Judeo-Christian

Study theme 4: (Biblical)

conception of
Justice (cont) Justice
 Classical conceptions:
• Ancient Greece (Plato)
• Ancient Egypt (Ma’at) & Ubuntu
• Judeo-Christian (Biblical)
Different
conceptions of
Justice Modern conceptions:
• Libertarian (Nozick)
• Liberal (Rawls)
• Utilitarian (Bentham, Mill)
• Postmodern (Critical Theory)
 • Plato’s understanding of justice focuses on
human character and conduct as well as on that
which humans make, most notably the political
system in which they live.
CLASSIC • The cosmos is seen as the embodiment (or
framework) of meaningful order which can define
CONCEPTIO the good for us. Order in nature & moral life.
NS OF • There is a standard/norm that must be adhered
to for full justice to be expressed, and that
JUSTICE standard is given in the idea / form of justice.
• These ideas (ideal types) are locked away in
(Plato) ‘heaven’ and human at best can make mere
copies of it. But the closer to the ideal the better
it will be for society and the good life will be
more attainable.
• It is an external standard – outside of individuals'
will, reason or feelings.
CLASSIC CONCEPTIONS OF JUSTICE
• All classic conceptions has this view of there being an order (both
natural & moral) to the whole of existence. There is thus a standard
beyond us which is the ultimate measure of the good life and, of
interest to us, justice.
• Evident in Plato, ancient Egypt, and the Judeo-Christian conception of
justice.
• Judeo-Christian justice also views justice as something evident in, and
expressed through, human conduct and character.
• Still widespread and popular today.
Why consider a Christian conception of
justice?
• Michael Sandel, Alasdair MacIntyre argue that conceptions of justice
differ for they are rooted in differing moral conceptions.
• Our rationality and understanding of justice depend on our beliefs
about right and wrong, the nature of virtue, the nature of humans, the
relationship of the individual to the group, and many other things.
• Each of us will also be deeply affected by our particular convictions
about what a good human life is, what a good human being is, and
what human life is for.
• The Christian worldview offer a very influential take on all of these
questions.
Why consider a Christian conception of
justice?

• Very influential in our society – past and present.

• Was dominant in philosophical though until about 16th century: e.g., Augustine
and Aquinas. Still informs many people's views today.
• Rapidly growing influence on African continent:
• 1900 – 8 mil
• 2019 – 500 mil
• Mixed legacy of Christian practice in relation to justice: both good and bad.
• Must consider most essential expression/writings, original teachings, orthodoxy
(Scriptures) – to get and accurate sense of its conception of justice.
• Keller source.
Why consider a Christian conception of
justice?

• Rapidly growing influence on African continent:

• 1900 – 8 mil
• 2019 – 500 mil
• Mixed legacy of Christian practice in relation to justice: both good and bad.
• Must consider most essential expression / writings – Scriptures – to get and
accurate sense of its conception of justice.
• Keller source.
Biblical Justice
• Biblical justice is not a set of rules and guidelines. It is rooted in the
character of God, and it is the outworking of that character. Justice is an
expression of who God is.
• In the context of a ’fallen & broken ’ world. Humanity lives in a specific story
line: Creation ▶︎Fall ▶︎Redemption.
• Humanities deepest problem – Sin: “The line between good and evil runs not
through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either —
but right through every human heart.” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
• God’s justice is both retributive (punishes evil doing) and reparative
(restores the victims of injustice).
• Must be evident in human conduct and, as a derivative, also in human
institutions.
Facets of Biblical Justice
Biblical Justice is characterised by the following four facets:

1. Radical generosity
2. Universal equality
3. Life-altering advocacy
4. Asymmetrical responsibility
Generosity
• Differing views on money (resources): Individualism = money belongs to you;
Socialism = money belongs to the state; Biblical view = money belongs to God
given to you as a ‘steward’.
• Theft always an injustice, but property rights not absolute (e.g., Sabbath year
debt laws, Jubilee restoration, Gleaning laws).
• Does not demand abstract equalising of wealth nor elimination of class.
• Generosity is not optional (voluntary) charity nor State redistribution.
• Rather, you have moral obligations to both God and your neighbour to use your
money unselfishly and with great generosity to love others with it, according to
both your ability and to their needs. 
Equality
• Biblical justice requires that every person be treated according to the
same standards and with the same respect, regardless of class, race,
ethnicity, nationality, gender, or of any other social category.
• Universal equality / Universal egalitarianism
• Evident throughout the old testament and also in the teaching of
Jesus.
• What distinguished the Judeo-Christian view from those of all
surrounding cultures and religions was their origin story, that all
human beings were created in the image of God. All people thus had
the greatest value and must be treated as such.
Equality
"Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a
collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the
individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy
of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy,
substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and
reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current
challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of
this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk” (Emphasis added).

