This blog has moved

This blog is now located at http://www.therebelgod.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 5 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://www.therebelgod.com/feeds/posts/default.

My Article in Evangelical Quarterly: Penal Substitution and the Church Fathers

I just heard that my article on the Church Father's view of the atonement will be published in the upcoming (May) issue of Evangelical Quarterly! EQ is an international peer reviewed academic journal of Bible and Theology edited by I. Howard Marshall and published in the UK by Paternoster. So I've doing a happy little dance right now :^)

The article is a response to the book Pierced for our Transgressions claim that penal substitution was taught by the early church. The authors back this up with a host of citations from Justin Martyr, Athanasius, Augustine, and other big guns from the early church, all who seem to be espousing penal substitution. After this book came out there was quite a bit of buzz across the internet of folks exclaiming that the PfoT authors had pretty much conclusively "disproved" the misconception (taught by folks like me) that penal substitution was not taught for the first 1000 years of church history. So I was understandably a little bit irked by this claim which went against the larger tide of patristic scholarship. The problem was that it had been considered so self-evident for so long that the early church did not teach penal substitution that most historians and scholars would simply state it as fact without feeling the need to back it up. So against that the detailed array of quotations marshaled by the PfoT authors was pretty impressive. In fact, it was the one positive thing that NT Wright had to say about the book(!)

The problem is that the quotes they cite are all taken out of context and thus misrepresent what the the early church was saying. So in my EQ article I take a look at the citations they give, paying attention to the larger context, and showing that the early church not only did not teach penal substitution, but in fact explicitly denies it. Here's the tricky part though: What they do teach is substitutionary atonement, and so to folks who think that the only way to understand substitutionary atonement is in the way Calvinists do, this of course looks like the Calvinist doctrine. Only if you really listen to what the church fathers are saying, actually reading them in context, they are understanding substitutionary atonement in a very different context - one which has to do with healing our sin and liberating us from bondage.

In correcting the record, I thought it would be important to say this via an academic peer reviewed journal in order to take the conversation beyond the blogosphere and get it in front of theologians and scholars as well. My hope that it will open up the possibility of some dialog here, because while I think that the authors of Pierced for Our Transgressions are definitely wrong in their representation of the fathers, at the same time I also know that they are good guys who love Jesus and are all pretty sharp to boot. What I really appreciate about the atmosphere of debate in England (both EQ and the PfoT authors are in the UK) as opposed to here in the States is that while we tend to have polarized sides on issues that shut down communication, they are more accustomed to lively debates. That's true specifically of Evangelicalism here, and across the pond as well. So I hope that this will spur a healthy discussion, even though we obviously disagree significantly.

Luther's Works Complete Tables of Contents and Cross Listing

It's quite difficult to sort out the massive collection of Luther's Works. Of the 55 volumes of the American edition (LW), vol 49 alone contains 119 titles! So I created a complete table of contents for all 55 volumes with cross references to their sources in the Weimar critical edition (WA). To my knowledge this is not available any where in print, certainly not in digital (i.e. searchable) form.

The table of contents of the 105 volume Weimar Ausgabe (WA) is provided as well. I am in the process of cataloging the full contents of each volume. So far I have completed vols 1-20 of "Schriften".

Finally, I have also provided Concordia's listing of works by Luther not yet translated into English (LW2). Because the list is digital and thus searchable, I hope this will provide a useful resource for Luther research.

Check it out here:

Luther's Works Complete Tables of Contents and Cross Listing

Justification means "made righteous"

A Little Bible Study on δικαιόω

I've been translating the book of Romans from the Greek and wanted to do a word study on δικαιόω to determine whether it should be translated as “declared righteous” or “made righteous,” that is: when God justifies (δικαιόω) the ungodly does this mean that he actually changes us ontologically, making us holy? Or does it simply refer to what traditional Lutheran scholarship has called a legal “imputed righteousness,” meaning we are declared to be righteous even though we are not. This sense of δικαιόω as “declaring righteous” is still prevalent today. It is for example how the recent NET Bible translates δικαιόω in Romans. I would like to demonstrate here that the NET Bible – for all of the many other merits of this excellent translation – is mistaken here, and that the primary meaning of δικαιόω for Paul should instead be translated as “make righteous.”

