Choosing the Right Word
“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.” Matthew 5:6 NASB
Righteousness– Let’s have a conversation about the process of converting language from one culture to another. It’s not just the translation of the words that matters. It’s the way the language fits into the patterns of living when the worldview changes. Every time I try to elucidate the meaning behind a Greek or Hebrew word from the Bible, I find myself standing between two very different views of reality. The trick is to help one side see the other.
You might think that all of this is a result of moving from an ancient near-eastern culture to a contemporary one, but that is not the case. A contemporary example is the problem of taking a single biblical concept like righteousness and expressing it in a Spanish-speaking culture where the word is universally translated justicia– justice. Looking up verses like Genesis 30:33, Deuteronomy 9:4, Psalm 5:8, Psalm 23:3, Matthew 5:6, John 16:8 and Romans 3:25 (along with dozens of others) in the Spanish translation of the Bible consistently produces the word justicia. In fact, there appears to be no separate word for righteousness. There is only the word which means both justice and righteousness. This is a result of the fact that the Greek root behind both of these words is dike (justice). From dike, Greek derives dikaiosyne (justification and righteousness). So, Spanish translates all the occurrences of dikaiosyne as justicia, allowing no difference between the concepts that are expressed in English as justice and righteousness.
That raises an important question. Is there any difference between these two ideas? And if there is a difference, how can we communicate this difference when the language has only one word for both?
To answer these questions, we must know a bit about the ideas behind dike (justice). First, the Hebrew view of the Law stands behind all apostolic occurrences of dike. From the biblical perspective, God is the Law. The Law expresses not simply His instructions for living but also the essential character of the God Who is. Law is the revelation of the order of the universe and that order is founded on the character of God. The Law is good and correct and valuable because God is good, true, and worthy. Therefore, justice is based on the attributes of God, not on the pragmatic or even ethical considerations of the people.
This view is fundamentally different than the Greek idea of law. In Greek society, law was the expression of the will of the citizenry. It was the binding ethical code that kept civilization from falling into anarchy. While the law was above any individual man, and all men were subject to the law, the law itself was not immutable. Laws could be changed, and were changed, to reflect changes in the desire of the citizens. Note that not all people under the law were citizens. Only those recognized with the status of citizen had a voice in determining the law. Even so, the law essentially represented the ethical codification of the will of men. There was no higher authority than the law.
Of course, in the Hebrew world, God’s Torah was not simply an expression of higher ethics. God’s law was the immutable revelation of His will and His being. God’s Torah does not change because God’s character does not change. Even if one hundred percent of the people disagree with the precepts of God’s Torah, the law still remains valid. In the Hebrew world, citizens do not get to vote.
While the Hebrew worldview is based entirely on a relationship with the character and nature of God, the Greek view of law establishes a principle of action. The Hebrew view depends on the dynamic nature of this human-divine relationship. The Greek view depends on the forced or voluntary compliance with an ideal. In the Greek view, dike ultimately means, “what is customary, what is proper, and what has to be.” From a legal perspective, this means that dike is an expression of what is demanded under authority granted by citizens for the proper execution of the state. In the Hebrew world, the law is not limited to what is customary or proper. It is expanded to include the concept of what is acceptable to a holy God.
With this in mind, we can approach the issues surrounding the translation of dikaiosyne (justice and righteousness). The difference between justice and righteousness in contemporary society is this: justice is usually considered a legal term, found within the language of the court. It means that the law has been correctly applied in a case so that the rights of the individual are upheld in accordance with recognized statutes. Of course, one could claim that justice has been served even if the law is corrupt, but behind that idea of justice is the notion of ethical fairness. Apart from the law, justice is usually a concern about doing what is right. How we define “what is right” is a function of culture, human expectations and influence—unless we adopt the Hebrew view. If we determine what is right on the basis of the Hebrew view, then the answer is really simple. What is right is what God says is right.
Justice in the Bible is the application of what God says is right. This is still a term of legal language, but here it is the application of God’s law—the expression of His character in human actions. Righteousness is an extension of this idea into the realm of relationship. Righteousness is right conduct resulting in a proper relationship between parties. The righteous are those who comply with God’s law, expressing His nature in their actions and, consequently, enjoying a right relationship with Him. In the Bible, righteousness is not earned. It is granted by God because it is founded on God’s right action—the combination of grace and justice expressed in His willingness to forgive and forestall judgment. Since every human being has at some time violated the requirements of God’s unchanging law, no one can claim to be righteous on his own merit. But God acts righteously toward us, applying mercy to our situation. In this way, the requirement of the law is fulfilled (justice is served) and the right action is still accomplished (we are forgiven).
