Translation is hard.

That may seem like a truism, but the truth is far more complex than most people realize. John Walton describes the situation well in his introduction to The Lost World of Genesis One. He explains that just translating the language doesn’t convey meaning like most people think it does. The message of a given work is conveyed in its language to the culture in which it was produced. Merely translating the language without accounting for the cultural differences between the source culture and the reader in another culture is guaranteed to result in misunderstanding. This is less of a problem when the cultures are similar, of course, but it is a major problem when the cultures are as dissimilar as the Ancient Near East (ANE) and the modern West. Translating is hard enough when many or most words do not have an exact translation, as is the case with translating from Hebrew to English, but the translator’s job of conveying the original meaning with all its nuance becomes nearly impossible when culture is factored in. Walton cites this as a problem for understanding the creation account, but it is equally problematic for Western understandings of biblical justice and justification. ^[1]

Significance of the Problem

Walton is not the only author to note this problem, of course; it is well attested. An easy and obvious early mention cited by many is that of the translator of Ecclesiasticus, contained in the prologue, stating that what is expressed originally in Hebrew doesn’t have the same sense when translated (to Greek, in his case).^[2] If the concepts expressed in Hebrew were difficult to translate into Greek, they were surely even harder to re-translate into Latin and even more problematic to translate into modern languages such as English, largely due to the ever-widening cultural divide. Alistair McGrath notes that this phenomenon has “significant consequences” for theology and that this fact has become more well known in recent years, leading to significant study.[3]

In fact, the problem is compounded when New Testament authors (or the translators of the Septuagint) express these concepts in Greek and then the Greek is subsequently translated into other languages, such as Latin or English, because the problem occurs twice. This is especially true if the later translator knew no Hebrew and thus did not understand the nuances of the original difficulty. Jerome knew Hebrew, but he experienced significant pressure to conform his work to the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew text (from Augustine in particular), and his translation wound up largely being a revision of the Old Latin translation from Greek.[4] John Lee questions the accuracy of the Vulgate for a variety of reasons:

The salient points are these: 1) however good Jerome’s knowledge of Greek may have been, the Greek New Testament was already nearly three centuries old, and some loss of access to the intended meaning of the words was inevitable; 2) the revision was a conservative one and the existing Latin versions, created by unknown persons and dependent on the most elementary translation method, still called the tune; and 3) Jerome himself may have been involved in no more than half the work.[5]

Since the Western church depended on Latin translations for most of its theological work, these translation issues must be accounted for in understanding the results of theological deliberation.[6] This did not only affect Western understanding of the Old Testament, however. McGrath notes that it very much affected their understanding of Paul and his doctrine of justification. This understanding, which Luther grappled with and understood to be no good news at all, resulted in the Protestant Reformation.[7]

These understandings persist in the West to the present day because most lexical work is merely revision of older works; little fresh analysis occurs. John Lee argues in the entire first section of his history of lexicography that modern lexicons are not significantly better than the older ones they are based on and that all are ultimately based on translations. Almost everyone involved in such work is engaged in a cycle of translations relying on lexicons which in turn rely on translations. Additional precision is frequently achieved merely by adding receptor language definitions for a gloss rather than truly defining the source language term. The result is that most Western lexicons are heavily dependent on the Vulgate with little improvement despite a never-ending series of revisions.[8]

Hans Förster presents an excellent example of how such misunderstanding can affect lexicons, translations, and the church’s understanding of the text while emphasizing the principles that Lee lays out in detail. He suggests that the Latin version is “less faithful to its source text than hitherto taken for granted” and that “Luther took liberties with the text in translating it, which need to be understood better.” He argues that Luther’s anti-Semitism affected his translation choices, that these influenced Bauer in his first edition, and that this influence filters through to today’s editions.[9] The result is a flawed understanding of the text that appears in modern translations. Though the issue he addresses is not justification, his analysis implies that many more such problematic understandings likely exist.

