.jpg)
.
DIKAIOUSUNE justice, right, rightness, justness;
This noun means both right/deserved treatment and/or upright behavior; in English the nouns justice and righteousness tend to separate right treatment from right behavior. This problem is not found in Latin based languages, Greek, or Hebrew.
1. Justice
a. right treatment, deserved treatment
b. upright behavior
2. Righteousness
a. upright behavior
b. right treatment, deserved treatment
DIKAIOO justiced, justicing, justice or righted, righting, right (verb).
The noun "justice" is verbalized or coined into a verb, "to justice" (infinitive). Originally, the Latin verb iustificare was was englished into the English "justify"; usage and doctrine prevented this new verb from referring to the judicial penalty as it does in Greek. The English verb 'commit' is analogous to the Greek verb. 'Commit' can mean to promise something or to send a criminal to an institution. By re-coining the base definition as "justiced" instead of "justify" it is hoped that people will be able to see how a criminal can be 'justiced'; "justiced" can refer to either receiving a deserved/right treatment or being made righteous, or even 'looking' righteous (as in justify). Understanding the original ambiguity of the word is necessary for correct theology and translation. Indeed, Paul uses the word both ways in some contexts. The definition, "put/set right" can approach the ambiguity except that this gloss does not make the external sense explicit. It has been used in translations, but does not communicate because that definition is not used in the common language. The following glosses rectify this problem in part. The picture will only be complete when the biblically literate reader is taught to expand their definition of justice to upright behavior and their definition of righteousness to include right/deserved treatment. Unfortunately, English is a dichotomizing language due to mass media means of preserving a new word for every nuance. The unaffected meaning of the "-fy" meaning depends on context and usage, e.g. "rectify" does not mean to declare something correct or right, but to actually straighten out or correct something. But "justify" one-sidedly means to declare something correct or show or make it appear right – largely due to the influence of the Protestant Church on its usage in all contexts.
If we use some other ending instead, i.e. "-ed', "-ing" or none at all, then the problem of present usage in English is partly overcome, "justiced" can mean justice being done to someone. On the other hand, by doing this we loose the sense of "justify"; this is not because the "-ed" ending cannot carry this sense, but because "justice" in English favors right treatment over upright behavior. This is simply shown by coining "righted" or "right" instead of "justiced"; they wanted to "right" themselves, or they had "righted" themselves in the eyes of men. Alternatively, we might try coining "right" into a verb, "rightify" and using it in a sentence, "The criminal wished to rightify himself, but failed. He was found guilty and rightified at sunrise on the gallows." We might put the words, "right" and "justiced" into the sentence respectively. But this is still artificial language. To really make the point one has to use common language: "The criminal wished to show himself just, but failed. He was found guilty and brought to justice at sunrise on the gallows." Modern translators tend to recognize this difficulty giving the sense "put/set right" in some translations, but this is not common language, and therefore fails to communicate sufficiently.
1. justiced = bring to justice/righteousness, satisfy justice; (LSJ, 1968 Supplement); "do justice" (BDAG), "have justice done" (TH).
a. vnap = to be brought to justice/righteousness, Acts 13:38
b. vipp—3s = is brought to justice/righteousness, Acts 13:39
c. vpppnm-p = ones being brought to justice/righteousness (freely), Rom 3:24
d. vppaam-s = one bringing to justice/righteousness (one by [the] faithfulness of Yeshua), Rom 3:26.
e. vnpp = (for we consider a man) to be brought to justice/righteousness (by faithfulness apart from customary deeds), Rom. 3:28.
f. vifa—3s = (who) will bring to justice/righteousness, Rom. 3:30.
g. vppaam-s = (firmly trusting upon the) one bringing the irreverent to justice/righteousness, Rom. 4:5.
h. vpapnm-p = (Therefore) as ones who are brought to justice/righteousness (by faithfulness), Rom. 5:1.
i. vpapnm-p = (Much more then) as ones who are brought to justice/righteousness (now by his blood)
j. virp—3s = (the one who dies) is brought to justice (by sin), Rom. 6:7.
k. viaa—3s = (for these also) he brings to justice, (and whom) he brings to righteousness (these also he glorifies), Rom. 8:30.