Jürgen Habermas - "Time of Transitions", Polity Press, 2006, pp. 150-151,

translation of an interview from 1999.
Advocacy
• Significant and life-changing advocacy.
• While we are to treat all equally, and not show partiality to any, we
are to have special concern for the poor, the weak, and the
powerless.
• It does not mean that the powerful are less important as persons
before God. They certainly are equally as important. But they
don’t need you to speak up for them. However, the poor do need
you. 
• The call to advocacy assumes that a fact of our fallen world is a highly
uneven distribution of opportunity and resources.
Advocacy
• The call to advocacy also assumes the reality of “oppression.” There
are innumerable ways that the wealthy and the powerful can turn
things to their advantage—in courts, in the marketplace, in the
community—at the expense of others.
• Three biblical ways of doing advocacy:
a. The direct relief of material needs
b. Empowerment of persons so they have the resources they need to supply
their own needs
c. Addressing social structures that disadvantage certain groups.
Responsibility
• Are we responsible only for our own behaviour?
• Judeo-Christian justice recognises both corporate and individual responsibility.

Collective (corporate) Responsibility :

• Biblical corporate responsibility is a greater reality than individualistic modern
people want to believe.
• On the other hand, there are real limits to it as well—it cannot be applied
indiscriminately.
Responsibility
Corporate responsibility depends on the kinds of bonds and unions that human beings
have in community. They include:

• Familial: We are more the product of our families than we want to admit. Parents
– Children; Families in some sense allows us to become the people we are.
Families bear some responsibility for the wrongdoings of individual members.
• Political and Civil: the people are somewhat responsible for the actions of the
leaders and vice versa.
• Communal: If we are in close relationships (community) with people and do
nothing about their wrong-doing, we bear some responsibility as well.
• Institutional: If the system privileges the powerful and disadvantages the weak,
individuals within the institution are responsible for the unjust effects even if they
cannot see (or do not want to see) them.
Responsibility
From personal to structural injustice:
• Sinful humans constantly try to justify themselves by looking down
other, especially those that are different – race, culture.
• If generations of racial-cultural pride and self-righteousness is deeply
entrenched in the hearts of individuals, and if we are social creatures
who naturally form institutions, then we should expect to see
structural, not just individual racism.
 Responsibility
Individual responsibility:
• Thus, people should express repentance for wrongs done by people with whom we are
connected, past and present.
• BUT, there is also a great focus on individual responsibility. How do corporate and
individual responsibility relate to one another?
• There is an asymmetrical relation between then with the most weight afforded to
individual responsibility.
• God does not make final judgment on anyone for their parents’ or nation’s wrongs—only
for their own.
• The reality of corporate sin does not “swallow up” individual moral responsibility, nor
does individual responsibility disprove the reality of corporate evil and responsibility.
• There is corporate responsibility, but in the end, we are held responsible for the wrongs
we personally commit.
Justice & Complexity
• One of the main strengths of this conception is its acknowledgment of
multiple and complex factors involved in matters of justice – e.g.
individual, systemic, environmental.
• Poverty, for example, can be due to individual failure and wrongdoing,
or to social injustice and social structures, or to environmental factors
such as floods, disabling injuries or illnesses.
• From a biblical point of view, it is because of this complexity that the
rendering of justice—both the distribution of rights and punishments
—requires the greatest wisdom, deliberation and prudence. 
Justice & Complexity
• From a biblical viewpoint you cannot do justice without recognizing how
power has been used to exploit and abuse, but you also cannot do justice
without exerting power yourself. 
• The biblical response to this challenge is to shows a God who does indeed
exercise authority over humanity, but who uses that authority and power only
to serve it, and who was willing to lose this power and suffer in order to save
humanity.
• It is this striking answer the explain much of the enduring appeal of this
worldview and its construct of justice.
• The problem with this conception is that it is ultimately rooted in and
legitimised by its belief in the existence of the God as described in the bible,
and not all people ascribe to it and will thus ascribe to a different conception
of what is just.
 SPECTRUM OF MODERN CONCEPTIONS OF JUSTICE
Individualism Collectivism
You are wholly the product of
your individual choices Your are wholly the
e.g. (Locke, Hume) product of social forces
and structures e.g. (Marx)

Libertarian Liberal Utilitarian Postmodern

Justice is basically about Justice is basically about Justice is basically about Justice is basically about
FREEDOM FAIRNESS HAPPINESS POWER