McGrath notes something quite similar in far more detail in his discussion of the history of justification, and this history will be related in the appropriate chapters of this paper. His work relates the development of the doctrine of justification and the various understandings of it through church history. He notes, however, that he performs a historical analysis and will not attempt to define the nature of justification, saying, “That definitional task I gladly leave to others.”[10]

This paper attempts to build on his work and accomplish that task as well as to show precisely why such diversity in understanding exists. Martin Luther wrote, “For if the article of justification be once lost, then is all true Christian doctrine lost”[11]Thus, it is critical that the biblical doctrine of justification be defined accurately and understood by the church. For a church that Paul said is defined by unity (Ephesians 4:4-7) and that Jesus prayed would be one (John 17:20-21), the schism caused by differing understandings of this one word is nothing short of tragic. Efforts have been made to bridge this gap in recent years, even claiming a consensus at one point. However, the consensus document clearly articulates the foundational differences while declaring that “A common understanding is therefore fundamental and indispensable to overcoming that division” (of the Reformation).[12] It is indeed, and if Luther was correct, such a common understanding is also necessary to ensure the purity of the faith once for all delivered to the saints discussed in Jude 3. While differences in perspective are certainly acceptable, misunderstandings due to tradition, later human reasoning, and translation error must not be accepted as biblical and have no place in sound theology.

Scope and Limits of the Study

The scope of this thesis is necessarily large due to the sweeping nature of the claim; however, it will be limited as much as possible. A survey has been performed, and no comprehensive treatment is attempted or implied. Hebrew lexicography is left to experts in that field, and secondary sources are relied upon heavily to glean Semitic concepts from various texts. Septuagint, biblical, and patristic sources are surveyed with representative passages discussed, but neither a comprehensive treatment nor a thorough lexicographic analysis is attempted. The scope is a macroscopic view of the topic, not an exhaustive microscopic treatment.

Review of Literature

This review follows the structure of the thesis, describing sources in arrangement by relevant chapters. In doing this, some sources are referenced in multiple sections to maintain the flow of the arrangement. Additionally, righteousness is discussed regularly as a near synonym of justice, as a righteous judge is one who rules in justice. The terms are so closely related that one cannot be suitably discussed without the other.

In the Old Testament

McGrath outlines the Semitic concept of justice as he begins his history of justification, noting that it is quite different from the Western conception. He outlines some of the resulting exegetical problems, such as the contradiction between a just God by Western standards giving sinners what they are due and the forgiveness and acceptance of sinners. He notes that etymology is not nearly as important as usage and context in determining meaning and defines righteousness as right behavior or right disposition, though vindicating action is also a possibility. Acting in accordance with the order of creation can define right. Covenant defines right behavior by both sides in the relationship between God and his people. When the covenant is kept, that is, both sides act rightly, things are in a state of righteousness, or “as they should be.” He notes that righteousness can be both retributive and salvific, such as being retributive towards Israel’s enemies but salvific with regard to God’s people. Salvation is always present, and in fact overtones of salvation are strong enough that terms for righteousness and salvation are practically equal in later writing, such as in Isaiah. McGrath further notes that righteousness and justice can include deliverance from internal threats, such as the judges dealing with the unfaithful in Israel, and can even include delivering the poor from their plight.[13]

Charles Irons describes righteousness explicitly in terms of usage, grouping options into three main categories: legal righteousness, ethical righteousness, and moral righteousness. The first refers to the righteousness or justice of God or a king as a just judge. The second refers exclusively to humans and is intrinsic morality or the judgment of God that it exists. The last is nonhuman and refers to objective truth, such as just measures. He supports these categorizations and definitions with semantic analysis.[14] He summarizes the relevance of his work to the present discussion well, “Fundamentally, ‘the righteousness of God’ in the Old Testament refers to God’s justice in executing judgment on the enemies of his people and thereby vindicating his people in the face of their oppressors. Thus, it can refer to either side of the equation: (a) the act of punishing Israel’s enemies; or (b) the deliverance that results when Israel’s enemies are thus extinguished, and Israel is vindicated. This may apply to Israel as a nation or to the individual.”[15]

If God’s righteousness is judicial, then his Law, or Torah, is closely related as well. William Morrow describes the purpose of the Law in a way that directly reflects on God’s righteousness. He notes that the Law describes Israel as a priestly kingdom and holy nation (Exodus 19:6) but it becomes a vehicle for Israel to know God. This is because the Law is God’s self-disclosure. The basis for the Law is that God delivered Israel from Egypt, as noted at the beginning of the Ten Commandments and repeatedly throughout the Pentateuch.[16] He notes that the Law is not aligned in purpose with modern criminal law and does not concern itself with revenge. Its primary goal is to regulate social conflict, healing social relationships in a way far more analogous to modern civil law.[17] This is quite consistent with the court structure Irons outlines that requires an oppressed plaintiff, an oppressor defendant, and a just judge.[18]