l. viap—2p = (but) you are brought to justice/righteousness (in the name of the LORD Jesus; 1Cor. 6:11.
m. viap—2p (a man) is (not) brought to justice/righteousness (by some customary deeds; Gal. 2:16a. The reason this goes here is the possibility that the conjunction, "except" limits rather than opposes.
n. vsap—1p = (so that) we might be brought to justice/righteousness (by the faithfulness/commitment of Messiah); Gal. 2:16b.
o. vnap = to be brought to justice/righteousness; Gal. 2:17.
p. vipa—3s = (God) brings (the nations) to justice/righteousness; Gal 3:8.
2. justice, justicing = bring/do justice/righteousness (Hiphil, BDB 1d1 – administration of justice/righteousness); this is where the Hebrew comes close to, but does not quite equate to def. 1, where the LXX uses dikaio,w. The Greek approaches this with "do justice for" or "plead a cause for" someone (BDAG, 3rd ed., def. 1).
a. vifa—1s = I will do/bring (him) justice, 2Sam. 15:4
b. vnaa = (by his wisdom my righteous servant) will bring/do justice (for many) [this is not 'bring to justice', but in 'bringing/doing justice' the servant will include 'bringing to justice', Is. 53:11.
c. viaa—3s = (God is the) one bringing justice/righteousness, Rom. 8:33.
3. righted = show just, show right; (equiv. to BDAG, 3rd Ed, def. 2). Here the word means an external showing or declaration of ones uprightness.
a. vsap—1p = may we be shown just/right, Gen. 44:16.
b. viap—3s = (wisdom) is shown just/right, Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:35.
c. vifp—2s = (by your words) you will be shown just/right, Matt. 12:37.
d. vnaa = (wanting) to show (himself) just/right, Luke 10:29.
e. vppanm-p = ones showing (yourselves) just/right, Luke 16:15.
f. vprpmn-s = being shown just/right
g. vifp—3p = will be shown just/right, Rom. 2:13.
h. vifp—3s = (not) will be shown just/right (any flesh), Rom. 3:20.
i. vsap—2s = you may be shown just/right, Rom 3:4.
j. viap—3s = is shown just/right, Rom. 4:2.
k. vifa—2s = you will not show just/right (the wicked), Ex. 23:7.
l. vsaa—3p = they should show just/right (the righteous), Deut. 25:1.
m. virp—1s = (not by this) I am shown just/right, 1Cor. 4:4.
n. vifp—3s = (by some customary deeds no one) will be shown just/right; Gal. 2:16c.
o. vipp—3s = (by this norm no one) is shown just/right
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Let's see how this applies in Gal. 2:16:
"But we know that a man is not brought to justice by some customary deeds except by the faithfulness of Yeshua the Messiah"
Here are the meanings we can arrive at:
1. One does not arrive at righteousness by the usual deeds.
2. One does not satisfy justice, i.e. is brought to justice by the usual deeds. One does not arrive at God's justice this way, because such deeds cannot satisfy the penalty.
Now notice the conjuction -- "except by" and then "the faithfulness of Yeshua"
We could also say "commitment of Yeshua", and this means his faithfulness to the work of the cross, where we are brought to justice by him being the substitute --- this links up with #2 above.
Now the "faithfulness of Yeshua" also becomes our faithfulness, and by this we can come to justice (i.e. upright behavior) by firmly trusting him. Notice that I am using subjuctive and present tenses here just as Paul uses them. This links up with #1 above.
How is this different from Catholic or Protestant understandings? Protestants misconstrue, "brought to justice" or "satisfy justice" as acquittal, the exact opposite of what Paul is saying, and Catholics as 'made righteous' in a past tense or completed sense.
Paul's meaning can be expanded with the following or's "/"
"But we know that a man is not brought to justice/righteousness by some customary deeds except by/from the faithfulness of/from Yeshua the Messiah"
Hi Dan,
Great exegesis of Paul’s thesis statement.
[quote]He also wants to say “we firmly trust in Messiah Yeshua so that we might be brought to righteousness of/from the faithfulness of Messiah”; Notice that the tense is subjunctive – “might be” and hence future in the final aspect.