Δικαιόω in the Old Testament

It is a safe assumption that Paul understanding of the Greek word δικαιόω is rooted in the Hebrew understanding of that concept found in his Bible (the OT). So by exploring how δικαιόω is used in the Greek Old Testament (the LXX), and comparing that to the Hebrew, we can gain insight into how Paul the Jew understands δικαιόω. In the LXX, the δικαιόω almost always corresponds to the Hebrew tsadaq (צָדַק). Both mean essentially mean “to recognize as good/right”.

The simplest way δικαιόω/tsadaq is used in the OT is to speak of making correct deliberations. Deuteronomy for example says that when there is a dispute, the judge should “decide between them, declaring one to be in the right/innocent (δικαιόω/tsadaq) and the other to be in the wrong” (Deut 25:1)¹. Conversely, Isaiah prophesies against those who “justify the ungodly for a bribe” (Isa 5:23), and God declares in Exodus “I will not justify the ungodly” (Ex 23:7). Here the meaning of δικαιόω/tsadaq essentially means to “declare righteous” in the sense of a legal acquittal, and it is expressly forbidden. Only the righteous may be declared right in God’s eyes. Proverbs goes so far as to declare that “the one who justifies the guilty” is “an abomination to the Lord” (Pr 17:15).² The idea here of affirming the good and condemning the guilty seems straightforward enough. It’s morality 101. But how are we to understand Paul’s statement in Romans that God “justifies the ungodly”? In fact, we find in these three passages the same exact phrase:

Isa 5:23: οἱ δικαιοῦντες τὸν ἀσεβῆ ἕνεκεν δώρων καὶ τὸ δίκαιον τοῦ δικαίου αἴροντες.
They justify the ungodly for the sake of bribes and take away the rights of the righteous.

Exod 23:7: ἀπὸ παντὸς ῥήματος ἀδίκου ἀποστήσῃ, ἀθῷον καὶ δίκαιον οὐκ ἀποκτενεῖς καὶ οὐ δικαιώσεις τὸν ἀσεβῆ ἕνεκεν δώρων.

Keep away from unjust sentences, you shall not execute the innocent and righteous, and you shall not justify the ungodly³ for the sake of bribes.

Ro 4:5: τῷ δὲ μὴ ἐργαζομένῳ πιστεύοντι δὲ ἐπὶ τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ λογίζεται ἡ πίστις αὐτοῦ εἰς δικαιοσύνην.

But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness. (NRSV)

So how can Paul claim that God justifies the ungodly when his Bible seems to say the exact opposite? I would propose that the problem comes from translating δικαιόω/tsadaq as “declare righteous” in Romans. This is clearly the sense in Isaiah and Exodus above (which is condemned), but unless we want to suppose that Paul is contradicting Scripture, this cannot be what he means. The answer I would propose is that Paul is using the term δικαιόω/tsadaq in a different sense. He is not speaking in a legal forensic sense of acquittal, but is proclaiming, as he says, a righteousness “apart from law.” This is in contrast a righteousness of/from God which is “testified to in the law and the prophets” (Ro 3:21). Indeed when we continue to look at how δικαιόω/tsadaq is used in the Old Testament, this is precisely what we find.

Because of the connection in Hebrew of the idea of righteousness to the character of God, there is a sense of tsadaq meaning shown to be innocent or good that can get lost when translated with the English “right”. For example when the Psalmist says “The judgments of Yahweh are true and altogether δικαιόω” the sense is not so much that God’s judgments are accurate, as that they are good. Similarly, the book of Job draws a parallel between being declared righteous (tsadaq) and being called pure: “Can mortals be righteous (tsadaq) before God? Can human beings be pure before their Maker?” (Job 4:17 NRSV).⁴ This same parallel form equating tsadaq with purity is found in Job 15:14 & 25:4 as well. Similarly, David complains “in vain I have kept my heart pure” (Ps 73:13, =LXX 72:13), the Hebrew here for “pure” is zakah (זָכָה) but in the LXX it is translated with δικαιόω: “I have kept my heart right.”

