# Calling all Greek Experts: dikaiow



## Matthew Tringali (Jul 8, 2011)

So, I have a friend who is considering converting to Roman Catholicism. We have spent sometime talking about Sola Scriptura. And have now begun to focus our discussions on soteriology. Of particular interest right now is this article: Î´Î¹ÎºÎ±Î¹ÏŒÏ‰: a morphological, lexical and historical analysis | Called to Communion

Now, I did take more than just the required Greek in seminary and did quite well. But, still, I am NOTHING of a Greek expert and do not use it anymore. I don't feel qualified to really address the concerns brought up in the linked article.

I would like to hear some opinions from some PB folks who feel qualified to evaluate this. I would prefer for the thread to not derail into a general discussion on Roman Catholicism.

Thanks!


----------



## JennyG (Jul 8, 2011)

I've just read the article - very interesting. My Greek is much too rusty to be helpful, but this is the comment I'd most like to see addressed:


> While there is a lot of merit to the dikaioo discussion, there is an even more decisive key piece of evidence that is so utterly damning to Sola Fide that **no** Protestant scholars or apologists will even discuss it. While I was not the first to discover this, I have made it a personal goal to spread this information as far as possible because I believe it will pick up and end the Justification dispute within our lifetime.
> 
> In my study on this topic of imputed righteousness, the Greek term “logizomai” is the English term for “reckon/impute/credit/etc,” (all terms are basically equivalently used) and when I look up that term in a popular lexicon here is what it is defined as:
> 
> ...


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 8, 2011)

Matthew, here are my thoughts on the actual article, and then I will address Jenny's concerns: 

The article assumes that the Protestant position of justification by a declared, imputed righteousness is not in fact causative. But if we posit God's language of declaring a sinner to be not guilty, and to be righteous on the basis of an imputed righteousness, then God's declaration _causes what it declares to be true_. I have found very helpful resources in this regard in the connection of justification to union with Christ. Because the church is united to Christ, all that legally belongs to Christ belongs to the church, and by virtue of this union (which has both corporate and individual aspects to it), the imputation is not a legal fiction. The "alien" part of the righteousness refers to its _origin_ outside of us. Christ's righteousness doesn't stay alien! In other words, God's declaration _makes_ us righteous. It makes us righteous by imputation, and not by an infusion of righteousness. So, in reality, simply emphasizing the causal nature of the language does nothing to prove that the Romanist position of infusion is correct, and the Protestant position of imputation is wrong. Words do things. Imputation by declaration does something. 

Incidentally, the main thing that the article completely ignores is the _forensic_ nature of the verb "dikaioo." This is pretty much universally admitted among the lexicons. The word belongs in the realm of the courtroom. It means "to declare someone to be in the right." The forensic nature of the verb is what excludes the infusion of righteousness interpretation. No infusion happens in a courtroom. Only declarations (after proofs) can happen as the verdict. It makes no sense for God to say, as the verdict, "I now infuse you with Christ's righteousness." Rather, the great exchange happens because the believer is united to Christ by faith. When that happens, then God says, "What belongs to Christ now belongs to you, and what belongs to you now belongs to Christ." Hence, our sin is laid on Christ, who does away with it, and His righteousness is credited to us. I just realized that I have really dealt with the comment that Jenny was interested in as well.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jul 8, 2011)

A few comments:

First, he is right that words with -οω endings are usually factitive or causative, but I don't think he's interpreted that correctly. A factitive word is one that accomplishes a certain result or “renders to a thing a certain character or status.” There is some variety in how that status can come about. When we look at δικαιοω w/ persons as objects, it means to “do justice to/for someone,” either by punishing or vindicating. In Greek literature, it's forensic. Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei, vol. 1, points out the Septuagint translators really made a new sense when they used δικαιοω to mean "vindicate." In previous Greek literature, it almost always means "punish." They took the root idea, "to do justice to/for someone" and reversed the connotation.

Second, he is absolutely wrong about the lexicons. He may have looked up the word on Perseus and found a short gloss (which are wrong disturbingly often), but if you look in the actual LSJ lexicon, this is what you find: Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon,

Note that there is no "make just" in there anywhere. All the biblical examples are firmly in the forensic. By the way, chapter 15 of Stephen Westerholm, _Perspectives Old and New on Paul_ is an extensive analysis of the complex of δικαι- root words.

Also, N. T. Wright is fantastic at refuting infused righteousness. He doesn't really understand imputation. When he's arguing against it, he's really arguing against infusion. So, just take a pencil and change all the "imputation" to "infusion" in his books, then you have some great arguments.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jul 8, 2011)

Matthew Tringali said:


> So, I have a friend who is considering converting to Roman Catholicism. We have spent sometime talking about Sola Scriptura. And have now begun to focus our discussions on soteriology. Of particular interest right now is this article: Î´Î¹ÎºÎ±Î¹ÏŒÏ‰: a morphological, lexical and historical analysis | Called to Communion
> 
> Now, I did take more than just the required Greek in seminary and did quite well. But, still, I am NOTHING of a Greek expert and do not use it anymore. I don't feel qualified to really address the concerns brought up in the linked article.
> 
> ...



I am the farthest from a Greek expert, but this guy seems to know what he is talking about......
[video=youtube;VL9whwwTK6I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL9whwwTK6I&feature=related[/video]


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jul 8, 2011)

Also it should be added that "dikaiow" is a golf term for the procedure followed when you don't hit your drive past the ladies' tee.


----------



## JennyG (Jul 8, 2011)

Thank you very much, Lane and Charlie, I'm happy to understand that. Good old Liddell and Scott


----------



## CharlieJ (Jul 8, 2011)

Given that the Septuagint is the baseline for understanding many of the terms and concepts in the NT, it's useful to see how δικαιοω shows up there. Since most of you don't know Greek, I'll just bold the verbs that translate δικαιοω. This is just a sampling

Genesis 44:16 And Judah said, "What shall we say to my lord? What shall we speak? Or how can we *clear* ourselves? God has found out the guilt of your servants; behold, we are my lord's servants, both we and he also in whose hand the cup has been found."

Deuteronomy 25:1 "If there is a dispute between men and they come into court and the judges decide between them, *acquitting* the innocent [τον δικαιον] and condemning the guilty,

2 Samuel 15:4 Then Absalom would say, "Oh that I were judge in the land! Then every man with a dispute or cause might come to me, and I would *give him justice*."

1 Kings 8:32 then hear in heaven and act and judge your servants, condemning the guilty by bringing his conduct on his own head, and *vindicating* the righteous [δικαιον] by rewarding him according to his righteousness [δικαιοσυνην].


----------