This is indeed a text that can be mined deep until all the gems come out. I will post the working definitions --- although this is not complete yet.[/quote]
Hi Dan,
Great exegesis of Paul’s thesis statement.
You said:
He also wants to say “we firmly trust in Messiah Yeshua so that we might be brought to righteousness of/from the faithfulness of Messiah”; Notice that the tense is subjunctive – “might be” and hence future in the final aspect.
This is indeed a text that can be mined deep until all the gems come out. I will post the working definitions --- although this is not complete yet.
Dan when you say “we firmly trust in Messiah Yeshua so that we might be brought to righteousness of/from the faithfulness of Messiah” are you saying so that we might begin to 'walk' so to speak as Yeshua walked? That the result should be when we firmly trust in Messiah Yeshua we should be walking as He walked with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That we should be becoming obedient to the commandments?
Of course with the understanding that this righteousness is not from our own doing but because the Spirit should be compelling us to do so. That it comes from God.
As an example: When I was compelled by the Spirit to put a mezuzah on my doorpost as per the commandment it's not my righteousness it is His righteousness. In other words I can't boast before God and I can't think that this righteous act would acquit me before God or give me a better right standing before God. Why? Because it ain't my righteousness, it's His righteousness to heed the commandment because He commanded it.
I was in a situation yesterday. A street person asked me for money. I said to him I won't give you money but I'll buy you some food from the vendor I was standing at. I blessed the Lord because because this righteousness came from Him.
Marc
Hello Marc,
In Dan's understanding of dikiaoo, "justifcation" (the application of the just due to Yeshua) is different than, but not dichotomous to, personal righteous. A person is righteous by obeying the commandments, but obeying the commandments does not satisfy the just requirement of God for a just/right/righteous satisfaction of the punishment one is due. Yeshua is that satisfaction...the just punishment in the place of the sinner. Hence, he is the justice of God for the sinner through which the sinner receives pardon for the punishment originally due to her.
I will let Dan explain more.
A person is righteous by obeying the commandments, but obeying the commandments does not satisfy the just requirement of God for a just/right/righteous satisfaction of the punishment one is due.
Hi Peter actually you and I are agreeing on the exegesis.
I'll also let Dan explain. Because and correct me if I'm wrong Dan that people get mixed up with righteousness. That there are two kinds of righteousness per say?
Marc
Hi Mark,
Here is the current text. I made the modifications – not as great as I first thought as I have come up with an extension to the supralinear notes that allows me to utilize the space better (fit more in). I think I will have to call the plain English translation at the beginning of the book PNT. Popular names Translation. The interlinear is called SET and LET respectively – Standard English Translation and Literal English Translation. This will be explained in the new introduction.
So here is the PNT --- which I used because we can’t copy out of the SET or LET:
16 †But we know that a man is not satisfying justice° by °some °customary† deeds, °except through the °faithfulness† of Jesus Christ. Even we in Christ Jesus °firmly trust, so that we might be brought to justice° by the °faithfulness of Christ and not by °some °customary deeds, because by °some °customary deeds justice° will not be satisfied for any person.
Let’s focus on the middle sentence, “We … firmly trust so that we might be brought to justice by the faithfulness of Christ”
Paul uses the subjunctive --- which mood indicates a probability of something happening without saying it is absolutely certain. The contingency is simply that we need to continue trusting God. “Might” could be legitimately translated “should” expressing obligation also.
Your questions are good, and I am incorporating the results I write here into the supralinear commentary, however, there is not enough space left for ‘should’ as an alternative. The subjunctive can also approach “shall” or “will” in meaning. The trouble with translators (like me) is that we tend to read our Greek understanding back into the English and think that the rest of you get it. “Might” is a word that probably does express a bit too much doubt. I’ll have to think about this a bit.
I am thinking that “can” might express it in colloquial English better.
Naturally, the result of a firm trust will be that we are brought to justice (or satisfy justice) in Messiah --- first by the penalty being paid, and then by receiving his faithfulness (i.e. righteousness) through the work of the Spirit. Remember that coming to justice in Messiah also means coming to righteousness in conjunction with the commandments. The righteousness originates with Yeshua’s faithfulness – the LORD our Righteousness.
