Unpacking Abraham: The semantic range of "justified."

[cooterhein]

Genesis 15:6 is a pretty important passage in the Old Testament: “And Abraham believed the LORD and it was credited to (or counted to) him as righteousness.” The New Testament gives us three examples of places where there is occasion to cross-reference to this verse because it gets unpacked three times- in Romans 4, Galatians 3, and James 2.

Romans 4 and James 2 are of particular interest because, at first, they present an apparent contradiction. If “justified” (δικαιόω) meant exactly the same thing every time it’s used, there would be a contradiction. However, justification is like most other words in that it has a semantic range with multiple points on which the specific meaning of the word may fall in any given instance.

This is what Romans 4 says. “For if Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about, but not before God.” We must conclude that Abraham was not justified by works and therefore did not have something to boast about before God.

This is what James 2 says. “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar…? (implied answer- yes). You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Taken together, we must continue to conclude that in some sense of the word “justify,” Abraham was not justified by works and therefore had nothing to boast about before God. We must also conclude that in some other sense of the word, Abraham was justified by works when he offered his son Isaac, this different kind of justification did not give him anything to boast about, and in some sense of the word “justify” that is different from what we saw in Romans 4, a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Now comes the somewhat tricky part. What is the semantic range of the word δικαιόω, and which meaning of the word do you pair with each of these verses? I’ll make the first part a little bit easier…

This is the semantic range of δικαιόω.

1. To render righteous or such he ought to be.
2. To show, exhibit, evince one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered.
3. To declare, pronounce one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be.

Now this is the tricky part. Which two do you pick, and in which places do they go? Remember that you can’t pick the same one twice; otherwise, you’d be saying (for example) something like this.

Abraham was not rendered righteous by works in Romans 4, but he was rendered righteous by faith and counted righteous because of belief. Also…
he was rendered righteous by works in James 2 because a person cannot be rendered righteous by faith alone…but you didn’t forget about Romans 4 already, did you?

That’s why it would lead to a contradiction if you picked the same option twice. So don’t pick the same option twice.

What choice do you make in order to avoid contradiction between these two passages, and if you like, what are the theological implications of these passages given their relationship to one another and to Genesis 15:6? If you don’t want to do that much, just go ahead and say something like Meaning Number 1 belongs with one passage and meaning number 2 belongs with the other passage.

I’m hoping for some good responses from Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Good discussion would also be good. Bad discussion would be bad.

Be nice. Have fun.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Genesis 15:6 is a pretty important passage in the Old Testament: “And Abraham believed the LORD and it was credited to (or counted to) him as righteousness.” The New Testament gives us three examples of places where there is occasion to cross-reference to this verse because it gets unpacked three times- in Romans 4, Galatians 3, and James 2.

Romans 4 and James 2 are of particular interest because, at first, they present an apparent contradiction. If “justified” (δικαιόω) meant exactly the same thing every time it’s used, there would be a contradiction. However, justification is like most other words in that it has a semantic range with multiple points on which the specific meaning of the word may fall in any given instance.

This is what Romans 4 says. “For if Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about, but not before God.” We must conclude that Abraham was not justified by works and therefore did not have something to boast about before God.

This is what James 2 says. “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar…? (implied answer- yes). You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Taken together, we must continue to conclude that in some sense of the word “justify,” Abraham was not justified by works and therefore had nothing to boast about before God. We must also conclude that in some other sense of the word, Abraham was justified by works when he offered his son Isaac, this different kind of justification did not give him anything to boast about, and in some sense of the word “justify” that is different from what we saw in Romans 4, a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Now comes the somewhat tricky part. What is the semantic range of the word δικαιόω, and which meaning of the word do you pair with each of these verses? I’ll make the first part a little bit easier…

This is the semantic range of δικαιόω.

1. To render righteous or such he ought to be.
2. To show, exhibit, evince one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered.
3. To declare, pronounce one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be.

Now this is the tricky part. Which two do you pick, and in which places do they go? Remember that you can’t pick the same one twice; otherwise, you’d be saying (for example) something like this.

Abraham was not rendered righteous by works in Romans 4, but he was rendered righteous by faith and counted righteous because of belief. Also…
he was rendered righteous by works in James 2 because a person cannot be rendered righteous by faith alone…but you didn’t forget about Romans 4 already, did you?

That’s why it would lead to a contradiction if you picked the same option twice. So don’t pick the same option twice.

What choice do you make in order to avoid contradiction between these two passages, and if you like, what are the theological implications of these passages given their relationship to one another and to Genesis 15:6? If you don’t want to do that much, just go ahead and say something like Meaning Number 1 belongs with one passage and meaning number 2 belongs with the other passage.

I’m hoping for some good responses from Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Good discussion would also be good. Bad discussion would be bad.

Be nice. Have fun.

A couple of observations:

1. Gn. 15:6 can only fit meaning #3, if I understand what you’re asking. YHWH thinks of Abraham’s trust in him as righteousness.
2. For Paul’s argument in Gal 3 to work, Abraham has to be declared righteous by God BEFORE Abraham is circumcised, so Paul’s not hanging his theological hat on Gen 22–by any means–even if James is. I’m not sure the two authors mean the same thing even though they use the same word–as you’ve shown.