Christiana Tor-Kurth describes righteousness as exemplary moral behavior. The point of Torah is piety towards God and righteousness/justice towards humans; Torah explains how to do this. In fact, acting rightly toward others is an act of obedience towards God and thus is an act of piety.[19] This is consistent with Irons’ second category, ethical righteousness, noted earlier.

Jeremiah Unterman relates many of the above concepts even more explicitly and shows the relationship between them. He notes that the Sinai covenant is the only known ancient treaty between a people and its god. Based on the terms of the covenant, the individual is responsible for keeping the law, the stipulations of the treaty, but the consequences, the blessings and cursings, largely fall upon the nation as a whole. Thus, “the future of the entire society is dependent on the behavior of the individual!”[20] He discusses further that this is beyond a legal relationship because God is described as the father of the nation. While disaster may befall the nation due to disobedience, the parent-child model means that this is merely a “passing penalty”. The relationship between the people and their God, the Creator, is eternal. His purpose is not retributive, but corrective, as a parent with a child. Once repentance occurs, any remaining penalty is moot as the relationship is restored.[21] The purpose of sacrifice as a religious ritual is not to take the penalty, as repentance has already resulted in forgiveness. Rather, it is to cleanse the impurity of sin from the people, to clean the House of God so that he could continue to dwell there.[22]

The Septuagint is not generally held in high regard in biblical studies, taking on a secondary role. Eberhard Bons explains the reason why, that the Reformation forced the choice of an authoritative text. Protestants chose the Masoretic Text, while Catholics declared the Vulgate normative and authoritative at the Council of Trent. However, the Septuagint is a different textual source, and it varies from both at times. He notes that it deserves study in its own right, not just to explain the authoritative text.[23]

Timothy Law agrees, noting among other reasons for the importance of the Septuagint that the earliest Christians used this as their Bible and were shaped by its theology, not the Hebrew Bible. He points out that this would not be particularly significant if the Septuagint were merely a translation, but at some times it is radically different from the Masoretic Text, and this is what is quoted as authoritative by the New Testament authors.[24] Mogens Müller takes this one step further, claiming that “the Septuagint does in fact convey, more convincingly than Biblia Hebraica, what the New Testament authors understood as their Holy Writ.”[25]

McGrath essentially agrees, noting that translations are clearly interpretive. Since the Septuagint represents a different manuscript tradition, it is not clear how closely it follows the alternate original and how much of it is theologically shaped. He notes, however, that it was considered authoritative in the New Testament church (as well as among Jews, particularly those in the diaspora). Consistency in translation is not achieved due to the difficulties of that task and the peculiarities of Hebrew. Specifically, there is no satisfactory Greek term that corresponds to the Hebrew sdq word group. The dik- word group is generally but not always used. Part of the problem is that dik- lacks the soteriological overtones of sdq.[26] Thus, the dik- group takes on a new meaning in the Septuagint unknown in secular Greek, as Moisés Silva and McGrath both describe.[27]  Specifically, Silva explains that justification is generally “to do right” or “to do justice to someone”. In secular usage, this is occasionally positive but usually negative in the sense of giving just punishment. Through Septuagint usage, justification becomes synonymous with mercy and salvation, even alms and acts of kindness. He notes that judicially, this means to recognize that someone is in the right, though he does not connect that meaning to the soteriological overtones present in the Hebrew concept.[28] This is critical in understanding the language of the New Testament.

In the New Testament

Silva describes extensively how the Septuagint affected the vocabulary of the New Testament. Citing multiple other authors and the history of thought on the extent of this influence, he concludes that the Septuagint outweighs all other influences. The Septuagint was available to the authors of the New Testament, as they quoted from it, and that is clearly where they derived their theological vocabulary. When expressing terms and concepts of the Old Testament, the influence of the Septuagint’s use of language would be difficult to underestimate.[29] Thus, understanding how this language is used in the Septuagint will be critical in the interpretation of the New Testament, as early Christian Greek usage follows Septuagint usage in expressing Jewish and Christian theological concepts.

