Does the Biblical term "justify" really mean "to declare righteous" (as Protestants teach)?

This post ties into my last post discussing the Biblical teaching on "righteousness." When it comes to justification, Protestant apologists insist that the Biblical term "justify" means "to declare righteous" (in a courtroom setting). More bluntly, Protestants understand the declaration to mean something of the form of "declared by God the judge to have kept the law perfectly." But I think the Protestant argument contains some serious errors and is not built on actual Biblical evidence but rather some unbiblical and faulty assumptions. In this post, I'll show why the Protestant understanding cannot be true and thus should be abandoned.

To begin, the Greek word "justify" appears in about 36 verses in the New Testament. Of all these occurrences, the only time it is used in an explicitly forensic (legal, courtroom) context is in four verses: Mt 12:37; Rom 3:4; 8:33; 1 Cor 4:4. So how do Protestants come to the conclusion that it must mean "declare legally righteous by a judge"? Certainly not from the New Testament evidence, especially since 'forensic terms' don't really appear in places like Romans 3-4 and Galatians 2-3. Turning to the 40 verses of the Old Testament that use the term "justify," there were more occurrences in a legal context than in the New Testament, but still not enough to form any concrete conclusion: Ex 23:7; Deut 25:1; 2 Sam 15:4; 1 Kings 8:32 (same as 2 Chron 6:23); Ps 19:9; 51:4 (quoted in Rom 4:3); Ps 143:2; Prov 17:15. So for a Protestant to say that "justify," especially as Paul uses it in Romans 3-4 and Galatians 2-3, means "declared to be a perfect law keeper by a judge" is by no means an established fact at all.

But to make matters even more problematic for Protestants, of those 11 'forensic' verses just mentioned, even these don't bode well for their understanding. For example:

• Matthew 12:37, 1 Corinthians 4:4, and (arguably) Romans 8:33, are speaking of the final judgement, not something that takes place at the moment of conversion. 

• Romans 3:4 (Psalm 51:4) and (arguably) Psalm 19:9 are speaking of God being justified, thus it cannot mean "declare righteous by a judge," for no judge is above God. So despite being in a forensic context, "justify" here can really only mean vindicate. (I wrote about this earlier this year.)

• 1 Kings 8:32 (same as 2 Chron 6:23) and (maybe) Psalm 143:2 are the only forensic occurrences in which "declare righteous" would make sense. But this is only 1, maybe 2, verses in favor of such a definition.

• Ex 23:7, Deut 25:1, Rom 8:33, 1 Cor 4:4, (and likely) Prov 17:5 & Mt 12:37 are not speaking of "declaring righteous" - as in declaring that someone has done his duty like keeping the commandments perfectly - but rather of "acquittal," meaning being found not guilty, i.e. innocent. For example, if I'm on trial for speeding, the Judge can either find me guilty (condemn), or he can acquit me (find innocent), but he cannot declare me to be a perfect driver and worthy of a reward. 

Once one realizes that this is what the Bible has said on the subject, one finds that the Protestant understanding/definition of "justify" is very dubious and even erroneous. But I think the heat can be turned up even more on the Protestant assumption by looking at the possible definition of "vindicate".

Of the various possible definitions of "justify," I'm going to propose that "vindicate" is the 'truest' meaning of the term "justify" - meaning that translating the term as "vindicate" renders a coherent meaning in the great majority of the 76 or so verses that "justify" appears. Here are my findings:

• Using "vindicate" is fits best for Job 9:2; 9:20; 13:18; 32:2; 33:12; 33:32; 34:5; 35:7; Ps 51:4 (Rom 3:4); Is 43:26; 45:25; 50:8; Jer 3:11; Mat 11:19 (Lk 7:35); Lk 7:29; Lk 10:29; Lk 16:15; Rom 2:13; 1 Tim 3:16; Jas 2:21; 2:24-25

• Using "acquit" fits best for Gen 44:16; Ex 23:7; Deut 25:1; Job 9:15; 25:4; 27:5; Prov 17:15; Mt 12:37; Acts 13:39; Rom 8:33; 1 Cor 4:4

• Using either "vindicate" or "acquit" is very possible for Gen 38:26; 2 Sam 15:4; 1 Kings 8:32 (2 Chron 6:23); Job 4:17; Job 10:15; 11:2; 15:14; 22:3; 40:8; Ps 19:9; 143:2; Is 5:23; 43:9; Is 53:11; Eze 16:51-52; Lk 18:14; Rom 3:20; 3:24; 3:26; 3:28; 3:30; Rom 4:2; 4:5; Rom 5:1; 5:9; Rom 6:7; Rom 8:30; 1 Cor 6:11; Gal 2:16-17; Gal 3:8; 3:11; 3:24; Gal 5:4; Titus 3:7

• Using "vindicate" doesn't really fit for Ps 82:3; Dan 8:14; 12:3; Rev 22:11

I made a distinction between vindicating and acquitting because it seems acquitting fits best in situations where a person is being found 'innocent' of a charge, where as vindicating means more to show someone is in the right. But that said, I would argue that acquitting is a form or subset of vindicating, so the terms are conceptually not that different. With that in mind, all but 4 of the 76 verses can fit within a vindication/acquittal framework, meaning this is how we should most probably view it as well, especially in the key texts of Romans and Galatians.

This approach to rendering the term term "justify" as vindicate/acquit has the devastating effect of rendering the Protestant definition not only dubious, but completely without precedent. There isn't a single example where "justify" pertains to a judge declaring that you've kept the law perfectly. But in case a Protestant says I've over-reached here, this case I've presented conforms with Luther and Calvin's view that justification was more or less synonymous with forgiveness, without any mention of us being found perfectly obedient to the commandments (via Christ's imputed Active Obedience). See also my quotes of Luther and Calvin on Romans 4:6-8 in This Post.