Good morning from brisk and chilly Chicagoland! Photo by Madalyn Cox on Unsplash Wonderful story: (NewsNation Now) — A South Carolina man is turning one man’s junk into treasure. Eliot Middleton is a mechanic-turned-restaurateur who in his spare time repairs junk cars and donates them to people in rural South Carolina. Middleton has repaired more than 30 vehicles just this year.
The Justification article talks about a theological definition (prevalent in the west). It doesn't touch what has to do with what is to me the primary issue, and that's translation. We can't define anything theologically until we have an understanding of what Jesus' and Paul's hearers understood when they heard their words.
Scot, I have long been dissatisfied with the translation of the dik- words from Greek. There's one set of words that is based on the Latinate "just-" and another set that's based on the Germanic "right-", and both these stems have led us to think that the dik- words are about a legal/moral "right standing" alone. Bird's explication still puts most of the weight on the legal/moral senses, reflecting this line of translation thought supporting the legal/moral. I agree with Hart that the best stem for translating the dik- words, though not complete enough, is rect-, as in "rectification"/"rectify" etc. This takes away a lot of the legal and legalistic/moralistic connotations and can admit the sense of the creation of a people.
As far as what the dik- words mean in one unique person's life, or more broadly among God's people, I believe, from reading the context and how they are used, they have to do with the ability to have the proper kind of relationship with God, which is something that God created in our nature, and which he has "activated" within us, so to speak, with the advent of Jesus and the whole "Christ-event", but mainly cross+resurrection, in the context of our turning to him. It's much less legal and much more relational. Problem is, you can't get that into one word.... But reading the NT with this definition in mind has made much more sense in every way.
The Justification article talks about a theological definition (prevalent in the west). It doesn't touch what has to do with what is to me the primary issue, and that's translation. We can't define anything theologically until we have an understanding of what Jesus' and Paul's hearers understood when they heard their words.
Scot, I have long been dissatisfied with the translation of the dik- words from Greek. There's one set of words that is based on the Latinate "just-" and another set that's based on the Germanic "right-", and both these stems have led us to think that the dik- words are about a legal/moral "right standing" alone. Bird's explication still puts most of the weight on the legal/moral senses, reflecting this line of translation thought supporting the legal/moral. I agree with Hart that the best stem for translating the dik- words, though not complete enough, is rect-, as in "rectification"/"rectify" etc. This takes away a lot of the legal and legalistic/moralistic connotations and can admit the sense of the creation of a people.
As far as what the dik- words mean in one unique person's life, or more broadly among God's people, I believe, from reading the context and how they are used, they have to do with the ability to have the proper kind of relationship with God, which is something that God created in our nature, and which he has "activated" within us, so to speak, with the advent of Jesus and the whole "Christ-event", but mainly cross+resurrection, in the context of our turning to him. It's much less legal and much more relational. Problem is, you can't get that into one word.... But reading the NT with this definition in mind has made much more sense in every way.
Dana