Most literature discussing the doctrine of justification centers on Paul. However, understanding that justice and righteousness are the base concepts for justification allows seeing the doctrine in other parts of the New Testament. N. T. Wright does exactly this throughout How God Became King. For example, in his third chapter, he notes that the rich young ruler asking how to inherit eternal life has to do with God ushering in a new age of justice, peace, and freedom promised when Messiah comes and how he can be sure to be part of it. This requires thinking of these passages from the perspective of the Old Testament rather than from the perspective of the Western world. In chapter seven, he reads John 16:8 as being about “justice” rather than “righteousness” as it is traditionally translated, understanding the underlying Greek term from the Septuagint rather than taking a modern Western reading. Jesus going to the Father is God’s justice in vindicating Jesus. He understands the Beatitudes to speak of people who hunger and thirst for God’s justice in his ninth chapter. He understands that the gospels generally show how God keeps his promise to bring justice to the world, and the New Testament as a whole reads quite differently from that perspective.[30]

This argument centers on Paul, though, as Paul’s discussion of justification in Romans and Galatians is the primary place that such terminology is used. However, one might question whether we should start there. N. T. Wright advocated starting from the gospels, as discussed above, but he also mentions starting from Ephesians, wondering whether the Reformers would have come to a different conclusion if they started there.[31] Gary Weedman describes a bit of how that might have looked, noting that the Gentiles were excluded from the Old Covenant, as they were not Jews. The point of the New Covenant is that the wall that separated Jews and Gentiles has been broken down, making one people of God. Thus, the Gentiles who were without hope in the world now have hope and are heirs to the same promises.[32] Paul seems to be defining justification without using that word, saying that the Gentiles are “saved by faith through grace” and not by works in Ephesians 2:8-9. The parallel with his argument in Romans and Galatians is remarkable.

Certainly, that argument is where any discussion of justification must go. Romans is more detailed and thus seems to get more scholarly attention, and that is where this section will culminate. James Prothro attempts a short discussion of the grammar and syntax involved, tracing word usage in both secular sources and the Septuagint to show that theological usage of the term is unique. He notes that justification is favorable in such usage, but he fails to recognize that this normally is applied to the oppressed plaintiff in the case, applying it instead to the defendant in terms of “clear from charge”.[33] Michael Barber cites Prothro but takes the concept one step further, claiming that the favorable judgment is due to “cardiac righteousness”, or having an upright heart without regard to any actions.[34] Obviously, this would be an entirely new usage of the idea of justice or righteousness not found in the Septuagint.

Markus Barth makes a somewhat similar argument conceptually, even starting with a description of the court system of the Old Testament. He notes that righteousness and saving intervention are equivalent and that God’s people are saved. He describes two litigants with a dispute between them, and the point of justification is to right a wrong. The judge justifies by deciding to right the wrong, thus bringing down a righteous judgment. For some reason, he decides to use the word “innocent” to describe a civil litigant and “guilty” to describe the other party in the case, even though what he has described is not a criminal matter. He goes on to describe the heavenly courtroom in which humanity is accused of a crime and no plaintiff exists.[35] Clearly, this is a novel idea not consistent with the system of justice he describes in the first part of the work.

Ben Pugh takes a bit different approach, describing a special case of a prophetic lawsuit, where God is the judge, the prophet is the plaintiff, and Israel is the defendant. He specifically references the Septuagint as the source and notes that Paul’s readers would understand the genre. However, he implies that in this context, justification should have its secular, negative meaning, as Israel will be condemned, though suddenly, the tables are turned and the guilty is justified in a positive sense, declared innocent.[36] The problem with this view is that the Septuagint does not use justification in a negative way in the prophetic lawsuit as he claims. Israel always receives a negative ruling in those cases, so this interpretation too is entirely new and foreign to the text.