I would hesitate to say the Spirit is “compelling us” in a deterministic sense. Persuading might be a better word. The Spirit makes our choices plain through conviction, but we still have to make the choices based on loyalty to God. The Spirit also increases out choices by giving us life in departments where we were ‘dead’; once an area of our life is enlivened, then we can choose to walk in it.
Putting God’s word on your doorpost is God’s righteousness, and comes from him, but after you have done it, then your have adopted it as your righteousness also. I suppose you could put it this way -- we are taking up God’s offer to share his righteousness.
I wouldn’t deny that doing right is also our righteousness ---- remember the prophecy says he will be called the LORD our righteousness. I know the need for self effacement here and acknowledgement of God’s generous role, but Paul expresses this by negating boasting about our righteousness. There is also a parable in Luke to this effect --- the one where the servants say they are only unworthy servants doing their duty. Also, it never does any good to meditate on the extent of our righteousness. This is because we don’t know ourselves or what the extent really is; only God knows that. The publican is the one who really did himself justice in his prayer.
Boasting of course, is negated in “being brought to justice”, i.e. Yeshua had to pay the penalty --- apart from our works.
All true righteousness comes from the LORD and charity is not just an act that looks charitable. Just giving the man money would look charitable, but true righteousness goes with justice --- you can only do these people justice by offering them what they really need – a good nutritious meal.
Peter, Marc …
Yes … in English we have dichotomized ‘righteousness’ and ‘justice’ into two semantic categories. They have to be recombined under one semantic domain. A. right treatment, B. right behaviour.
Righteousness (justice) is done to us – type A. right treatment in Messiah paying the penalty in our place. Type B. righteousness is our actual receiving or acceptance of right behavior from God.
Nice touch with the ‘her’ in your post Peter. I would include all the pronouns. Understanding all of this and being able to exercise the necessary trust in God, of course are two different things.
Peter,
If you want a copy to follow along with then tell me where to send it.
Dan
Dan would it serve better if you had a PDF or word document of your works?
Marc
Hello to all,
I must admit this subject is somewhat over my head. I have a basic understanding and am in agreement, yet I am having a hard time grasping the significance of all the shades of meaning and new terminology. : )
However, the following comment Dan made stood out to me. I could understand it and it is very meaningful to me. Bears repeating so that it can stand out as a gem mined from the thousands of words here.
"The righteousness originates with Yeshua’s faithfulness – the LORD our Righteousness.
I would hesitate to say the Spirit is “compelling us” in a deterministic sense. Persuading might be a better word. The Spirit makes our choices plain through conviction, but we still have to make the choices based on loyalty to God."
[Could someone explain to me how to set quotes off in italics or bold HTML? I can't figure out the formatting]
I am very glad you are participating in the discussion, Peter. Maybe the four of us, each with our nuanced input, can eventually refine and condense this topic for a broader audience. I like your story examples, Marc. It helps to clarify the abstract and bring out the practical application.
I also think it is helpful to contrast the truths you are bringing out, Dan, with the erroneous views commonly held. Remind us why this is important. This is not just an intellectual exercise. Misunderstanding the Gospel has eternal consequences.
Hi All,
I guess I get carried away with thinking out loud sometimes. Here is the text again:
16a †But we know that a man is not satisfying justice° by °some °customary† deeds, °except through the °faithfulness† of Jesus Christ. 16b Even we in Christ Jesus °firmly trust, so that we might be brought to justice° by the °faithfulness of Christ and not by °some °customary deeds, 16c because by °some °customary deeds justice° will not be satisfied for any person.
Traditional translations read “a man in not justified by the works of the law” (16a). What is wrong with this you may ask?
A short trip to the book of James will be sufficient to answer the question: KJV James 2:24 “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only”; To straighten out this mess, we have to avoid the use of the word, “justified” altogether as it has been totally damaged by theological abuse, and is being made to cover more territory than English really wants to allow it resulting in a contradiction to the general reader. Here is how to straighten it out:
James, “a man is shown righteous by works, and not by faith only”
Paul, “man is not satisfying justice° by °some °customary† deeds”
Now what a lot of Christians want Paul to say is, “a man is not shown righteous/ declared righteous by the works of the law” That’s what they see in ‘justified’; But we know this is patent nonsense (cf. Deut. 6:25).
