Friday, May 1, 2020

The צדק and δικ- word groups in Jacob and Laban's Dispute (Genesis 31:25-54) vs. Legal Fiction


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)



Blog Archive