Other authors, however, use the Septuagint concepts of justice and justification as explained in the preceding section to interpret Paul. Geoffrey Turner argues that Paul quotes extensively from the Psalms using the Septuagint and that this is the source of his vocabulary, not the culture around him. God is faithful to the covenant and vindicates his righteous ones who are oppressed. These righteous ones are known by their faithfulness to God’s Law. Paul keeps this language, but he notes that the Law is no longer the indicator, but rather the righteous are counted righteous because of their faith.[37]

Douglas Campbell interprets Paul very similarly, but he identifies the oppressor, saying, “To put things at their simplest, only if my rereading is true is it possible to affirm coherently Paul’s slogan that “God justifies the ungodly,” since he means by this that God delivers the wicked from their enslavement to Sin, when they cannot deliver themselves, and thereby demonstrates his unconditional grace and love.” [38] He shows extensively throughout his work how this understanding is more consistent with the text than traditional interpretations, mostly addressing Protestant ideas but implicitly addressing the Catholic understanding as well.

Chris VanLandingham comes to a very similar conclusion, “Paul employs the δικαι terms, as they describe the initial effects of the Christ event for believers to embrace both the notions of (1) forgiveness, cleansing, and purification of past sins and (2) an emancipation from sin as a ruler of humanity.”[39] VanLandingham primarily refutes Sanders’ understanding of Judaism, but he also acknowledges that his conclusion is at odds with traditional scholarship. He concludes that an eschatological judgment acquittal as “justification” by faith is not present in Paul. The final judgment is a judgment according to what a person has done with this gift of emancipation from sin.[40]

In the Early Greek Fathers

If the Septuagint-consistent understanding of justification described by Campbell and VanLandingham is correct, the earliest church fathers who spoke Greek and were closest to the apostles should teach something quite similar. However, one would expect those who understand Paul differently to also understand the fathers differently, and this is generally the case.

Thomas Torrance is a wonderful example of this. While he writes primarily about grace, the overlap of concepts in biblical doctrine require that he will also address other topics, like righteousness and justice. He notes in his introduction that sdq is practically an equivalent of salvation, and he notes the difficulty of translating to Greek in the Septuagint.^[41] This seems like a good start, but as he details various writings, he can find none that interpret Paul the way he does, concluding that all of the apostolic fathers synthesize the gospel and paganism.[42] Ultimately, this is because he has a relatively strict traditional understanding of Paul that is not found in the fathers.

In contrast, Brian Arnold finds plenty of evidence in the fathers to agree with his traditional understanding of Paul, which he defines as Lutheran. He argues that Luther neither invented nor discovered his view of justification, but that this view was present in the second-century fathers. He cites McGrath as saying that the doctrine changed dramatically with Augustine, with which he strongly disagrees. He notes that starting with Luther and looking back would be anachronistic and suggests taking the perspective of the second century fathers as the starting point. He additionally suggests that concepts must be studied and not just word groups.[43]  While this approach seems sound, he then defines all of his terms and concepts as a Lutheran understanding of Paul and proceeds to look for any scant evidence that such an understanding was present in the second century. He finds what he is looking for, as one would expect, and thus he disagrees regularly with Torrance.

The fathers can speak for themselves. A review of passages from Clement, Ignatius, the Odes of Solomon, and others shows that the fathers are indeed consistent with Paul in doctrine, emphasis, and language. Origen is not as consistent as the others, showing that a variety of views must have been present.

In the Latin West

McGrath notes that as Christianity spread into Europe, “The Western church had no direct knowledge of Semitic culture and its theologians were generally dependent on textual mediation of the core ideas of the Old Testament through the medium of a language which had no historical connection with Israel –Latin.”[44] Theologians based their deliberations on Latin texts, and the Latin terms used in translation certainly influenced understanding of the text. This was minimized by seeing these terms used in the Old Testament, particularly in the Psalms, to understand aspects of God’s justice that were not necessarily part of the normal Latin semantic range. Despite this mitigating effect, considerable change in understanding of justice and righteousness occurred with the Latin translation.[45]

McGrath comments that Tertullian engaged Paul extensively, but he does not describe that engagement. This seems strange for the man frequently called the first Latin father. David Wilhite opines that “his impact on the terminology and shape of all subsequent western theology would prove to be immense,” though Jerome and Augustine later deemed him too controversial.^[46] Later in Wilhite’s volume, Stephen Cooper notes Tertullian’s contrast between justice and kindness as being in absolute opposition.^[47] Eric Osborn describes how Tertullian sees justice and goodness in God as opposites in detail, noting that pure goodness without God’s retributive justice creates significant problems. He describes God’s justice as a response to man’s evil.[48] This first Latin father has a very different perspective than the Septuagint, the scriptures, and the Greek fathers.