The reason they swallow this nonsense is that by the time we get to vs. 21, they read: KJV Galatians 2:21 “I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain” which must be corrected:
21 I am not dismissing the °loving kindness of God. For if justice° must be satisfied the normal way†, then Christ died for no reason.
Paul speaks of “righteousness” – really justice, as an external correct treatment of the person that must be satisfied. James speaks of upright behavior.
In rare cases you might hear in a slang English spoken by blacks, “he was done righteous” and you will get Paul’s idea.
After using the wrong sense in Paul, the Christians who don’t want obeying the Torah to be righteousness are kind of stuck when it comes to James. Commentaries or preachers may say that James speaks of righteousness before men while Paul speaks of that before God. This does not fix the logical corner they backed into because James says: KJV James 2:23 “And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.” ---- clearly then, the works righteousness that Abraham had was righteousness in God’s sight.
Now Paul does teach what James teaches also. It is just that the translators and theologians have buried it in false translation. When James used the word “faith” he was meaning the Hellenistic definition, “confidence” or “believe” but when Paul uses “faithfulness” it is a meaning informed by the Hebrew “emunah” and the LXX.
The key to seeing Paul and James in agreement is detecting the double sense in his carefully constructed statement:
Even we in Christ Jesus °firmly trust, so that we might be brought to justice° by the °faithfulness of Christ
First by “brought to justice”, Paul means that Yeshua’s ‘faithfulness’ or ‘commitment’ to the cross brought us to justice vicariously. He died in our place. James does not speak of this in these terms --- but he does not contradict it either. He is simply silent.
But Paul also meant “we are brought to righteousness by the faithfulness of Messiah”; that is ‘faithfulness’ from Messiah that we choose to adopt as our own by obeying the conviction of the Spirit. When we obey, we are indeed doing good works taken from Messiah’s endowment of faithfulness. Therefore Paul is teaching that we are shown righteous by works --- exactly as James did.
But we are not brought to justice by our works. That would be an acquittal. Nor are we brought to righteousness by the customary works. Here it is important to understand that Paul does not mean good works as prescribed in Torah for righteousness, but works in the customary or usual fashion that are aimed at earning an acquittal. Good works from the faithfulness of Christ given to us and the customary works from the fleshly desire to gain an acquittal are from two different sources. Good works are from Messiah. The other source – the normal deeds is from the flesh.
The amazing thing, of course, is that the typical Calvinist or Lutheran considers our “faith” (in the Hellenistic sense) to be the means of acquittal and being shown totally righteous in God’s sight --- which is exactly contradicted by James --- and Paul in Galatians 5:5. That reduces the gospel to a philosophy of acquittal dressed up in the language of the true gospel, but without the power to
bring us to justice or righteousness from the faithfulness of Messiah Yeshua. It is a philosophy of avoiding the guilty verdict, and avoiding real righteousness. Misunderstanding one leads to ignorance of the other.
Dan I have to say that your most recent post lays it out more clear.
It's good to get carried away with thinking out loud. Because if we were all physically together this is what we would be doing to exergis the texts. Just like the sages would argue back and forth and discuss what the texts mean.... resulting in hopefully fulfilling scripture.
This is what we are doing here.
Marc
Thanks Dan for your email regarding HTML tags. My problem was not knowing to use that slash mark at the end.
Sort of illustrates our discussion here. When I tried to get information on HTML online through a google search, I came up with far more information than I was seeking. I did not know where to look for the simple answer to my simple question. I did not want to wade through 50 pages of HTML tutorial. Yet the HTML tutorial is vital information to computer geeks.
Scholarly arguments certainly have their place. Please do not cease from “thinking out loud.” Who knows...maybe scholarly types are reading this or will in the future. Marc and I and others like us will glean what we can...and hopefully ask questions that get you to “think out loud” some more. Clarification will come. It is already clear to you and others like you. Trying to bring it to the common man’s level is difficult. The Church resorted to statues, pictures, and icons to teach the illiterate. Hopefully, we don’t need to go THAT far!
