For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not
hereby justified (δικαιοω): but he that judgeth me is the Lord. (1 Cor 4:4)
Commenting
on the meaning of δικαιοω in this verse, James Prothro wrote:
What kind of act is justifying here? Given
the context, most understand justifying here as “forensic.” However, one must
attend to the nature of the forum in
question. Weiss, among others, holds that the language of “justifying” here is
an incidental continuation of Paul’s legal metaphor of evaluating apostles as “judging”
in 4.3: δεδικαιωμαι
is simply chosen to continue describing the Corinthians’ behavior in terms of a
quotidian courtroom, having nothing to do with Paul’s theology of “justification”
before God. Robertson and Plummer summarize: “The word is used in a general
sense, not in its technical theological sense.” But this relies on a faulty misunderstanding
of δικαιοω’s usage in
contemporary Greek courtroom-language – where its “general sense” would not
indicate approval of persons. This passage, no less than Romans 2.13 or 8.33-34,
illustrates the oddity of Paul’s justification-language within his contemporary
legal contexts and, again, leads one to look for its Pauline sense in his
theological language, not in Roman courtrooms.
The context of Paul’s argument points us to
the ubiquitous (in Judaism and early Christianity) concept of God’s judgment
and, in particular, future-eschatological judgment. Paul’s references to divine
judgment in 4.4-5 reaches back to his explanation of the place of apostles as God’s
workers, entrusted with carrying out their duties as God has assigned (3.5-17).
Paul cases the evaluation of that work against the horizon of God’s
eschatological “day” (ημερα, 3.13) on which each person’s behavior and existence will be
disclosed and tested by fire (93.13-15; note the generalized language of εκαστος and τις in 3.10b, 12, 13, 14, 15). The
language of reward and penalty (μισθος/ζημια, 3.14-15) as well as the contrast between
the narrow “salvation” (σωθηεσται, 3.15) of any whose work was shoddy and the “destruction”
of any who destroy God’s church (φθερι, 3.16-17) point to traditional conceptualities
of the final judgment in Judaism, and in this passage constitute an eschatological
warring. Paul suspends the judgment of apostolic work to the common judgment of
all Christians at the eschaton and warns the Corinthians that God’s judgment
will determine the faithfulness of all and destroy those who have married God’s
church – by immortality, divisiveness, or otherwise. From this Paul calls the
Corinthians to turn from boasting in and judging by their human wisdom to
humbly stand in their God-given existence as those who belong to Christ and thus
together with all who belong to Christ (3.18-23; cf. 1.30).
Paul continues the foregoing in 4.1-5. He
returns to the specific issue of the Corinthians’ evaluation of apostles and, particularly,
of himself (4.1-3). Here again he asserts that apostles are God’s underlings
and are subject first and last to God’s judgment, and he draws on his former
descriptions of the final judgment to diminish the ultimate value of Corinthian
opinion. Their judgment, a mere ανθρωπινη ημερα (4.3), is contrasted with the eschatological
“day” (ημερα) that
discloses and reveals the character of people’s work. That is the day when the
Lord’s judgment of Paul will occur, since it is God and no other who judges
Paul (4.4). The future-eschatological character of this judgment is underscored
by the explicit temporal markers in the conclusion Paul draws in 4.5: Paul’s
lack of ability to determine his own justification by his conscience and its
total dependence on God lead him to conclude (ωστε) that none should judge προ καιρου, i.e., before the parousia (εως αν ελθη ο κυριος) at which time (τοτε) all will be revealed, judgment
will occur, and each person (εκαστος) will receive commendation (επαινος) accordingly (4.5). Paul has
again set apostolic evaluation within the context of the final judgment of all
believers, and here with explicitly future-temporal indications. The
eschatological character of this judgment and justification is also underscored
by the similarities of Paul’s depiction of the judgment scenario to traditional
ones in Jewish writings and, moreover, elsewhere in Paul. Compare especially
the discourse of future judgment and justification in Romans 2, used to counteract
another instance of human “judging” within the church. Paul speaks there of the
same day (ημερα, 2.5, 16)
of judgment, of rewards and punishments for “each” and “every” person (2.5,
8-10), of the revelation of human secrets (κρυπτα, 2.16), of commendation from God
(επαινος, 2.29), and
of justification and life for those who endure (2.7, 10, 13). Note also Paul’s
similar application of the principle here to all believers in Romans 14.4 that
a servant “stands or falls” in relation to his own master (God) and should
therefore not be judged by others – again in the context of the final judgment
and again with universalizing terms (πας and εκαστος, 14.10-12; cf. too 1 Cor. 2.15).
Though in 1 Corinthians 4.4 Paul only states
that his conscience is not a reliable indicator of God’s justification, the “justification”
he is talking about here is one rendered at the final judgment. Justification
here conceptualizes God’s act legally and in a future-eschatolgoical context.
Looking for more precision on the act itself, the context focuses the reference
to justification on God’s evaluation of persons and whether they will receive
commendation or destruction. Active vindication against foes is not in view.
That is, “justifying” here seems to consist in God’s holding Paul (or any other)
in the right over against his own standard of judgment – in this case, Paul’s
faithfulness as an apostle (4.2). This judgment scenario depicts God as one who
stands over all as judge of their behavior, ready to “destroy” anyone in the church
who mars or harms his church, his own temple, and to “save” from his own judgment
those who have built on the foundation of Christ (cf. 3.10-17), however
shoddily . . . many scholars are quick to distance 4.4. from Paul’s justification-theology
– especially due to its implied eschatological reserve . . . But, if elsewhere
Paul’s δικιαοω indicates
God’s approval at the final judgment, that is precisely what 1 Corinthians 4.4. is about. Justification here is
the divine judge’s favorable evaluation of a person at the eschatological
judgment. (James B. Prothro, Both Judge
and Justifier: Biblical Legal Language and the Act of Justifying in Paul [Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 461; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018], 117-21)