Paul’s use of δικαιόω

We also find that δικαιόω/tsadaq takes on the sense not only of declaring someone to be pure or righteous, but of making them pure and righteous. We read in Isaiah 53 for example that the servant “will make righteous (δικαιόω/tsadaq) many, for he bore their sin” (Isa 53:11). Here we have the picture of the priest who bears the sins the people, that is, we have a picture of purification. Daniel similarly speaks of the temple itself being “made tsadaq” (Dan 8:14), which various English translations have interpreted to mean “cleansed” (KJV, ASV), “restored” (NRSV, NLT), or “reconsecrated” (NIV). In both of the above cases what is at play is some sort of transformation. God will not simply declare that a person is righteous when they are not. As Paul says in Romans 3:20 (quoting from Psalm 143:2 =LXX 142:2), “Do not enter into judgment with your servant, for no one living is will be justified (δικαιόω/tsadaq) before you.” But then Paul adds, “by observing the law.” On our own we cannot turn our ungodliness into righteousness and purity. But God can. The prophet Micah writes:

“I bear the wrath of the Lord because I sinned against him. Until he δικαιόω my case, and will decide for me, and leads me into the light. I will see his righteousness.” (Micah 7:9)⁵

Here δικαιόω cannot simply mean “declare righteousness” because it immediately follows a confession of sin. Even if we translate δικαιόω as “defend my cause” we know that God has declared in no uncertain terms that he will not defend the ungodly. God will not participate in a legal fiction. The speaker here confesses their own sin, and that they stand under wrath, but nevertheless puts their hope in God’s righteousness not their own. I will see his righteousness. This is the same faith which Paul speaks of, “such faith is reckoned as righteousness” (Ro 4:5). It is a faith which – in spite of our sin – entrusts its cause to God’s righteousness. But how exactly will are we “brought into the light” as Micah says?

In a similar passage Isaiah writes, “All the descendants of Israel will be δικαιόω from the Lord and glorified in God” (Isa 45:25). Again the context is that of being sinners. God has just said to wayward Israel a few verses earlier “turn to me so you can be delivered” (v 22), and in verse 21 God declares “there is no one righteous, and no savior besides me”⁶ There is no one righteous. For those familiar with Romans this surely evokes Paul’s florilegia where he declares that all of humanity is under sin. God is not promising to declare sinful Israel righteousness, but to make them righteousness. Because of the righteousness of God our savior, Micah tells us, we are “made righteous/pure from God” – ἀπὸ κυρίου δικαιωθήσονται.

“I am God and there is no other besides me. There is no one righteous, no savior besides me. Turn to me and you shall be saved...” They will be made righteous by the Lord. All the offspring of the sons of Israel will be glorified in God⁷. (Isa 45:21-22,25 LXX)

As we have seen, there is a range of meaning in the OT for δικαιόω, and likewise there is a range of meaning in Paul. There are times where Paul does clearly appear to use the term δικαιόω in the sense of declaring or recognizing someone as righteous. For example quoting Psalm 51:4 (=LXX 50:6), Paul writes, “That you may be vindicated (δικαιόω) in your words, and will prevail when you are judged” (Ro 3:4)⁸. Since this passage refers to God, it is evident that God is not being made right, but simply that God’s words are being recognized as right. So δικαιόω can mean declared right or good, just as it can in the OT. However, just as in the OT δικαιόω has a range of meaning, it has that same range of meaning for Paul as well.

In his first letter to Corinth, Paul writes, “you were washed, you were sanctified, you were made righteous in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11). Here (as we have also seen in several OT passages) Paul directly juxtaposes and connotes δικαιόω with purification and holiness. In other words, the δικαιόω which comes “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” means being washed and sanctified.⁹ When passages such as Roman 5:9 are translated as “since we have now been made righteous by his blood, we will be saved through him from God’s wrath” they not only make more sense, (if we have been made righteous, then the cause of God’s wrath has clearly been removed), but they are also in line with Scripture. Alternatively, to translate verses like Rom 5:9 and others
as “declared righteous” is not only logically convoluted, but as we have seen blatantly contradicts Scripture.

