Does dikaioo (justify) mean to make just/righteous? What is it really?

[fineca]

It seems that the verb dikaioo most often at least means to be recognized/declared righteous/just, but are there any Bible passages that would clearly show it can also mean to make righteous/just?

What does it mean to be made just/righteous? James Akin wrote that Catholics don’t speak of legal and behavioral righteousness but understand righteousness as ontological righteousness, when you do righteousness, you are more righteous… but then where does this whole justification by faith thing fit it?

The word dikaioo to my understanding comes from the courtroom, to acquit someone or declare just… so why does Trent define justification in terms of becoming a son of God from being a son of Adam? Why confuse the categories?

Thanks for your help!

 

[Bishopite]

It seems that the verb dikaioo most often at least means to be recognized/declared righteous/just, but are there any Bible passages that would clearly show it can also mean to make righteous/just?

The Greek word for righteousness is dikaiosune which is from the Hebrew word tsedaqah in Gen 15:6 means righteousness which Rom 4:3 is quoting.

What does it mean to be made just/righteous? James Akin wrote that Catholics don’t speak of legal and behavioral righteousness but understand righteousness as ontological righteousness, when you do righteousness, you are more righteous… but then where does this whole justification by faith thing fit it?

The word dikaioo to my understanding comes from the courtroom, to acquit someone or declare just… so why does Trent define justification in terms of becoming a son of God from being a son of Adam? Why confuse the categories?

Thanks for your help!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

It seems that the verb dikaioo most often at least means to be recognized/declared righteous/just, but are there any Bible passages that would clearly show it can also mean to make righteous/just?

What does it mean to be made just/righteous? James Akin wrote that Catholics don’t speak of legal and behavioral righteousness but understand righteousness as ontological righteousness, when you do righteousness, you are more righteous… but then where does this whole justification by faith thing fit it?

The word dikaioo to my understanding comes from the courtroom, to acquit someone or declare just… so why does Trent define justification in terms of becoming a son of God from being a son of Adam? Why confuse the categories?

Thanks for your help!

I made a thread on this issue:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=165229

 

[fineca]

The first response didn’t really answer any of the issues I brought up, I do understand the difference between the C and P understandings but would like to grasp the C one (my own) better… the second response - I had a look at the thread but it’s soo loong I only read the first page, there were some passages that showed that justify means to recognize to be righteous (they justified God etc) but that’s why I was asking if there are passages where justify clearly means “make righteous”. I understand though that in the passages where God is recognized to be just or justified, it is because he really is just, which supports the Catholic position that God really justifies those he declares just…but anyway, thanks for your help.E

 

[Chesster]

How about Romans 5:19.

 

[fineca]

That looks pretty good but it seems to me that the verb there is not “justify” but actually “make righteous” so one couldn’t argue that the verb dikaioo means to “make righteous” with Rom 5:19. BUT my Greek is very elementary and I’m not sure at all but I think dikaioi in the text is a noun not a verb but if you know Greek correct me if I’m wrong and cite some passages where dikaioo means to make righteous thanks

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Catholics consider sanctification (infusion of grace) and justification (recognition of righteousness) to occur at the same time (eg 1 Cor 6:11). As you grow in holiness you are rightly considered more righteous (eg James 2:21ff).

I dont know much greek but in a greek lexicon I see dikaioo in Titus 3:7 and Rev 22:11, both instances to me suggest a transformational aspect.

The council of Trent defines Justification:
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
(session 6, ch 4)
Interestingly the term “laver of regeneration” is a taken from Titus 3:5, in which verse 7 links this to justification.
From what I can tell the concept of “Justification” involves two aspects, sanctification and recognition/declaration of the actual change. This is supported by the fact places like Rom 8:30 sum up salvation in a single verse yet only mention Justification (which means sanctification must be a subset of it), though some have argued that “called” reference is “sanctification”.

The bottom line is that the protestant notion that this is a mere declaration (ie no infused grace involved), especially considering protestants believe this declaration to be an exact opposite of the reality (the person is not actually righteous) is simply unBiblical.

