Context: the final arbiter or semantic domain?

[arapahoepark]

As I go through some works and reviews on New Testament theology and justification in particular, I have been thinking about contextual considerations and what counts as the final arbiter in determining meaning. For instance, we know that in recent years thanks to Wright et al, justification and the dikaoo word group have become battlegrounds. Each interpreter has their own view of 'context.' For Wright the context is Jew Gentile relations and for someone like increasingly popular Matthew Bates it's Jesus as King. As a result, we know Wright's view, while the latter the call to faith is one of 'allegiance' not trust.
Both aren't necessarily wrong on their context but, we fervently argue their definitions of justification are wrong and that perhaps there's more to the context.

However, when do the words' domains come into it? For example, a few years ago I confess I stupidly used the word 'privy' thinking I knew the meaning in a conversation. Boy I got some weird looks. I think that's exactly how Paul would come across to the Galatians or Romans if suddenly the words 'diakoo/diakyesune Theo' and 'pistis' were meant to be construed on their current situation (or based upon what Wright and Bates think it has to mean) or other contextual considerations and not with their past historic usage.
Or would these be exegetical fallacies?
Or would the final determination still be based on an even narrower context i.e. dik- group group in apposition to condemnation language, pisteuo determining pistis and not vice versa, etc.?

 

[MW]

On hierarchy of meaning, the governing principle must be the immediate literary context. Then we are constrained by established semantic domains and the author's patterns of usage. Finally, we bring in the historical and cultural background to see how broader realities might make the author's choice of this word significant or polemical. Regrettably, in biblical studies today this tends to be turned on its head. You will find the ANE determining value-laden meaning for the OT, and then Midrashic exegesis doing the same for the NT.

Paul’s letters are arguments, and the meaning of terms is shaped by their role in those arguments. The forensic contrast between δικαιόω and κατακρίνω in Rom. 8:33-34 is not a vague metaphor; it is a logical antithesis within a judicial framework. Interpreting δικαιόω as "incorporate into the covenant people" in that specific verse would break the parallelism.

The established usage of a word in a language community sets the range of possible meanings. A first-century Greek speaker, Jew or Gentile, would bring associations from law courts and official pronouncements. While Paul applies this in a revolutionary way in connection with the gospel he does not redefine the core ideas. To claim the primary sense is "covenant membership" or "being made virtuous" requires evidence that this was a standard, recognised meaning, which is lacking for δικαιόω.

While "allegiance" may be a component or implication of πίστις in certain contexts, e.g., trust in a king implies loyalty, to make it the primary sense is an illegitimate transfer. It takes a modern sociological category that has been drawn from studies of ancient kingship and prefers it to the word's organic relationship to its cognate verb πιστεύω, which is "to believe, trust." Paul’s congregations would have understood "faith in Christ" as trust/belief in him and his resurrection, not as a technical term of political fealty. Moreover, the immediate context of πίστις is often contrast with νόμος or ἔργα. In fealty terms this dichotomy makes no sense.