In Spanish translation, the context will often have to determine when justicia means the right application of the law and when it means the right relationship resulting from the correct behavior. So, Romans 3:25 uses the term to describe the character of God while Galatians 3:13 speaks of the application of God’s character in action. God’s attribute of righteousness means that He can ascribe righteousness to believers. His judgment is just because it meets both the legal and the ethical requirement. But it is also the right thing to do because it rescues those who are doomed.
How we decide which meaning should be understood in any particular use of justicia will depend on the Greek behind the word and the context surrounding the word. This is not always easy to determine when only one word for translation exists. It means that simply repeating the word is not sufficient to truly understand what it means. We must dig into the background and ask ourselves, “Is this a case of legal application, a case of description of character, or a case of resulting relationship?”
This little example is enough to show us how easily we can misunderstand a text simply because the language of the original audience is not our language despite every attempt to translate properly. It’s just not easy. The lesson: maintain a good bit of tolerance and an open mind. Things might not be what you think, even if the words sound familiar.
Topical Index: translation, justicia, righteousness, justice, dike, dikaiosyne, Matthew 5:6
Deeper thought.. psalm 42:7 . As deep , leads to Deep. I may not know much about Spanish, or any other foreign language. The only likeable consideration I can bring is…. The difference between translation, and interpretation. Personal experience… Whenever I speak to a group of people, who speak a different language. I need an interpreter. It is best that the one who interprets, does not do so word for word, but Concepts. There’s a lot of books who put Yeshua in context. Which I have found very insightful. Ever since I I found out that teaching was a gift, I would study word pictures, essay help. Conveying an experience, instead of just a picture in a frame. For example, Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. A boy and a girl, on a hill with a p a i l to get some water on the top of the hill. Or doesn’t water flow downward, why were boy and girl, going up the hill to get the water. How big was the h i l l? What time of day was it, how old were the boy and girl questions cause people to think, to bring what you are saying into an experience. Empathy, it’s another word it’s not just a feeling. Getting to the word justice.. Mercy is usually a word that goes a long with Justice. Loving kindness. The way Justice is portrayed. 138 . 2 God placed his word above his name. I was told that his word describes who he is. So his name, would be the framework that surrounds his name.. Without the framework., we would not understand the meaning of the name, or the picture which it’s to focus. Hope this helps someone.
Lots here to consider…language, meaning, culture…reality. Great job helping us understand some of the issues, Skip! This is a post to which I’ll be returning periodically for that needed splash of water on my face…and to re-orient. Thanks!
I know we talk a lot about how the Holy Spirit has to interpret the scripture to us, and that there can be confusion about how that interplays with our understanding of scripture: we can think we are understanding it ‘correctly’, but merely lining it up with our (comfortable) paradigm does not necessarily have the same ring of truth. The Holy Spirit is a gentleman, however; He never forces us beyond where we already are. He probably works best, then, when we realize we don’t actually understand, for then we can choose to question. In fact, it is only when we question that we ‘allow’ something other than what we already think we know. (Questions can easily move us into the realm of the heretic, however, so it is not often that we get good instruction on how to question, I think!) BUT, if we don’t bring the attitude of a learner to scripture, how is the Spirit going to be able to move us farther along in our understanding within the confines of our consent? Doctrine and even dogma are not ‘bad’ in and of themselves: they can (and do) provide a reliable starting point: they represent the consensus of all those who have gone before us, after all: but I think we can get into real binds if we settle down to believing that they are end-all-be-all’s because none of us ‘get’ it all, even if, like Skip says, all the words are there There is always something more to understand. (Thank you, Skip, for teaching me to question and giving me permission to as well as a good example how!)