Word illustrations will probably suffice.
...Maybe some poetry or poetic prose from Peter to express these concepts in a memorable or memory peg way.
I like your "Ebonics" example. Actually the KJV uses Ebonics elsewhere I have noticed!
I wonder if hearing you teach this on a podcast would help. Maybe we should look into providing you with whatever is needed for you to make mp3s of your teachings. That way we can hear the inflection in your voice, emphasizing your points. And we can listen again and again until we absorb it.
OR Maureen how about a discussion group like yahoo groups so we can keep each subject and topic more organized.
Marc
Hi Dan I'm not understanding from your commentary:
We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles
Matv
Hi Marc,
Yes, I the 2nd edition will have it like this:
15 We exist by nature† as Judeans° and are not sinners like the peoples.
This is a hard to understand statement. It goes with vs. 16, “but we know …” To hold the doctrine of Paul’s enemies, the Yahad, will create a two class distinction based on some ritual deeds or works regarded as justifying one before God --- so vs. 16 is basically Paul concession before he launches into the main argument, like so “Sure Jews are better … but we are not good enough to satisfy God’s justice.
Perhaps, I should stick a comma at the end of vs. 15?
What do you think?
Dan
This is a hard to understand statement. It goes with vs. 16, “but we know …” To hold the doctrine of Paul’s enemies, the Yahad, will create a two class distinction based on some ritual deeds or works regarded as justifying one before God --- so vs. 16 is basically Paul concession before he launches into the main argument, like so “Sure Jews are better … but we are not good enough to satisfy God’s justice.
So Paul is really Saying Jews are better BUT....?
Perhaps, I should stick a comma at the end of vs. 15?
What do you think?
Dan if it doesn't take away from the text then it might be better to stick a comma at the end of verse 15.
Marc
Hi Marc,
The comma is a done deal, but I exceeded MS Word's Capacity Sunday with some other edits, and now I have figure out how to make it work with a smaller file size.
Paul is saying some Jews are better (present company) followers of Yeshua at that time; As for the nation as a whole --- see Romans 3, no better than Gentiles, and if he had to throw his own past into the equation, then he'd say no.
The audio file suggestion is probably the best way to present commentary -- and I will be putting things up in PDF format. But that will be for later.
Posted From Chicago
Hi Dan,
You are in Chicago now? I assume you are driving to California? If so have a safe trip!
I just received the 2nd addition of the intro to Galatians(thanks Maureen).
I really liked the additions you made at the end which to me helps to reinforce the true Good News.
I will be the first to admit that I need and have gotten with Father about this. To help me unlearn the bad theology because bad theology results in lawlessness and not true repentance based on the Torah like you explained.
Yep although we are saved doesn't acquit us before God and doesn't mean we are perfect. The sinful nature wants us to believe we are acquitted and therefore "no need to repent because you are perfect.
I have committed sins in my past that can't be undone. When I first got saved I thought since I was saved God would fix it all for me because of my acquittal.
Marc
Re: I like your "Ebonics" example. Actually the KJV uses Ebonics elsewhere I have noticed!
I just noticed an example today....
"We be twelve brethren..." (Gen. 42:32)
Dan, I hope you have computer access and can let us know that you safely arrived at your destination.
Looking forward to more discussions as you have time. My husband liked the changes in the Galatians Intro. He could grasp it much better!
Marc, I appreciate your practical examples of Dan's points. Yes, the acquittal doctrine has harmful consequences in not motivating us to live a life of daily repentance, choosing to walk in God's ways (a Torah-based, Biblical lifestyle.) God can work all things together for good, don't forget. Our past mistakes can be stepping stones to learning life's lessons and encouraging others to avoid similar heartaches and consequences. I, too, live with the consequences of my formerly ungodly behavior in my ignorance and self-deception.
(Dan traveled by plane yesterday, by the way.)
Shalom,
Maureen
Hi Marc and Maureen,
We safely arrived in Riverside, CA.
Dan
Glad you arrived safely Dan!
I see you made a new post.
I'll comment so we can get a discussion going on this most important subject.
Marc
Post a Comment