Ii. The Significance Of Justification
d. Other words of the δι
αιος group
Of the other words in this word-group διαίωμα is used most often in the New Testament. Mostly it has the sense ‘ordinance’ as in LXX, and we see, for example, almost the LXX usage in Luke 1: 6 where we read that Zacharias and Elizabeth were both ‘walking in all the commandments and ordinances (ἐντολαĩς αἰ διαιώμασι) of the Lord’ (cf. also Rom. 2: 26; Heb. 9:1,10). The connection with legal concepts is plain, and the forensic sense of the term clear.
αίωμα is used most often in the New Testament. Mostly it has the sense ‘ordinance’ as in LXX, and we see, for example, almost the LXX usage in Luke 1: 6 where we read that Zacharias and Elizabeth were both ‘walking in all the commandments and ordinances (ἐντολαĩς αἰ διαιώμασι) of the Lord’ (cf. also Rom. 2: 26; Heb. 9:1,10). The connection with legal concepts is plain, and the forensic sense of the term clear.But the word has many shades of meaning, and we find it used, for example, in a prayer that ‘all the nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy διαιώματα have been made manifest’ (Rev. 15: 4). RV renders, ‘thy righteous acts’, but there is doubt whether διαιώματα can really bear this meaning (though some commentators accept it here or in Rev. 19: 8 or Rom. 5: 18). Such a meaning is certainly not demanded by the context, and Charles’ explanation seems preferable: ‘διαιώματα here means the judicial sentences of God in relation to the nations either in the way of mercy or condemnation.’513 This is in accordance with the inherent meaning of the word itself, and also with the evidence adduced by Charles.
αιώματα have been made manifest’ (Rev. 15: 4). RV renders, ‘thy righteous acts’, but there is doubt whether διαιώματα can really bear this meaning (though some commentators accept it here or in Rev. 19: 8 or Rom. 5: 18). Such a meaning is certainly not demanded by the context, and Charles’ explanation seems preferable: ‘διαιώματα here means the judicial sentences of God in relation to the nations either in the way of mercy or condemnation.’513 This is in accordance with the inherent meaning of the word itself, and also with the evidence adduced by Charles.Of the other passages containing διαίωμα, Romans 5: 16 reads, ‘for the judgment came of one unto condemnation, but the free gift came of many offences unto justification’. The opposition to ατάριμα and the reference to judgment fix the sense of διαίωμα as ‘sentence of justification’, or ‘acquittal’. This probably settles the meaning of the word also in verse 18, although the structure of this latter verse with διαιώματος answering to παραπτώματος leads some commentators to prefer the meaning ‘righteous act’ or the like. If the former be the correct way of understanding the term, then St. Paul is referring to the Father’s sentence of acquittal; if the latter, he has in mind the Son’s act of expiation. While it would not be beyond the apostle to use the word in two such different senses within such a short compass it does not seem necessary to understand the passage in this way. The reasons adduced by such commentators as Gifford, Godet, Sanday and Headlam and by Schrenk in the Wörterbuch seem sufficient for holding that ‘sentence of justification’ is the meaning here.
αίωμα, Romans 5: 16 reads, ‘for the judgment came of one unto condemnation, but the free gift came of many offences unto justification’. The opposition to ατάριμα and the reference to judgment fix the sense of διαίωμα as ‘sentence of justification’, or ‘acquittal’. This probably settles the meaning of the word also in verse 18, although the structure of this latter verse with διαιώματος answering to παραπτώματος leads some commentators to prefer the meaning ‘righteous act’ or the like. If the former be the correct way of understanding the term, then St. Paul is referring to the Father’s sentence of acquittal; if the latter, he has in mind the Son’s act of expiation. While it would not be beyond the apostle to use the word in two such different senses within such a short compass it does not seem necessary to understand the passage in this way. The reasons adduced by such commentators as Gifford, Godet, Sanday and Headlam and by Schrenk in the Wörterbuch seem sufficient for holding that ‘sentence of justification’ is the meaning here.This leaves us only with Revelation 19: 8: ‘And it was given unto her that she should array herself in fine linen, bright and pure: for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.’ Here, again, there are many who accept the meaning given to the word by the revisers. But in view of the fact that this is a meaning we have not been able to find elsewhere, it is probably better to understand the word of the sentence of justification which gives the saints their standing in the sight of God.