I am convinced that love is found in threes. For example, true marriage is a union of two people plus God. Even when we think we are ‘alone’ with our Bibles, our reading it represents a union of those who wrote it, the Holy Spirit Who inspired and interprets it, and the experience we bring to it. It’s like the convergence of three experiences: each submitting to the relationship of the other two. When I submit my understanding to the relationship God has with His revelation to those who wrote about it, I am in proper alignment to it. I think this works all ways equally, though, because that is what love does. God loved us enough to reveal Himself to us in that Word: He submitted Himself to the risk of not only the free choice of the words the writers employed but also the risk of how the readers(listeners) hear those words: in other words, He submitted Himself to the relationship the readers have with the authors. (This is a little like the telephone game!) But, the writers also took the risk, when they wrote what they wrote, of how the audience related (or not) to the Interpreter: they risked being misquoted and misunderstood and even used to further unholy agendas of men in their name, for we don’t have to invite the Holy Spirit to help us, or listen to Him, either. Nor do we have to make the effort to (like Skip is trying to teach us) reach out to understand what the writers were trying to say, either: to try to understand what their context might have been. Each element: God, the Biblical writers, and the readers, have to submit to the interplay of the other two elements for the truth to be conveyed. But, somehow, it seems truth requires this substrate of interplay: this risk of misunderstanding, because this is the nature of love. If you think about it, only the exposure to this risk allows for the verification of love by another. I think even justice (like all the other attributes of love) requires a witness: a neutral third party to verify itself.
For example: in the East, romance is typically depicted differently than in the West. Over here, we typically think of love as the interplay between an (exclusive) two parties. In the East, however, it seems love is not even seen as ‘true’ love unless there is a third party: what we would call a “third wheel”: someone else who, loving both the other parties, concedes their relationship and supports it, while giving up their own ‘chances’. In the process, the lovers not only have to ‘prove’ their love to the exclusion of the other person, they also have to concede that their relationship is only valid: blessed: ‘given’, as it were, to them by the other person, whom they both also have a close relationship with. I know we hate those kind of stories in the West, but I have found it hard to find a romance in the East that does not subscribe to this formula. Do they know something about love that we have been trying to leave behind? The typical Eastern romance only validates – justifies – itself when both parties honor the sideline refereeing of the third party, who typically, because this person loves both the others, holds them both accountable to not only their love for that third person, but also to each other. Justice, ultimately, is where love honors itself with a third party – a judge – determining (either blessing or enforcing) that honor. I have been scratching my head a good while on this one. It seems critically important to Eastern understanding that someone has to GIVE UP relationship – to submit their own best interests, or, love, before it can even be love for the other parties. They get to love because someone else ‘gave’ it to them. (Are you squirming yet?)
I will have to say, trying to understand love through the eyes of just about the polar opposite culture has been really opening mine! (Thanks for teaching me a new ‘bad’ habit, Skip!) Now I am addicted to the question of how love looks through the eyes of others (third parties). I will have to say, I think I know a good bit more about it now than when I thought it was just between me and one more (exclusive): even though that was still a whole lot better than the days before that when I was trying to do it all by myself (which was the worst!). But, ultimately, looking back, that extremely exclusive attempt to love with ONLY TWO just set me up for failure and confusion, too. When my marriage tanked, I attributed it largely to the fact that we never trusted any other third parties (including God) enough to submit our relationship to their judgment. I don’t think I want to make that mistake again. From now on, I have decided that it is going to be three (the essence of accountability, which is what justice is) all the way in everything. When I read scripture, I need to strive to understand where the writers are coming from, but I also need to bring my experience to that reading: to put my skin in between those pages: as well as to humbly ask for the guidance of the Person Who wanted me to hear what He has to say to me by means of this medium. I believe that is only fair and just; not only to the writers, as well as myself, but also to the Author and Interpreter of all truth.
The Holy Spirit as interpreter , I only comment at this point would be that scripture has in the beginning God the beginning would be a reference point for us God has a beginning and no end, he is outside and space. So God being the gentleman gives us a place to start. We all need God as a reference point to the beginning of life…. living without God….. really isn’t living we are told that Yeshua is light, in this light is the life of man
“… if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.”
(Hmmm…) “…for love is from God; and everyone who loves is ‘fathered’ of God and knows God…By this the love of God is revealed in/among us: that God sent his ‘uniquely begotten’ Son into the world in order that we may live through him.”
There is the Father’s love validating – proving – itself to us by means of a third party: the Son: as well as transferring itself to us by means of that Son. There’s three in that mix, too.
So sorry Laurita, I hit the wrong Icon.
Hi, John: don’t be sorry. I think somebody figured out that if you go back and hit the other choice, it cancels out the last one. But, don’t be sorry, anyway. I consider criticism as the most valuable feedback because it gives me a better way to adjust to others. I appreciate honesty as the best way to relate to others, and criticism so often gives honesty a way to establish better ways to relate. I can always use fine-tuning! Without the sonar of feedback, I am flying blind, otherwise. How else would I be able to know where others are coming from? Thanks for the feedback!