The Meaning of “dikiaow”
Our Greek word has its root in the Greek word “dikh”. This word means “right”, “justice”; in the NT, judicial punishment, vengeance; 2 Thes. 1:9; Jude 7; sentence of punishment, judgment, Acts 25:15; personified, the goddess of justice or vengeance, Nemesis, Paena, Acts 28:4.
This word draws directly from the Hebrew word “tsadag” (tsaw-dak). Which is rendered in the OT as “justify”, “righteous”, “just”, “justice”, “cleansed”, “cleanse ourselves”, “righteousness”.
Plato links “dikaiow” with “dikh” saying it denotes obligations to men and to God, and therefore indicates “one who fulfills obligations towards men,” fulfillment of religious duties often attributed to this by such terms as : osioV, eusebhV, qeopilhV, qeosebhV.
[1]
Looking at the word in the LXX, it is a “forensic” term. Yet in the LXX, the predominate usage does not carry a negative meaning as some Greek usage: (w QemistokleeV, en toisi agwsi oi proexanistamenoi rapizontai. o de apoluomenoV efh oi de ge egkataleipomenoi ou stefanountai.
[2]) but is constantly used in the most positive sense of “to pronounce righteous,” “to justify”, “to vindicate”. The forensic element is even stronger in the Masoretic text in that the Masoretic Isa. 42:25 is rendered as they find righteousness with Yahweh, and in the LXX it is rendered that they are declared righteous by him (apo kuriou dikaiw qhsoutai).
The LXX uses dikaioun in these ways which should be noted:
1. (a). Active (hiphil)- “to declare someone as righteous,” “to acquit someone,” “to secure justice for him.” According to the legal custom of Israel, this “dikaioun” may not apply for the “asebhV” (wicked) cf. Ex. 23:7; Isa. 5:23. Only the “just” (dikaioV) may be declared righteous (cf. Deut. 25:1), materially: “oV dikaion krinei ton adikon de ton dikaion” (Prov. 17:15); and from the religious standpoint: “kurioV krinei laouV krinon me kurie kata thn dikaioswnhn mou kai kata thn akakian mou ep emoi” (cf. Psa. 7:9).
(b). Tar (pi)- “to prove to be innocent or righteous” Jer. 3:11: “edikaiwsen thn fuchn autou israhl apo thV asunqetou Iouda,” “it has shown itself more righteous than” Ezek. 16:51: “edikaiiwaV taV adelfaV sou” “thou hast justified thy sisters”.
2. Passive a. Of the vindication or right conduct of man (especially the chosen people) in relation to Yahweh: Isa. 43:9: “dikaiwqhtwsan; ina dikaiwqhV” (vs. 26). Related is the usage in Psa. 142:2: “oti ou dikaiwqhsetai enwpion sou pas zwn,” the LXX renders “no one can be pronounced righteous (justified) before God’s judgment,” this clearly makes the Masoretic sharper (nothing living is righteous in thy sight), here it is asserted not only universal sinfulness but the impossibility of justification. In Gal. 2:16, and in Rom. 3:20, Paul adds: “ex ergwn nomou” which shows that the Psa. 142:2 passage had an impact on Paul’s understanding of justification.
3. Passive in the intransitive sense: “dikaiwqhnai” as a translation of the Hebrew word in Gen. 44:16 where Judah asks: “ti dikaiwqwmen” “how shall we (justify) clean ourselves?”
Plato also links “dikaiaoV” with ethics for whom righteousness is a distinctly political virtue, it is firmly anchored in the soul of men, who inwardly comes to what is proper to himself, to inner order and the harmony of spiritual virtues. (Resp. IV, 443c ff)
Looking into the Greek and Hellenistic Writings
Plato says: “nomoV o pantwnbasileuV/ageidikaiwn to biaiotaton/upertata ceipi”: “the law makes a “dikaion” and declares to be right what otherwise would be supremely arbitrary.” U.v. Wilamauiety in “Platon”, II, (1920) p. 93,99 argues instead: “biaiwn to dikaiotaton” (doing violence to absolute righteousness) (cf. J. Geffchen, Studier zu Plat., Geor., Herm., 65, (1930) p. 19.) But A. Busse, Herm., 66 (1931) 126 ff, argues for the older reading.
According to Plato’s exposition
[3], there is thus carried through: “to thV fusewV dikaion”. In accordance with nature, the law gives the character of right to even the most arbitrary act. It is keeping with the nuance in Plindar that that the term is often used for divine rule and order in the law: cf. Philo, Spec. Leg., I, 67,109,140; II, 72, 113; III, 172, 180; etc; and once in Josephus, Ant., 4, 278.
It was during the Greek/Hellenistic period that the word begins to be defined from the legal sphere and takes a general usage in the sense of “fair or right”, i.e.; to formulate for oneself as “dikaion”. (cf.: “axioun, dikimoun”) This is the most common usage: Soph. Oed., Tyr., 6, 575, 640; Oed. Col., 1350, 1642; Hdt., I, 89; Thuc., IV, 122, 5; this is true of both Josephus and Philo. (cf. Josh., Ant. 9, 187; 12, 1224; 19, 305; Philo, Abr., 142, 171; Migr., Abr., 73, Vit. Mos., I, 44; etc) Josephus who also uses this word ten times, never deviates from Greek usage.
