I often come away from theologically
oriented discussions about the topic of justice, especially about criminal
justice, with the impression the Old
Testament is regarded as the preferred place for the grounding for the concept
of justice, especially in Amos or Mica 6:8; but not in the New Testament. The
New Testament is sometimes called upon to emphasize the judgment or wrath of God
on the unrighteous, or our duty for visiting prisoners, or, providing clothes
and food for the poor, benevolence or charity, but primary justice talk, not so
much.
Of course theologians and philosophers such as Wolterstorff (2011) have
contested such reductionism, indicating also a tendency by some to read the New
Testament gospel as though the love command trumps the Old Testament teachings
of justice. Wolterstorff, along with Bianchi (1985), also indicate a tendency
of NT translators of interrupting the
symmetry of the New Testament Greek dik-stem
words (justice), and frequently mistranslating the word dikaiasune , using the characterological word, “righteousness”,
instead of the English words, “ just”, or, “justice.” Bianchi(1985) focusses
his work on correcting OT translation errors relating to the concept of
justice, noting that the English word “retribution” is often skewed in
translation, as well as stating that the original Hebrew meanings of the words
for Torah (law) and tsedeka (justice, righteousness) have been altered in translation.
The English language is at a loss to convey
the rich variety of meanings embedded in the biblical sense of justice. The original hearers, authors, and readers,
early in that first century CE, would have heard and seen the clear references consistent
with their relational concept of “justice” from a first century Jewish
understanding of the gospel narratives and the epistolary literature. Their perspectives
would have been learned on parent’s knee, and in the hearing of the scriptures
as read and taught in the synagogues. Their Old Testament understanding of
justice would have carried over naturally into the New Testament, however,
given a more universal and dynamic application in Christ. Justice was not
trumped, but made richer in his life, death, resurrection, and ascension. A relational, covenantal, and holistic,
understanding of justice for them would flow naturally to apply to the social-economic,
contextual realities of their lives. It is also from this original perspective
that we, in the 21st century, must attempt to approach the task of
interpretation, avoiding the projection of modernity’s theories and myths about
crime and justice that just are not there, onto the biblical narrative.
Paul in his
letter to Timothy (II Tim. 3:14-16) would have been encouraging Timothy to keep
troth to the Old Testament scriptures as
he had learned them as a child, for teaching, reproof and correcting, for
instruction in dikaiosune, justice,
to be equipped for good works. In my NIV, dikaiosune
is translated there as “righteousness.” However, as Wolterstoff (2011, p.260)
has pointed out, most dik stem words
in the Bible should be translated as relating to justice, and here it certainly
should be, for Timothy is instructed to equip people for doing the work of justice; and in the manner of the Old
Testament scriptures, he would have conceptualized justice from the tandem OT
words, mishpat and tsedeka, justice, or judgment, and just
action. Dutch criminologist Herman Bianchi (1985) complains that our western
concept of justice was coopted by the bifurcated Roman concept (public law from
civil law) of juridical law, law having been isolated from justice, in other
words, mishpat from tsedeka (p.14, 15). Bianchi (1988) also explains that the
Greek-Roman legacy of procedural, objective, justice, “short circuited” the
Judeo-Christian biblical relational tradition of tsedeka justice which was contextual, done in the community, and
not monopolized by the state (p.6). The
rule of retribution was not a duty to inflict pain in return for a crime
committed; retribution in the sense of tsedeka meant setting limits upon
retaliation; it, “…certainly did not mean: ’do inflict pain, torment, anguish
and misery ‘ ” (Bianchi, 1978, p.5). He notes that tsedeka justice existed and was practiced before the monopoly of criminal
justice by the state began its monopoly on crime control in Enlightenment
Europe and England, the source of North America’s criminal justice tradition. Modern
Western understanding and practice of justice has lost its ancient and
scriptural grounding and has become a mere commodity or place, like, “bringing
individual people to justice”, or to have justice received on one’s “day in
court.” Tsedeka justice, however,
states Elizabeth M. Elliot (2011), is a communitarian concept and a continual
reaching for peace and reconciliation…it is “…bringing tsedeka to the people” (p.51). “The definition and aim of tsedeka is peace” (Elliot, p.52). Law
and intention are not, in positivist style, isolated from result or outcome of
the legal procedures taken.
It is sometimes asserted that Jesus was not
political, implying that we, in relation to our faith, should not be involved
formally in justice either, justice being the major responsibility of the state.
(Though this does not keep Christians from electing law and order politicians) In reality, however, understood in the organic
sense of society life and governance in Israel of His day, Christ was
challenging existing political structures and ideas by his life style and
teachings regularly; structures certainly different than our present social
political realities, but the principles remain. He showed love for the outcast
and unclean, even touching them, making himself unclean according to the law of
that day, healing them, feeding them. We
can certainly say that Jesus was involved in social justice as we know it
today, and in doing so he was also challenging the religious-political and
social sensibilities, of Roman Stoics, as well as those of the Pharisees and
Sadducees and the unjust social structures they affirmed. The Sanhedrin held
considerable authority in Jerusalem regarding the social-political arrangements
of the day, seeking to preserve the status quo and their own “righteousness”
and places of privilege in that status quo, while seeking to blame the poor and
needy for their own poverty and sickness. Jesus was not deterred in doing
Justice, going beyond the parameters of the law as practiced then, challenging
the social taboos and religious-political rules of his day, and sending a
message to the Jewish leadership and calling them to heed the call to do
justice, to seek kindness, and walk humbly with their God.
