dikaioo - dervives from dikaios, -on, and means "to make righteous" or neuter, "to establish as right." "to validate," (oppsite akuroun, to invalidate," etc.).
In the LXX, dikaioun is a forensic term. Yet it does not have a predominate negative connotation ("to condemn") as in the Greek, but is constantly used in the postive sense of "to pronounce righteous," "to justify," "to vindicate." The forensic element is even stronger in the LXX than in the Masoretic text. Thus in Isa. 45:25 in the Mas., means that they find righteousness with Yahweh, whereas the LXX: "apo kuriou dikaioqhsoutai" means that they are declared righteous by Him.
When used in the OT active, in the hiph., to declare someone righteous, to acquit someone, to secure justice for him. According to the legal custom in Israel, this dikaioun may not apply for the asebhs: Ex. 23:7; Isa. 5:23; Sir. 10:29; 42:2. Only the dikaios may be declared righteous; Deut. 25:1; 3 Bas. 8:32 (cf. materially Prov. 17:15)
When used in the pi., "to prove to be innocent or righteous. (Jer. 3:11); Ez. 16:51: "thou hast justified thy sisters" It is often used by the Rabbis for divine acquital: 1. Pesikt. r., 40 (169a); 2. bErub., 19a; 3. Midr., Ps. 143 (266b); 4. Tg. Ps. 51:6. In the Psalms of Solomon, the article is never related to man in the sense of "to justify someone," "to declare him righteous": the dikaioun which man pronounces is plainly referred to God.
Dikaiow in the NT:
3. "To justify oneself," to represent oneself as righteous." A weaker sense, which yet betrays its legal origin, is found in Lk. 10:29. The qelwn dikaiwsai eauton, wishes to vindicate himself in debate. on the other hand, Lk. 16:15: "umeiV este oi dikaiounteV eautouV enwpion twn anqrwpwn," "to declare or to represent oneself as righteous (passive) is much closer to the main NT usage. The attitude of the dikaios anticipates what God alone can establish by His pronouncement.
dikaiwqhnai in the sense of saving righteousness in the Synoptists. Paul is not the only one to use the term in the strict legal sense. Luke's statement concerning the publican in 18:14: "katebh outoV dedikaiwmenoV...par ekeinon:" can only mean "acquitted" "declared righteous."
dikaiow as used specifically by Paul:
In Paul, the legal usage is plain and indisputable. The opposite of dikaiun is katakrinein (Rom. 8:34). For Paul, the work dikaioun does not suggest the infusion of moral qualities, a "
justum efficere" in the sense of the creation of right conduct. It implies the justification of the ungodly who believe on the basis of the justifying action of God in the death and resurrection of Christ. To be sure, the dikaiousqai is an act of grace rather than of retribution according to works. Yet this act of grace in the cross can be called forensic because in the "ilasthrion" judgment is executed on all sin in the Substitute. This dikaioun is the judical acquittal which takes place in the saving present. It is neither exclusively objectively in the cross nor exclusively subjective in experience. It has rather the objectively of relationship, enacted at the cross and apprehended in faith (dikaiosunh). Thus dikaiwqhnai in Gal. 2:16, "to become a righteous man in the eyes of God," the essence of justification being that God helps the sinner to the position and status of one who is righteous in His eyes. this interpretation is valid, though it should be emphasized that the new postition and staus are the result of judical pronouncement.
In the following passages there is clear reference (Experience and the Act of Salvation) in the present tense - which is the mark of the new insight - to the present character of justification: Gal. 3:8: "dikaioi"; 3:11: "dikaioutai"; (cf. also 2:16 and 3:24); Rom. 3:24: "dikaioumenoi"; 3:28: "dikaiousqai"; (cf. "dikaioutai" -Acts 13:39). In addition to the present tenses, the preterites are no less important, since they treat justification as something which
already has happened as an event. Simply to emphasise the character of justification as an experience, and to reject the view that dikaiousqai refers to the universal act of salvation accomplished at the cross is to miss the fact that this act is always present as salvation and therefore available for personal apprehension. This is, of course, necessary. When there is reference to "dikaiousqai,"
"pistis" is always included. (cf. Gal. 2:16, 2 times; 3:8,11,24; Rom. 3:28,30; 4:5; 5:1) It is impossible to separate once-for-all justification at the cross and personal justification in faith (dikaiosunm). Rom. 5:9: "dikaiwqenteV nun en tw aimati autou" expressly refers to the act of salvation in indication of the Where of justification. This is the effective basis of dikaiousqai, the invading and self-actualizing present of salvation. In Rom. 8:30, "edikaiwsen/edocasen" it is not appropriate to speak of past justifiaction, since here the catena of aorists denotes the certainty of the event from all eternity in the council of God. This leads to the decisive point in this view of time. The eternal character of the justifying event of salvation prevents any severing of past and present. The act of salvation is a continuing present.
The use of "apo" in connection with "dikaiwqhnai" gives emphatic expression to the thought of redemption. Thus liberation from guilt is meantr in Acts 13:38: "gnwston oun estw umin, andreV adelfoi, oti dia toutou umin afesiV amartiwn kataggelletai [,kai] apo pantwn wn ouk hdunhqhte en nomw mwusewV dikaiwqhnai". Here again, we have legal justification. Only tendtious criticism can think that the "gnwston oun estw umin, andreV adelfoi, oti dia toutou umin afesiV amartiwn kataggelletai [,kai] apo pantwn wn ouk hdunhqhte en nomw mwusewV dikaiwqhnai" affirms partial justification by the Law. Rom. 6:7: "o gar apoqanwn dedikaiwtai apo thV amartiaV." is an erratic block among the statements of Paul. Here again, the "apo" denotes the liberation of man, this time, from the service of sin. Our old man is crucified with Christ that the body of sin might be destroyed and that we should not serve sin any more; for - and this brings us to the statement "he who dies is (thereby) declared free from sin.
The Rabbinic saying that the soul of the dead achieves expiation by death, and the Pauline statement that he who dies is thereby pronounced free from sin, are fully identical in substance. Paul is thus using here a Rabbinic theologumenon. But the true significance and the force of the statement derive from the belief in identification with the death of Christ and the consequent pronouncing free from sin. The Rabbinic parallel is also instructive in that it shows us how closely linked are justification and atonement in the thinking of Paul.
In other words, we have here, another comfirmation of the significance of the "ilasthrion" as the basis of justification.
- Heinrich Schlier