 

[fineca]

Thanks Catholic Dude, that helped a bit to be sure.
But do we recognize the difference between Bible verses that talk about righteousness in the sense of uprightness, moral/behavioral righteousness, and on the other hand the verses that treat the issue as a legal declaration based on grace and no works? Akin seemed to say Catholics don’t think about it in terms of legal vs. behavioral righteousness, but ontological righteousness = he who does righteousness is righteous. This I don’t get, I think the Protestant view is easier to see and understand, to me the ontological thing sounds like the behavioral one, I don’t see where the declarational aspect fits in…
Appreciate any help,
E

 

[Vincent]

It seems that the verb dikaioo most often at least means to be recognized/declared righteous/just, but are there any Bible passages that would clearly show it can also mean to make righteous/just?

I don’t think there are any passages in which *dikaioo *and its cognates are used in the “making righteous” sense.

However . . .

*Dikaioo *is originally a non-theological term. When we say, "God justifies" we are making a theological claim.

*Dikaioo *involves a declaration. But what is the implication of a divine declaration? Creation. What God says comes into be-ing, for God is the sheer act of to-Be.

When God declares, “Let there be light”, light simultaneously comes into be-ing. When God declares the sons of men to be His sons, they are simultaneously re-created as sons of God, by adoption.

When God declares a man to be just, the man receives the gift of justice from Him who *is *justice itself. Even in this forensic context we can already detect a filial dimension. In Christ, the filial dimension of justification is even more radiant: to be just is to be his sons; to be his sons is to be just.

Understanding justification primarily in the filial dimension is just what you would expect from a Trinitarian community of faith.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

God does Justify.

God never lies and declares a legal fiction.

That is why there can be not Lutheranesque robed dung souls entering Heaven because they have never received trnasformative grace and are not indeed perfect!

 

[Bishopite]

Thanks Catholic Dude, that helped a bit to be sure.
But do we recognize the difference between Bible verses that talk about righteousness in the sense of uprightness, moral/behavioral righteousness, and on the other hand the verses that treat the issue as a legal declaration based on grace and no works? Akin seemed to say Catholics don’t think about it in terms of legal vs. behavioral righteousness, but ontological righteousness = he who does righteousness is righteous. This I don’t get, I think the Protestant view is easier to see and understand, to me the ontological thing sounds like the behavioral one, I don’t see where the declarational aspect fits in…
Appreciate any help,
E

That there is legal declaritive terminology in the Bible isn’t what Catholicism denies, what it condemns is that “alone” in that when God justifies a person that that person isn’t in his/her being righteous. Catholicism teaches that we are like a glass with water, the water being grace, we being the glass. After we are justified by faith and baptism God fills our glass (our being) up with grace (water) and the more we cooperate with God the more grace He puts in our glass (being). This is perhaps a crude analogy of the ontological way Catholicism teaches how we are justified, but it does show the process of salvation and infused righteousnees. Catholicism teaches just as God said in Genesis 1:3 “let there be light” what God says He actually does! If God declares us righteous and He does throughout scripture then we are righteous by the fact that God can’t just say something without it being true. God spoke of the Word of God (Jesus) and Jesus was begotted (not made) within Mary in the incarnation. When Jesus says we are blessed, you better believe we ARE blessed.

Protestants think of justification as a covering of Christ over the person like a blanket on a person so that Jesus is the blanket
and God sees the blanket but the blanket doesn’t ontologically affect the person within their being; he/she still has sin within
their personhood so that God’s grace is only imputed to them not infused within them.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Thanks Catholic Dude, that helped a bit to be sure.
But do we recognize the difference between Bible verses that talk about righteousness in the sense of uprightness, moral/behavioral righteousness, and on the other hand the verses that treat the issue as a legal declaration based on grace and no works? Akin seemed to say Catholics don’t think about it in terms of legal vs. behavioral righteousness, but ontological righteousness = he who does righteousness is righteous. This I don’t get, I think the Protestant view is easier to see and understand, to me the ontological thing sounds like the behavioral one, I don’t see where the declarational aspect fits in…
Appreciate any help,
E