Herman Bianchi (1985) following Martin Buber’s
relational philosophy, understands the sense of Torah and Old Testament law as not
indicating prosecutorial and punitive forms of justice, but rather the Torah
was for guidance and direction. Bianchi and
uses Buber’s term, “Weisung,” for,
law, as that of giving direction, and proposes the term tsedeka justice to differentiate from the western rationalized
positivist approach (p. 26, 51). This approach to justice was communitarian and
participatory (covenantal) in which the law was not a metaphysically imposed
law to fear, but a guide for living well and a standard with which to guide and
seek solutions and resolutions when harms and offences were experienced. Old Testament law was to invoke joy and satisfaction,
not fear of prosecution; it was to guide for shalom in community. Wolterstorff
(2011) similarly suggests that for the Old Testament Israelites, “…keeping the
law is not something other than
loving God but an instance of loving
God. Loving God is constituted, in part, of obeying God” (106-107). Fear was
more in the sense of respect for God’s grace and wisdom, who, after redemption
from slavery in Egypt, “…is now offering them a law-code that will enable them
to flourish” (Wolterstorff, 2011, p. 107). Fear would be appropriate in
acknowledging God’s concern and wisdom, and that one would be ill advised to
live contrary to God’s wise direction for covenant faithfulness; lives would not
experience shalom in community and creation. No one “broke” the law and deserved punishment,
as we say today. But, intervention and accountability were in order when
violations incurred social and ritual harm. Justice, mishpat and tsedeka then
did not call primarily for punishment, but law and justice was a guide by the
community and its leadership to call the erring person to stop and think about
the direction his or her life was taking. If harm was being done it would
discussed by all involved just how this harm may be addressed and what a good
and right direction of action should be (Bianchi, 1984, p.8, 9). The law and
the infrastructure to facilitate “justice” was still absolutely necessary, but
began at a very different place than our modern Western concept of criminal
justice.
Jesus gives the rich ruler (Luke 18:18-30) something
to stop and think about when Jesus suggests that he sell all his possessions
and give it to the poor. Jesus, referring to the ancient Torah that this man said
he knew well since his youth (he probably knew Mica 6:8 as well), did not
condemn or rebuke him. Jesus was subtly suggesting that this man, in focussing
on the status of his own righteousness, had forgotten about the covenant
obligations to, and relational bond with, the poor. This was not a matter of
individual morality for personal salvation, but of public justice, and going beyond
mere legal obligations. Jesus was giving the law a universal and social-ethical
focus, as well as calling followers to go the “extra mile,” and doing away with
any notion of desert. In Matthew 25:31-45, we recognize that our response to
the poor and needy is not simply based on their need, but on the close
relationship that Jesus has with them, and thus correlatively the close
relationship we have, in Christ, with the poor and needy, even those we label
undeserving, or enemy, or criminal. Love and justice are inseparable, and in
our love we bring justice to our neighbour, and justice, we bring in love,
justice being an example of love (Wolterstorff, 2011, p. 83, 93).
Here
is another thing: There is a modern tendency, as I see it, that when the English
word “justice” is used, many people think mainly of, investigation,
prosecution, punishment, and perhaps prison or worse. Ironically, this concept projects a
modernistic understanding of justice onto the Bible, a concept that was never
there to begin with, not even in Israel of the Old Testament nor in the Rome of
the Roman citizen. Herman Bianchi (1985) emphasizes that a specific system of
criminal law and justice did not exist until the 13th century, until
the inquisition, in Europe. What you find in the Old Testament is the
relational organic concept of justice described by the twin words, mishpat and tsedeka; in the New Testament the correlative twin words are krisis and dikiasune . Neither set of words would refer to our modern concept
of a prosecutorial criminal justice system whose primary job is to find guilty,
prosecute, and punish, wrongdoers. There was no criminal law or criminal justice
system in Hebrew or in Roman society.
Roman society had a good legal structure or framework that protected the
rights of Roman citizens; but unjustly, slaves or foreigners did not have
rights. Roman citizens had access to laws, procedures, and functionaries, to help
them solve mutual differences and conflicts more in the manner of today’s civil law, processes resembling today’s
restorative justice processes as well. The military dealt summarily and cruelly
with political violators, but this was not part of an organized criminal
justice system based on criminal law such we would have today. Non-political
offenses were resolved locally using indigenous participatory practices by
Roman citizens (this was true in many pre-modern small scale societies). The system of prosecutorial law and sanctioned
punishments that we have today was built on the repressive, punitive, practices
allowed for slaves and non-citizens during Roman rule; they did not have rights
to protection by law. Roman abuse of
power in cruelty and imperial domination was second to none; however, they
never established a formal body of criminal law and a criminal justice system
(Bianchi, 1985). Our current
prosecutorial- punitive system that we have today has its roots in such ancient
unjust prejudicial practices adopted by the inquisition, and then further
developed (rationalized) during the Enlightenment, producing our current
criminal law and justice system. Bianchi (1985) states bluntly, that the
Enlightenment “reformers” were not humanizing a barbaric system, but rather,
rationalized a barbaric system of crime control (p.96).
