Ii. Law And Judgment In The Old Testament
I. INTRODUCTION
THE FIRST IMPRESSION ONE RECEIVES on turning to the subject of justification after dealing with the concepts examined in the earlier chapters of this book is that the material to be considered is very abundant. We have noted that propitiation, although an important conception, is used with reference to the atonement only four times in all in the New Testament. Similarly reconciliation, in which some modern scholars are inclined to see the essential New Testament teaching with regard to the atonement, occurs in only five passages, all of them Pauline. By contrast, he who would expound justification is confronted with eighty-one occurrences of the adjective δίxα
oς, ninety-two of the noun δxαoσύνη, two of the noun δxαίωσς, thirty-nine of the verb δxαόω, ten of the noun δxαίωμα, and five of the adverb δxαίως. On examination much of this may prove to have little relevance to the atonement, but it remains that the bare enumeration of the number of passages to be considered indicates that we are here dealing with a conception of great importance for the evaluation of the atonement. The tendency in some quarters to disparage the importance of justification in comparison with one or other of the alternative ways of looking at God’s great work for men is not one which is reflected in our sources. Particularly is this true of St. Paul who uses the conception so frequently that we are compelled to think that for him it was a dominant idea.
oς, ninety-two of the noun δxαoσύνη, two of the noun δxαίωσς, thirty-nine of the verb δxαόω, ten of the noun δxαίωμα, and five of the adverb δxαίως. On examination much of this may prove to have little relevance to the atonement, but it remains that the bare enumeration of the number of passages to be considered indicates that we are here dealing with a conception of great importance for the evaluation of the atonement. The tendency in some quarters to disparage the importance of justification in comparison with one or other of the alternative ways of looking at God’s great work for men is not one which is reflected in our sources. Particularly is this true of St. Paul who uses the conception so frequently that we are compelled to think that for him it was a dominant idea.The derivation of the root from which these words are derived is shrouded in obscurity. What emerges from the discussion is that the two meanings of ‘custom’ and ‘right’ seem to go back as far as we can trace the words. Accordingly, if our endeavour is simply to find out what the word-group meant in New Testament times, the search for the original root meaning is largely academic. For centuries these two ideas had been conveyed by the words in question. At least this is clear for xηίδ,472 which is possibly the basic word of the group, though it is not possible to authenticate it for all the members. But as used in the first century there does seem to be a flavour of ‘rightness’, of ’Justness’ about these words. They do not indicate something arbitrary, but something in conformity with some standard of right. The righteous man is one who is adjudged right by such a standard, and righteousness indicates a state of having attained to the standard in question.
It is necessary to say a word or two more about the verb δxαόω which in the New Testament is translated ‘to justify’ but which has been understood in more ways than one. Since verbs in -όω commonly express a causative idea it is urged by some that δxαόω must mean ‘to make righteous’. But in the first place verbs of this class denoting moral qualities do not have the causative meaning (e.g. ἀξόω means ‘to deem worthy’ not ‘to make worthy’ and similarly with ὁμoόω, ὁσόω, etc.). And in any case the meaning of a word is to be determined in the last resort by the way people used it. We cannot say that, since a verb is formed in such and such a fashion, therefore the Greeks must have understood it to mean so and so. All that we can do is to note how they did in fact use it, and deduce from that what it meant to them. By this test δxαόω certainly does not mean ‘to make righteous’. In Greek literature generally it seems to mean ‘to hold as right’, ‘to deem right’, and thence ‘to claim or demand as a right’, and ‘to do a man right or justice’. This latter was commonly taken to mean ‘to punish for wickedness’ so that, interestingly enough, in many profane contexts the thought is that of chastisement, in striking contrast with the use in the Bible. Neither the word structure nor the use of the verb outside the Bible, then, gives countenance to the idea that ‘to make righteous’ is the meaning we are to understand .473
xαόω which in the New Testament is translated ‘to justify’ but which has been understood in more ways than one. Since verbs in -όω commonly express a causative idea it is urged by some that δxαόω must mean ‘to make righteous’. But in the first place verbs of this class denoting moral qualities do not have the causative meaning (e.g. ἀξόω means ‘to deem worthy’ not ‘to make worthy’ and similarly with ὁμoόω, ὁσόω, etc.). And in any case the meaning of a word is to be determined in the last resort by the way people used it. We cannot say that, since a verb is formed in such and such a fashion, therefore the Greeks must have understood it to mean so and so. All that we can do is to note how they did in fact use it, and deduce from that what it meant to them. By this test δxαόω certainly does not mean ‘to make righteous’. In Greek literature generally it seems to mean ‘to hold as right’, ‘to deem right’, and thence ‘to claim or demand as a right’, and ‘to do a man right or justice’. This latter was commonly taken to mean ‘to punish for wickedness’ so that, interestingly enough, in many profane contexts the thought is that of chastisement, in striking contrast with the use in the Bible. Neither the word structure nor the use of the verb outside the Bible, then, gives countenance to the idea that ‘to make righteous’ is the meaning we are to understand .473