Both McGrath and Irons cite Ambrosiaster as an influential Latin source, though the author’s true identity is unknown. Irons cites a passage from Ambrosiaster that seems to align well with the Greek thought outlined above, but then he cites another, a commentary on Romans 1:17, that clearly understands righteousness more as something God grants or gives and that man thus receives, the application of soteriological righteousness.[49] McGrath describes how Ambrosiaster outlines the doctrine of sola fide, though it is only applied to works of the Law and not works in general. He notes the idea of substitution, that Christ is the fulfillment of the Law, so a believer fulfills the Law through faith in Christ. Justification is certainly soteriological, but it is not privileged over any other metaphor. He does not detail what Ambrosiaster means by justification.[50]

Both McGrath and Irons turn next to Augustine. Irons cites Augustine as interpreting the righteousness of God as the righteousness with which he clothes man. Thus, this is no longer the righteousness of God in rendering a right verdict but is now righteousness from God. He emphasizes Augustine’s statement on Romans 10:3 that the righteousness of God is not the righteousness by which God is righteous but the righteousness that comes from God that he gives to humans. He notes that statements like these were formational for Luther.[51]

McGrath devotes an entire chapter to Augustine, calling him “The Fountainhead” of Western ideas and reflection on justification. He notes that while many have studied Augustine’s views on the doctrine of grace, few have systematically studied his thought on justification, which McGrath proceeds to do briefly. He notes that Augustine’s Greek was weak and that the Latin term iustificare used in translating Paul is unique to theological writing. He drew on earlier interpreters, such as Chrysostom and Tertullian, and understood justification as “to make righteous”. Thus, in justification, God makes an ungodly person into a righteous person. As in Irons above, this is accomplished by God bestowing righteousness on sinners that is different from his own righteousness. This righteousness is essentially a restoration of humans to the way they ought to be, the way God wills his created human to be. While legal and moral overtones remain, for Augustine, righteousness and justification transcend these categories, though they include a favorable verdict at the final judgment due to the works performed on the basis of God making the person righteous.[52]

In the Greek East

McGrath notes that the intuitive linguistic sense of the dik group naturally would be taken as “treated righteous” or “reckoned righteous”, but the Greek church so strongly focuses on deification that justification could not have been treated purely in this way. He notes that Chrysostom understands righteousness as a gift rather than something earned, discussing the declaration of God’s righteousness transforming humanity. From Athanasius onward, Greek Christians understand salvation to be the believer being incorporated into Christ through the incarnation. The Cappadocian fathers emphasize metaphors such as sanctification, new creation, and healing, rarely using the term justification to describe the transformation.[53]

Even in the modern Orthodox Church, justification is understood in this way. Patrick Reardon, in an excursus in his commentary on Romans, describes saving faith as something internal to the heart and soul of a person. As a result, the justification that is received in faith also must be internal. It is not simply a declaration of righteousness, but a making of a person righteous, which is accomplished through uniting to Christ.^[54] The key difference between this view and Augustine is that the latter sees righteousness as something bestowed in justification, while the Orthodox view is of restored relationship with God resulting in righteousness and justification.

Stephen De Young claims that this is the view of the apostles. He notes that the concept of debt was closely tied to the institution of slavery, and that it was also tied to transgression. Thus, transgression is tied to debt slavery. Children born into debt owed the debt of their father and might remain in slavery for life trying to pay back the debt to gain their freedom. He cites Paul’s use of this imagery in Romans 6, with death as the means by which the sin debt is paid. That Christ paid this debt is the point of the atonement. In addition to death, the other part of the curse of the Law is exile, which Christ has also ended, restoring humanity to its rightly ordered state. The legal decree involved is the cancelling of the paid debt, a ruling of freedom for the debt slave. The West thinks of sin in juridical terms and thus sees the curse as punishment, but that is not the view of early Christianity.[55]