In Romans 6:6-7 Paul writes, “We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For whoever has died is freed (δικαιόω) from sin” (NRSV). Because we are co-crucified with Christ in baptism, sin in us has been abolished, removed (καταργέομαι) and as a result we are δικαιόω from sin Paul says. The BDAG gives for this use of δικαιόω the definition, “make free/pure.”¹⁰ A change has taken place that is not simply legal. As a result of that real change, because our sin has been removed, the cause of God’s righteous anger is also removed. God has made Jesus “to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God ” (2 Co 5:21 NRSV). Let me underline every word here: we have in Christ become the righteousness of God – γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. Paul writes, “if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! (2 Co 5:17 NRSV). That is what the δικαιόω from God means in Romans. As Paul writes, “Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to δικαίωσις¹¹ and life for all. For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Ro 5:18-19 NRSV). Paul’s understanding of δικαιόω is unmistakable here. As he explicitly spells out for us, it means “made righteous” δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται. As Paul says, no human being will be recognized as righteous before God by observance of the law (Ro 3:20), but we can be made righteous by God’s righteousness. When δικαιόω is read in this way, what Paul writes in Romans 4:5 is no longer a contradiction to what we read in the law (Ex 23:7) and the prophets (Isa 5:23), but its solution.

“But to one who without works trusts him who makes the ungodly righteous/pure, such faith is reckoned as righteousness” (Ro 4:5).

God’s saving goodness makes the ungodly good. To paraphrase what Paul writes in Romans 3:20, we find in Paul the proclamation of a righteousness that comes from God – apart from a forensic legal understanding – which is testified to in the law and the prophets. It is about justification in the sense of being set right. It is about a real ontological change effected in us by the indwelling life of God. It is about becoming a new creation in Christ.

NOTES

1 The LXX here is δικαιώσωσιν τὸν δίκαιον καὶ καταγνῶσιν τοῦ ἀσεβοῦς “declare right/good the righteous and condemn the wicked”.

See also 1 Kings 8:32, Isa 43:9, Job 33:32, Gen 44:16, Isa 43:26, Ps 51:4 (=LXX 50:6)

2 The Hebrew here in Proverbs for “justify the ungodly” is exactly the same as in Isaiah :
מַצְדִּיק רָשָׁע The LXX however is different: ὃς δίκαιον κρίνει τὸν ἄδικον.

3 LXX. In the Hebrew MT God declares “I will not justify the ungodly” לֹא־אַצְדִּיק רָשָׁע

4 This is a form typical of Hebrew verse known as doubling. See W. Gesenius, et al, Hebrew Grammar, (2nd English ed.) 475 §150.h

5 My translation from the LXX: ὀργὴν κυρίου ὑποίσω, ὅτι ἥμαρτον τῷ, ἕως τοῦ δικαιῶσαι αὐτὸν τὴν δίκην μου, καὶ ποιήσει τὸ κρίμα μου καὶ ἐξάξει με εἰς τὸ φῶς, ὄψομαι τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ.

6 δίκαιος καὶ σωτὴρ οὐκ ἔστιν πάρεξ ἐμοῦ

7 Compare this to Rom 8:30 where Paul makes a progressive connection between election, justification (being made right), and glorification, “And those he predestined, he also called; and those he called, he also set right; and those he set right, he also glorified.”

8 Note that in the same Psalm David prays to God, “create in me a clean heart” (v 10) expressing the same basic idea of δικαιόω meaning making righteous or pure.

9 The BDAG
states that δικαιόω in this verse specifically means “you have become pure” (s.v. at 3 on 1 Co 6:11)

10 BDAG s.v. at 3

11 δικαίωσις is the noun form of the verb δικαιόω