"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
. . . . . . . . Romans 3:10-11 (KJV)
However, Proverbs 29:2 says, "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked bear rule, the people mourn."
Hmmm? Something doesn't add up when discussing issue of mans righteousness, correct?
I've found there is a problem trying to make such direct comparisons across Testamental borders. Witness the following similar (apparent) conundra (wink) :
Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.
Exodus 23:7
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Romans 4:4-5
And what about this one :
When a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.
Proverbs 16:7
Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
2 Timothy 3:12
Clearly, the expressions of Moses and Solomon present difficulty when one tries to reconcile them with the letters of Paul. But the first supposed conflict looks even to hold the key to the verses you quoted. Not only does God justify the ungodly, but they are credited with righteousness! Both literally in conflict with readings of passages in the OT. But isn't the understanding of righteousness at issue? So if there are none righteous yet the OT assumes some righteousness, can it not be that the standards being used are different?
When the rich young ruler went to Jesus and called Him good, Jesus questioned his use of the term and said that none were good but God. He proceeded to show that he had fulfilled the commandments handed down through Moses - but Jesus made it clear that the man's righteousness wasn't sufficient to win him eternal life. But what of a ruler? What is considered righteousness in that case? If a man rules fairly, with justice in mind and with mercy toward all, is he not a righteous ruler? But does that mean he will be granted eternal life because of that righteousness? David is called righteous by his son (I Kings 3:6) but was clearly guilty of some serious sin. Paul even quotes this same David :
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Romans 4:6-8
And this is right after he cites Abraham being justified by faith - that righteousness was imputed to him by faith. And it is made crystal clear that they who try to justify themselves (before God) according to their own deeds (righteousness) have only the law by which to call themselves righteous. They make faith of none effect :
For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Romans 4:13-16
So it all depends on the standard you use. Man's standard? Sure...there are quite a few righteous men (and good rulers). But by God's standard? None are righteous according to the Law.
EDIT : Not sure why, but I totally forgot to include that verse in Jeremiah having something to do with our righteousnesses and filthy rags...