Christos Yannaras highlights the differences between Western and Eastern understandings of the work of Christ and points to the cause. He notes that the images of everyday life are used in scripture and by the church to communicate God’s love and sacrifice in restoring relationship with himself. Adoption, reconciliation, ransom, redemption, and justification are some of these images, and they all point to the same thing. He calls the development of the legal concept in the West a “great misconception and distortion”, naming Tertullian, Augustine, Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas as the leaders. He describes this interpretation as a disturbance of the divine order of justice, resulting in infinite guilt and requiring an infinite substitute for propitiation. He says that this error subordinated the love of God to “the relentless necessity of an egocentric and savage justice which demanded sadistic satisfaction.” This is foreign to the love and restoration always believed by the Orthodox Church.^[56]

Definition of Significant Terms

Just – correct by a given standard or faithful to an original, conforming to what is morally upright or good, or being what is merited. For a legal decision or judge, in conformance with a just standard.

Justice – administering what is just either by adjudicating conflicting claims or by assigning and executing merited rewards or punishments.

Justification – the act of justifying.

Justify – prove or show a person or action to be just, right, or lawful, to judge as righteous, or to administer justice to.

Righteousness – the quality of being righteous.

Righteous – lawful (whether moral or divine), right, or justifiable (capable of being shown as right).[57]

Thesis Statement

Understandings of biblical justice and biblical teaching on justification have evolved through the history of the church and differ among different traditions; I will show that Western understandings of these concepts diverged early and significantly from those articulated in the scriptures and in the Greek fathers largely as a result of the shift from Greek to Latin as the church’s ecclesiastical language and a consequent anachronistic application of Western/Roman/Latin conceptions of justice to theology and doctrine.

Procedure for Implementing This Study

This thesis traces the concept of justification historically to show both consistency and divergence; thus, a chronological organization has been used. Chapter 2 describes the Semitic concept of justice and justification as expressed in the Old Testament. It further examines how these concepts are expressed in the Septuagint’s use of Greek. Chapter 3 examines New Testament concepts of justice and teaching on justification, focusing on Paul in particular and noting how the Septuagint is quoted in expressing this teaching. Chapter 4 examines the Greek fathers with a focus on the apostolic fathers to show that they hold the understanding reached in chapter 3. Anachronistic interpretation of these passages by modern scholars is examined and rejected. This chapter then goes on to examine representative passages from Tertullian and Augustine, showing the shift in language and doctrine that occurs in the rise of the Latin fathers. Chapter 5 summarizes the conclusions and discusses implications, primarily that doctrine, exegesis, and lexicography need to be reexamined in light of this data. At a minimum, Western understandings need to be viewed as cultural vice universal, and thus caution should be used in sharing the gospel with other cultures including Western postmodern culture.

---

^[1] John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 7.

^[2] The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Sir Pro:1.

[3] A.E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 4^th ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 11.

[4] Mîrsanu, Dragos. “From Greek Authority to Hebrew Verity and Back: The Question of the Source Text of the Latin Old Testament in the Correspondence between Saints Augustine and Jerome.” Hermeneia, no. 17 (2016): 163-74, http://eres.regent.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/greek-authority-hebrew-verity-back-question/docview/1903815046/se-2?accountid=13479.

[5] John Lee, A History of New Testament Lexicography, (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 2003), 38.

[6] A.E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 4^th ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 22.

[7] Ibid., 25.

[8] John Lee, A History of New Testament Lexicography, (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 2003), 3-139.

[9] Hans Förster, “Translating from Greek as Source Langage? The Lasting Influence of Latin on New Testament Translation,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43, no. 1 (2020): 86-88. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0142064X20949384.

[10] A.E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 4^th ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020)., x.

[11] Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 26.

[12] Lutheran World Federation and Roman Catholic Church, Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (Geneva: The Lutheran World Federation-A Community of Churches, 2019), 11.

[13] Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 4^th ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 11-18.

[14] Charles Lee Irons, The Righteousness of God (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 112-126.

[15] Ibid., 78.

[16] William S. Morrow, An Introduction to Biblical Law (Grand Rapids, MI: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2017), chap. 5, ProQuest Ebook Central.

[17] Ibid., chap. 8.

[18] Charles Lee Irons, The Righteousness of God (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 113.