Im not sure what you are asking. Anytime the Bible calls someone “righteous” (eg Gen 6:8f, Luke 1:5f ) it is pointing out these people are truly good and pleasing in God’s eyes. This was never about legal issues, it was always about a friendship and Father-child relationship in which us children are to act out of love and obedience. The time when legality comes in, which Paul condemns, is when that relationship goes from a love based to a boss-employee relationship of legal obligation and debt.
Notice that Jesus didnt really go into the detail of “justification”, yet was very clear on the need to love and obey Him and that is what led to salvation (eg Luke 9:23), on the other hand he openly condemned those who were “righteous on the outside” (cf Matt 6) who were in fact not righteous at all.

This is all about “behavioral righteousness” and personality from the time of Adam to now. Protestants invented the legalistic stuff, the NT talks about a Judge ONLY in reference to the Final Judgment, and that is based on how you lived your life.

 

[fineca]

But dikaioo is a legal term meaning to declare just in court, so it’s logical to picture a judge there at the moment of justification. I’d like to understand better the point that to be just is to be his son and vice versa… if justification is about sonship, then why did Paul bother use such legal language as justification why not just talk about filiation…? As to behavioral righteousness, if that’s what it’s all about, then why are the sacraments and faith in Jesus’ atonement necessary? If Old covenant people could be righteous by obeying the commandments, why was a change needed? Obviously God could view Zacharias and his wife and the OT patriarchs from the point of view of grace and not law since they also sinned to be sure… ok now you’ll say this was thanks to Christ’s atonement that God foresaw… ok… but then I’m confused why God gave the system of law in the first place…st. Paul says the Law served as a tutor to bring us to Christ, to reveal sin… but that worked only for the Christians who had lived under the law, it doesn’t work for us since we never had to obey the Mosaic law, and it didn’t work for the OT people since they never saw the day of Christ… confuuused.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

But dikaioo is a legal term meaning to declare just in court, so it’s logical to picture a judge there at the moment of justification. I’d like to understand better the point that to be just is to be his son and vice versa… if justification is about sonship, then why did Paul bother use such legal language as justification why not just talk about filiation…?

He never spoke of a courtroom, he never mentioned a judge…however he did talk about filiation, quite powerfully.
Romans 4 (esp 11-17) drives home the fact Abraham is “the father of us all” through faith.
26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. 1What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2He is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. 4But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. 6Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” 7So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.-Gal 3, 4
The idea that we are “sons”, “heirs”, etc is all over the New Testament.

As to behavioral righteousness, if that’s what it’s all about, then why are the sacraments and faith in Jesus’ atonement necessary?

Behavioral righteousness in the Bible means that person cooperated with the grace God gave them, they understood the point of the commandments, Rom 13:9f.

If Old covenant people could be righteous by obeying the commandments, why was a change needed? Obviously God could view Zacharias and his wife and the OT patriarchs from the point of view of grace and not law since they also sinned to be sure… ok now you’ll say this was thanks to Christ’s atonement that God foresaw… ok… but then I’m confused why God gave the system of law in the first place…st. Paul says the Law served as a tutor to bring us to Christ, to reveal sin… but that worked only for the Christians who had lived under the law, it doesn’t work for us since we never had to obey the Mosaic law, and it didn’t work for the OT people since they never saw the day of Christ… confuuused.

One huge problem with the Protestant position is they think salvation came by obeying the Law perfectly…that is incorrect. Salvation came by becoming an adopted son of God, and that does require a change by grace through faith (Eph 2:8), all of Heb 11 shows this to be the case since the days of Abel. The Law did multiple things, it showed what God expects from man (Rom 13:9f), prefigured the sacrifice of Christ as High Priest and Lamb (Heb 10:1-10), and which was eventually fulfilled in Jesus (eg Mat 5:17f, 5:21ff, 19:3-9).

