. F. i. Y says to Israel: “I have called Thee in zedeq.” (Is. 42, 6). And in a remarkable passage (Is. 45, 8): “Thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; He is God, that formed the earth; He made it to be inhabited. I have sworn by Myself that to Me every knee shall bow etc….” Here the salvation of the world and the original creation are brought together, and the first seems anterior to the second. (op. cit., p. 271)

Sedeq is indeed anterior to all standard. To see this is of the utmost importance for the understanding of the theology implied in the Hebrew Bible. Our only criticism of this admirable statement of Davidson is that it does not draw all the conclusions from the texts. In the concluding section of our chapter on sedeq and s’daqah we have analyzed and interpreted the same texts on which Davidson bases his comments. We have shown that sedeq is ultimately the cosmic principle of the creation of a world that God established not as Tohu but in order that it be “inhabited.” Sedeq, therefore, represents a combination of creative might serving the purpose of the Good. In its ultimate significance sedeq is the divine attribute of the Creator. This corresponds to what Davidson says on the subject in his own style, commenting:

What might be called the tone or disposition of His being is a redemptive disposition towards men, for in creation He contemplated an orderly moral world, purposing the earth to be inhabited, and not subject to the devastations caused by evil in men or due to the cruelties of idolatry. (op. cit., pp. 271–72)

However, if sedeq is a divine disposition to create with the purpose of the Good in view, then we are led to the conclusion that sedeq, ontologically speaking, is the principle of identity between Being and Value and its efficacious mightiness. We have shown how this identity between Being and Value comes to expression in Isaiah 45:18–19. The understanding of the identity of Being and the Good and the Tohu quality of evil is essential for the appreciation of the biblical idea of redemption and, indeed, of the Messianism of the Hebrew Bible. We may best illustrate our point by discussing a comment of Snaith. This is what he has to say about sedeq as salvation:

God is going to establish His will and vindicate His right. He is going to do this with particular reference to the righteous poor … the godly humble remnant of Israel…. Further, if this norm is to be established, then where is God going to establish it? It must be either on this earth, or not on this earth. If a people has no belief in any life beyond the grave worthy of the name, then of necessity this zedeq (vindication of right) must show itself in this life, on this earth, and in the things of this life. It follows therefore that the zedeq which God establishes must involve the blessing of honour from men and of general prosperity. (op. cit., pp. 88–89)

This is most ingenious, yet it misses the point completely. In this matter Snaith lacks Davidson’s penetrating insight. For Snaith, sedeq is the norm, the standard. He does not see that sedeq as the principle of creation is anterior to all standard or norm. Since it represents the ontological identity of being and value, it cannot find its triumph in a kingdom which is not of this world. If the vindication of right were deferred to a life beyond the grave, then the earth was created tohu and not “to be inhabited” and God’s creative purpose irrevocably defeated. History represents a scandalous separation between being and value; it is an ever-present challenge to the proposition that God created the world not tohu, but “to be inhabited.” The challenge cannot be met in a world to come, leaving this world as the realm of unredeemed tohu. Not a norm is to be vindicated, but created being itself as an act of God’s sedeq. It cannot find its vindication outside itself. This world, planned by God’s sedeq as creation to be inhabited must be ultimately inhabited as God intended it. In history alone can God’s original creative act of sedeq be vindicated in the actual everyday realization of the identity of being and value, in the form of this worldly manifestation of the efficacious mightiness of the Spirit. This is the core of the biblical idea of salvation and of the messianism of the Hebrew Bible.