The noun διαίωαις differs from διαίωμα in being the act of justifying of which διαίωμα is the concrete expression. It occurs twice only in the New Testament (Rom. 4: 25 ; 5: 18). The former passage tells us that Jesus our Lord ‘was delivered up for (διά) our trespasses, and was raised for (διά) our justification’. A good deal of ingenuity has been expended upon the two διά’s, and some divergent results have been attained. But the position seems to be, as Gifford says, that διά with the accusative ’simply traces an effect to a cause, it marks the existence of a causal relation between them, without defining its particular character’.514 Thus ‘for our trespasses’ may grammatically mean ‘because we had trespassed’, or ‘to atone for our trespasses’. Similarly, ‘for our justification’ might signify ‘because our justification had been accomplished’, or ‘with a view >to our justification’. There seems no conclusive reason that can be urged in favour of either way of taking justification, but possibly the former view is more in harmony with St. Paul’s usual way of stating the fact of justification. But in any case if we adopt the latter view it must be in the sense that the resurrection is the completion of God’s mighty act of justification, and not as though the resurrection were a justifying act quite apart from the death.515
αίωαις differs from διαίωμα in being the act of justifying of which διαίωμα is the concrete expression. It occurs twice only in the New Testament (Rom. 4: 25 ; 5: 18). The former passage tells us that Jesus our Lord ‘was delivered up for (διά) our trespasses, and was raised for (διά) our justification’. A good deal of ingenuity has been expended upon the two διά’s, and some divergent results have been attained. But the position seems to be, as Gifford says, that διά with the accusative ’simply traces an effect to a cause, it marks the existence of a causal relation between them, without defining its particular character’.514 Thus ‘for our trespasses’ may grammatically mean ‘because we had trespassed’, or ‘to atone for our trespasses’. Similarly, ‘for our justification’ might signify ‘because our justification had been accomplished’, or ‘with a view >to our justification’. There seems no conclusive reason that can be urged in favour of either way of taking justification, but possibly the former view is more in harmony with St. Paul’s usual way of stating the fact of justification. But in any case if we adopt the latter view it must be in the sense that the resurrection is the completion of God’s mighty act of justification, and not as though the resurrection were a justifying act quite apart from the death.515The other passage containing the word reads: ‘So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one sentence of justification the free gift came unto all men to justification of life’ (Rom. 5: 18). The expression used here, εἰς διαίωσιν ζωη
ς, is unusual. It is probably to be understood of justification with a view to life. As Gifford says, ‘The genitive expresses the effect or purpose: “justification” is unto, or in order to, “life”.’516 The context (cf. verses 17, 21) shows that life is to be understood in an eschatological sense, and the passage thus indicates that justification issues in eternal life. Justification here is opposed to ατάριμα, and thus there can be no doubt that it is a forensic term, meaning ‘the act of acquitting’.
αίωσιν ζωης, is unusual. It is probably to be understood of justification with a view to life. As Gifford says, ‘The genitive expresses the effect or purpose: “justification” is unto, or in order to, “life”.’516 The context (cf. verses 17, 21) shows that life is to be understood in an eschatological sense, and the passage thus indicates that justification issues in eternal life. Justification here is opposed to ατάριμα, and thus there can be no doubt that it is a forensic term, meaning ‘the act of acquitting’.None of the other words from this root has great importance for our present inquiry. διαιως occurs with the meaning justly’ (Lk. 23: 41 ; 1 Pet. 2: 23 ; the forensic sense is plain in the latter case), and also with the meaning ‘righteously’ (1 Cor. 15: 34; 1 Thes. 2: 10; Tit. 2: 12). δίη is personified justice in Acts 28: 4, and it signifies ‘punishment’ in both its other occurrences (2 Thes. 1: 9; Jude 7). διάστης means ‘judge’ in Acts 7: 27, 35 (being cited from Ex. 2: 14 both times). διαιορισία is found only in the expression ‘the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgement of God’ (Rom. 2: 5). Here the wrath of God visited upon sinners is recognized as showing God’s judgment to be righteous.
αιως occurs with the meaning justly’ (Lk. 23: 41 ; 1 Pet. 2: 23 ; the forensic sense is plain in the latter case), and also with the meaning ‘righteously’ (1 Cor. 15: 34; 1 Thes. 2: 10; Tit. 2: 12). δίη is personified justice in Acts 28: 4, and it signifies ‘punishment’ in both its other occurrences (2 Thes. 1: 9; Jude 7). διάστης means ‘judge’ in Acts 7: 27, 35 (being cited from Ex. 2: 14 both times). διαιορισία is found only in the expression ‘the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgement of God’ (Rom. 2: 5). Here the wrath of God visited upon sinners is recognized as showing God’s judgment to be righteous.Thus in all this word-group we may discern a close connection with the law-court and with judgment generally. The forensic sense is sometimes very strong, and sometimes scarcely perceptible, which is what we would expect when we are dealing with so many occurrences of the words. But almost throughout we are able to detect the forensic undertone, and it is quite clear that many important passages will yield up their meaning only when we recognize that the imagery is taken from processes of law. In particular we have reached the important conclusion that justification is in essence a matter of right status or standing in the sight of God, the status which shows that we are accepted with Him.