It is important
then that the model of justice Christ established in the New Testament be the
inspiration and grounding for our modern theories of criminal law and justice;
we, as followers of Christ, must be aware of the models we have inherited from
our culture and from those narratives flowing simply from Enlightenment sources.
That said, modernity is not entirely perverse, it also gave us goods that can
enhance the common good, and there are many sound sources and resources for
study and dialogue. Judgment, discernment (diakrino),
and insight are necessary. But we must find a new way to think about criminal
justice. Law and justice originally was not, as we hear it so often said today,
to bring wrongdoers to justice, but rather to bring justice to the people so
that peace and wellbeing can be experienced by people in community. Ekdikesin,
vindication, was for the victims of injustice, to bring empowerment, and to
attempt a resolution of brokenness. Judgment was not simply for revenge or for retribution
for the offender. Disconnecting the victim from the process and focusing
primarily on prosecution and punishment of the offender just does not bring
shalom, it rather destroys the social fabric, forgetting also that both the
offender and victim are one of us.
In
Hebrew society under Mosaic Law, justice was to be achieved by talking out
differences and achieving mishpat, judgment
“at the gate”; the goals would be searching for solutions and reconciliation.
Bianchi (1985) suggests that justice as law was a measure to judge whether the
solutions and responses actually achieved their purpose, namely shalom. Severity and cruelty in judgment did happen,
such as stoning’s etc., but the O.T. laws of jubilee, and New Testament gospels
revealing Jesus’ nullification of the
old ritual purity code and the reciprocity code (retaliation as justice),
indicate that Revelation in the history of redemption moves forward and is
fulfilled, and continues to be fulfilled, in Christ, in historical reality.
Lewis Smedes (1970) exclaims that a new situation has been realized in Christ,
in history: “…by his resurrection He established a new pattern of life and a
new order of history that is under His rule of love and grace (p.208). Christ’s victory on the cross makes public
justice possible because the absolute control of the principalities and powers
have been radically diminished, states Smedes (1970). Smedes recognizes that a ”cosmic coup d’état”
has taken place in the atonement, opening the possibility for the work of
justice in addressing structural oppression and injustice and working for
shalom in our communities and nations (p.34). Smedes notes that situation
Christologies acknowledge the chief actors in the drama of redemption on the
cross as being Jesus Christ and the principalities and powers, or Satan; not
just God the father and His son Jesus
Christ, as with Transaction theories. “Transaction Christologies emphasize that
Christ radically changed the personal relationship between God and man.
Situation Christologies stress that Christ radically changed the historical
situation in which men [sic] live (Smedes, p 30-31).
In this new historical cosmic situation of
Christ’s Lordship, the sense of inclusion of all previously errant, foreign,
and unclean and marginalized, and of our endangered creation, would be
unthinkable by Jew and Roman alike; it challenged the apostles and followers of
the Way to discover new ways to live together pluralistically, culturally, ethnically,
and justly, in grace and love. Such a continual searching for for shalom is still necessary in all areas of
our lives today; this is tsedeka. Paul’s revelation of Christ’s mystery hidden
for ages can be said to be the revelation of God’s gracious redemptive
disposition and justice extended to all people, nations, and genders.
Restorative justice would more closely follow as a model akin to tsedeka justice, in the wake of Christ’s
victory, and in the mandate of a ministry of reconciliation given to us (II
Cor. 5:16-21) as we address wrongs, conflicts, and crime. God’s gracious
inclusive justice was astounding in the times the scriptures, and it still is
today in Christ. Justice was not, and is
not, a prosecutorial justice demanding punishment of the guilty (which is all
humanity anyway) for deterrence and crime control. God’s just holiness is wise,
loving, forgiving and “down to earth.” His ministry entrusted to us is one, not of
war, but of reconciliation, and any act of judgment and justice must serve
reconciliation and wholeness (shalom) for the good of the neighbour, for the
common good; for “eunomie, not, anomie,” (Bianchi,
1985).
Works Cited
Bianchi, H. (1984). A Biblical
Vision of Justice. Occaisional Papers of the MCC Canada VictimOffender
Ministries Program, 1-9.
Bianchi, H. (1985). Gerechtigheid als
vrijplaats. Baarn: Ten Have bv.
Bianchi, H. (Sept. 1988). Returning
Conflict to the Community. Tsedeka Justice Volume One, 1-12.
Elliott, E. M. (2011). Security with
care. Black Point, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.
Smedes, L. B. (1970). All Things Made
New. Grand Rapids Michigan: William B.Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Wolterstorff, N. (2011). Justice in
love. Grand Rapids Michigan: William B.Eerdmans Publishing Company.