Even in
instances where one finds צדק and δικ- words in the OT/LXX in legal/judicial
contexts, there is no support for the Protestant interpretation thereof. In
texts such as Lev 17:3-4 and Deut 25:1, one is declared to be
innocent/righteous or guilty based on the judge making a declaration of an intrinsic reality based on the previous
actions of the defendant (e.g., one is declared to be innocent or guilty of
blood guiltiness due to their having engaged in such or not—there is no “legal
fiction” or “imputation” of guilty/innocence from an alien source!). For a
thorough refutation of imputed righteousness, see:
With this in
mind, note the following from James Prothro on legal language used for
justification/righteousness:
The language of “wrath” fits frequently into contentions
as both affectus (the indignation
that inspires one to address the wrong) and effectus
(the wrath that “breaks out” in the fray of argumentative conflict and the
assertion of one’s rights). The offense over which one is angry is variously referred
to as “sin, “guilt,” “iniquity,” etc., translated in the LXX by roots αδικ-, μαρτ-, κακ-,
ασεβ-, etc. Being “in
the right” in these contexts is chiefly expressed by the language of “righteous”
(roots צדק and δικ- in Hebrew and Greek,
respectively), bring “in the wrong” by the language of “unrighteous/wicked” or “ungodly”
(roots רשׁע and ασεβ- or αδικ- [e.g., Exod 2.13; 9.27]). He oppositional
relation between parties can be expressed by several prepositions that also express
opposition in scenes of conflict – e.g., εις, επι, προς, κατα, and frequently αντι and is compounds express
opposition (“over again”) or, as an adjective (υπεναντιος), can mark one’s opponent just as
in battle (Job 33.10; cf. 1 Chr 19.10; 1 Macc. 4.18). Likewise, prepositions
generally indicating “in the presence of” or “in the judgment of” can occur
here (e.g., ενωπιον, εναντι
and compounds).
A further example is the controversy between
Jacob and Laban (Gen. 31.25-54). Laban makes accusations (in interrogative
form) against Jacob: he has absconded with his daughters and stolen his gods
(31.25-30). Jacob admits to fleeing but, by offering restitution if Laban’s
gods are found, expresses confidence that he and his company are innocent of
theft (31.32, 37). When Laban’s enquiry fails, Jacob becomes “angry” and launches
a counter-accusation (וירב, εμαχεσατο, 31.36) against Laban –he is
guilty of no “offense” (פשׁע, αδικημα) or “sin” (חטאת, αμαρτημα, 31.36) against Laban – and on the evidence
of past experience maintains that he is innocent and Laban guilty; only because
God was “on his side” against Laban has he remained unharmed (31.36-42).
Ultimately God is invoked as both “witness” and authoritative “judge” between
them (31.50, 53), bringing the contention into a trilateral dynamic. (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], 48-49)