[19] Christina Tuor-Kurth, “How is Justice Referred to in Faith?” in Sedaqa and Torah in Postexilic Discourse, ed. Susanne Gilmayr and Maria Häusl (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017), 132-147.

[20] Jeremiah Unterman, Justice for all: How the Jewish Bible Revolutionized Ethics (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2017), 18, ProQuest Ebook Central.

[21] Jeremiah Unterman, Justice for all: How the Jewish Bible Revolutionized Ethics (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2017), 40, ProQuest Ebook Central.

[22] Ibid., 124.

[23] Eberhard Bons, “The Historical and Theological Lexicon of the Septuagint,” in Biblical Lexicology: Hebrew and Greek, edited by Eberhard Bons, Jan Jootsen, and Regine Hunziker-Rodewald, 357-359. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH, 2015.

[24] Timothy Law, When God Spoke Greek (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 5-6.

[25] Mogens Müller. The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

[26] Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 4^th ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 18-19.

[27] Ibid., 23-24. Moisés Silva, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 725.

[28] Moisés Silva, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 724-725.

[29] Ibid., 56-68.

[30] N. T. Wright, How God Became King: The Forgotten Story of the Gospels (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2012), Kindle.

[31] N. T. Wright, The Day the Revolution Began, (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2016), 32, Kindle.

[32] Gary Edward Weedman, “Reading Ephesians from the New Perspective on Paul,” Leaven, Vol. 14, Iss 2, Article 7, https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270&context=leaven.

[33] James B. Prothro, “The Strange Case of Δικαιόω in the Septuagint and in Paul: The Oddity and Origins of Paul’s Talk of “Justification,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, 107, no. 1 (2016): 51-58, https://www-degruyter-com.ezproxy.regent.edu/view/j/znw.2016.107.issue-1/issue-files/znw.2016.107.issue-1.xml.

[34] Michael Patrick Barber, Paul, a New Covenant Jew: Rethinking Pauline Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2019), 226-227.

[35] Markus Barth, Justification: Pauline Texts Interpreted in the Light of the Old and New Testaments, trans. A. M. Woodruff III (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2006), 15-48.

[36] Ben Pugh, Pictures of Atonement (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2020), 118-122.

[37] Geoffrey Turner, “The Righteousness of God in Psalms and Romans,” Scottish Journal of Theology 63, no. 3(August 2010):285-301, http://eres.regent.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/righteousness-god-psalms-romans/docview/577417379/se-2?accountid=13479.

[38] Douglas Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 934.

[39] Chris VanLandingham, Judgment &Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2006), 331.

[40] Chris VanLandingham, Judgment &Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2006), 335.

^[41] Thomas F. Torrance, The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1996), 18.

[42] Ibid., 93–95.

[43] Brian Arnold, Justification in the Second Century (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH, 2017), 3-5.

[44] Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 4^th ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 20.

[45] Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 4^th ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 20-22.

^[46] David E. Wilhite, “Introduction: Reading Tertullian Reading Paul,” in Tertullian and Paul, ed. Todd D. Still and David E. Wilhite, vol. I, Pauline and Patristic Scholars in Debate (New York; London; New Delhi; Sydney: Bloomsbury, 2013), xviii.

^[47] Stephen Cooper, “Communis Magister Paulus: Altercation over the Gospel in Tertullian’s against Marcion,” in Tertullian and Paul, ed. Todd D. Still and David E. Wilhite, vol. I, Pauline and Patristic Scholars in Debate (New York; London; New Delhi; Sydney: Bloomsbury, 2013), 227.

[48] Eric Osborn, Tertullian, First Theologian of the West (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 90-101.

[49] Charles Lee Irons, The Righteousness of God (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 13-14.

[50] Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 4^th ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 20.

[51] Charles Lee Irons, The Righteousness of God (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 15-16.

[52] Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 4^th ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 42-52.

[53] Ibid., 36-38.

^[54] Patrick Henry Reardon, Romans: An Orthodox Commentary (Yonkers, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2018), 57.

[55] Stephen De Young, The Religion of the Apostles: Orthodox Christianity in the First Century, (Chesterton, IN: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2021), 132-144.

^[56] Christos Yannaras, Elements of Faith: An Introduction to Orthodox Theology, trans. Keith Schram (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2006), 112.

[57] Merriam-Webster, Inc., Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003). Logos.