 

[fineca]

I don’t think Protestants believe OT ppl were saved by perfect obedience but by faith and grace… but my question is, why did God say “do this and you will live” if the Law’s purpose was not to give life but to prefigure Christ and show us God’s demands and reveal sin etc…God seems to have misled the people…

 

[fineca]

Yes, filiation is spoken about, but it is not used to explain JUSTIFICATION, it doesn’t define justification, which is a legal term…

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I don’t think Protestants believe OT ppl were saved by perfect obedience but by faith and grace… but my question is, why did God say “do this and you will live” if the Law’s purpose was not to give life but to prefigure Christ and show us God’s demands and reveal sin etc…God seems to have misled the people…

25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26"What is written in the Law?" he replied. “How do you read it?”

27He answered: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’"

28"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.” -Luke 10
The law was trying to get across a deeper message of love, instead many misunderstood keeping the commandments to be a points system and became engulfed in legalism. Jesus drives this point home when He goes onto tell the parable of the Good Samaritan…they didnt realize love crossed ethnic boundaries (cf Jn 4:9).

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Yes, filiation is spoken about, but it is not used to explain JUSTIFICATION, it doesn’t define justification, which is a legal term…

Of course it is used to explain justification, I dont know how you could say otherwise. In fact the concept of legality and sonship are mutually exclusive. The most powerful passage that comes to mind right now is:
3At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. 4But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. -Titus 3
Where is the legality here? Kindness, mercy, Saviour, rebirth, grace, heirs…that cant be legal by definition. The law is black and white, it can neither show nor understand mercy and sonship.

There is much more, for example, Paul uses Abraham over and over in his justification talk because the Law and legalism wasnt even in the picture at the time.

 

[fineca]

Thanks Dude, Catholic Dude, I forgot that the word heirs appears right after justified in that passage, that’s a good one…
I’m starting to get it…if in the Protestant view justified means to be in Christ so that God sees Christ when he looks at us, then we can easily go to the sonship theme by pointing out that we become sons of God by being in Christ and if that’s justification then that’s it and we can move on to the rest of the Catholic view easily… but what do we say when our Lutheran friends say that the expression “in Christ” indicates that when God sees us he sees Christ and judges us by his righteousness etc… it sounds reasonable…but how do we understand being in Christ and how does infused righteousness and losing salvation by sin etc fit into the picture…?
Thanks!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

but what do we say when our Lutheran friends say that the expression “in Christ” indicates that when God sees us he sees Christ and judges us by his righteousness etc… it sounds reasonable…but how do we understand being in Christ and how does infused righteousness and losing salvation by sin etc fit into the picture…?
Thanks!

It sounds reasonable and would be reasonable were it not for one critical factor, God is declaring YOU righteous. If St Paul said Justification involved God NOT considering YOU righteous but rather something or someone else then the Protestants would have a case. The fact is there is no excuse for God to call YOU righteous when in fact you are not, it is nothing short of a lie on God’s part.

Infused grace/righteousness comes in to the picture because that is the manner in which YOUR own soul actually do become righteous (even protestants are forced to admit some level of infused grace because sanctification would mean nothing without it). But that also means the way you live your life has an effect on how God judges you, grave sin can cause that infused grace to be lost and/or diminished to which you in effect willingly separate yourself from God choosing your will over His. The parable of the Prodigal son fits in perfectly here, the son was an heir, he alienated himself from his father, but the gracious father was waiting for his son to return and be reconciled.

People like Luther didnt like the concept of infused grace because he recognized that means your future is uncertain, it isnt hard to see how this could scare or worry someone, yet his “solution” was to invent a “secure” salvation and that was where imputed grace came in, once Jesus “covers” you your own account is never considered again. The undeniable fact of God and the Scripture is that NOTHING is hidden from His eyes and He searches the heart (eg Matt 5:8).

If you want to do an experiment, point out passages like Matt 5:8 and see how the protestant responds, they will often twist and turn saying how utterly corrupt their heart is that if God judged them on that basis they would have no hope. The concept of imputed is so entrenched that they wont let clear passages like that speak for them self. As twisted as that description sounds, that is how they will often reply.