When the word is applied personally, a widespread usage springs up to mean: “to establish”: “to dikaion” for someone,” “to treat rightly,” “to secure justice for someone.” This can take a negative connotation; i.e.; “to judge”, “to punish”, (cf. “kakoun”, “to do wrong” “doloun”, “to outwit,” “zhloun”, etc.)
Turning our attention to another area, particular notice should be given to the usage in the Mystical. In the Corpus Hermeticum, written by unknown authors in Egypt around the end of the third century A.D., once considered substantial literature attributed to the mystical figure of Hermes Trismegistus, this literature came out of the same religious and philosophical ferment that produced Neo-Platonism, it is recorded:
“cwriV gar krisewV ide twV thn adikian exhlasen. edikaiwqhmen, w teknon, adikaiaV apowshV”
[4] (See how [the measure of] the Good is full, my son, upon truths coming. For envy is gone from us: and unto truth is joined the Good as well, with Life and Light.)
[5]
The formula here perhaps consciously is given a Christian reference, and means: “we have become sinless.” “dikaiosinh” is made over to the mystic as “adikia” is driven out by the destruction of all evil desires deriving from the body. (cf. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. II, “dikaiosumh”, p. 193) But the idea of being declared righteous in judgment is rejected, and there is perhaps a polemic against the Judaeo-Christian concept of “dikaiwqhnai”. It may even be that the Egyptian idea of justification by the judgment of the dead is here given a mystical application. According to this conception, the dead are set by Osiris on the scales, weighed, and then pronounced righteous because their good works are predominate (though knowledge also counts). Stains are removed by rites of expiation and magic.
dikaiow in the N.T.
The concept of vindication/justification is found twice. Once it is used in the sense of “to justify God”. A similar usage is to be found in the “edikaiwqh en pneumati” of the hymn to Christ in 1 Tim. 3:16, for which “redeemed” is hardly adequate. The idea that Christ was justified in the sphere of the spirit, i.e.: that his claim to be Christ was demonstrated and validated by the resurrection (in contrast to the “edikaiwqn en sarki”).
[6]
Then we have the concept of “to justify oneself,” “to represent oneself as righteous.” A weaker sense, which yet still betrays its legal origin, the lawyer (nomikoV) in Lk. 10:29: “dikaiwsai eautou” seeks to vindicate himself in the debate. The character of the Pharisees is testified to in this manner: “ymeis este oi dikaiounteV eautouV twn anqrwpwn” (you are those justifying yourselves before men) “to declare or to represent oneself as righteous” is much closer to the main N.T. usage. The attribute of the “dikaioV” anticipates what God alone can establish by His pronouncement.
We also have “dikaiwqhnai” in the sense of saving righteousness in the Synopitists. Paul is not only one to use the term in strict legal sense. Luke’s statement concerning the publican in 18:14: “katebh outoV dedikaiwmenoV eis ton oikon autou h ekeinon” can only mean “acquitted” “declared righteous.” The saying assumes a present righteousness,
[7] though in distinction from Paul, there is no reference to the saving act of the cross.
[8] The reference in Mt. 12:37: “ek gar twn logwn sou dikaiwqhsh” (for the words of you, you will be justified)
[9] is exclusively to the last judgment.
[1] See the article by T. Nettles, “John Wesley’s Contention with Calvinism: Interactions Then and Now,” in the Grace of God and the Bondage of the Will, II, 297 ff. Similarly, Robert Oliver, “The Arminian Controversy of Eighteenth Century Methodism” Divisions and Dissensions: Papers Read at the 1987 Westminster Conference (England: The Westminster Conference, 1987) 78-93.
[2] Adam Clark, Christian Theology, London, Thomas and Son Publishers, 1835, p. 156; 158
[3] A.M. Mills, Fundamental Christian Theology: A Systematic Theology, Schmul Publishing Company, Salem, OH., 1980, II, p. 184
[4] William Pope, A Higher Catechism of Theology, p. 228
[5] Adam Clarke, Christian Theology, p. 155
[6] Samuel Wakefield, Christian Theology, p. 414
[7] "The personal guilt of Adam's transgression was never imputed to his descendents, nor that of the elect to Christ; though Adam's descendents do suffer certain consequences of his sin, and Christ's sufferings were in consequence of sin not his own" (W. F. Tillett, Personal Salvation: Studies in Christian Doctrine pertaining to the Spiritual Life [Nashville, TN: Publishing House of the M. E. Church, 1902] p. 219).
[8] J. Miley, Systematic Theology, II:319.
[9] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Of Justification by Faith, Chapter 11, Section 2. Article on-line, accessed 5/27/09, found on the World Wide Web at:
Institutes of the Christian Religion | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Continued...
