Our world is consumed with talk about “justice” and specifically “social justice.” Yet similar to how our world has redefined the word “love,” most discussions of “justice” lack definition and any sense of a standard of what justice actually is. In fact, just as we are told it’s “loving” for a mother to take the life of her unborn child for her own psychological health, or it’s “loving” to end a marriage so that couples can pursue their own self-actualization (which is another word for selfishness), we are also told that it is “just” to do many unjust and lawless acts.
For example, it’s “just” to steal from hard-working people to redistribute their wealth to those who do not work (although they are fully capable of doing so). Or, it’s “just” to allow men who identify as women to compete in women’s sports even though it’s completely unjust for the actual women who compete against them. Or, as we were lectured in 2020 during the Black Lives Matter riots held throughout the country, it was “just” to allow rioters to destroy private and public property and even to harm people because they were “righteously” opposing perceived racial injustices. Such actions were deemed “just” although they were lawless acts. Indeed, as with the word love, “justice” has now become a meaningless concept in much of our current discourse.
The consequences of such a situation, however, are significant. Although for many today the concept of “justice” and “social justice” has lost its meaning, the truth is that these concepts have simply been redefined. The crucial question is: According to whose definition and by what standard is “justice” redefined? That is the question this essay will answer.
A Few Preliminaries: History, Epistemology, and Method
In Western society, due to the influence of Christianity, there has been a fairly clear sense of what “justice” is because it was basically defined by biblical standards. But as the West has thrown off the Bible’s influence and moved steadily away from a Christian view of the world, one of the defining marks of our secularized, pluralistic society is a rejection of the God of the Bible as the source and standard of truth and morality. In the place of God and his word-revelation, we have substituted the idol of self and along with it a “constructivist” view of truth and morality, which at its core is naturalistic, relative, and incoherent.
What has been the result of such a substitution? Certainly not human flourishing, freedom, love, and true justice; rather, the opposite has occurred.
By rejecting the influence of Christianity on our concepts of truth and morality, we have undermined the warrant for an objective standard of truth and morality. In its place, we are left with only the finite, subjective, and fallen human “identity” constructions of various groups vying for raw political power. In fact, this “new” view of truth and morality is more indebted to naturalistic, postmodern, and Marxist categories, so that reality is now viewed solely through the lens of race, gender, and intersectionality, and people are simplistically categorized as either an “oppressor” or the “oppressed.”
In this thoroughly non-Christian view of the true, good, and the beautiful, the goal is to destroy the “traditional structures and systems deemed to be oppressive, and [redistribute] power and resources from oppressors to victims in pursuit of equality of outcome.”[1] Today, this is what our society means by “social justice.” But what is disturbing about this redefined view of justice is that the epistemological ground on which the system stands is quicksand. Even the determination of who the “oppressor” and “oppressed” is, is relative, and without an objective basis to discern truth from error and good from evil, such a view ends in totalitarianism, statism, and the destruction of human life—as history reminds us.
1. Scott David Allen, Why Social Justice is Not Biblical Justice (Grand Rapids: Credo House, 2020), 43.
All of this has brought our nation and Western society to the crossroads where the future of the West is now in jeopardy. Why? For this simple reason: if nations are not grounded in an objective, universal standard of justice—which is ultimately grounded in God himself—then our future is bleak indeed. No society can flourish built upon a relative standard of truth and morality. History has taught us that either anarchy will result, or more commonly, totalitarianism will rear its ugly head. But note: this is a totalitarianism that is completely arbitrary and capricious, since it too is grounded in a philosophical and moral relativism.
For this reason, Christians must think carefully about what “justice” is, and to do so requires sound biblical and theological thinking. Unfortunately even some within our evangelical churches have confused our culture’s desire for “social” justice (which is more informed by secular-postmodern categories) with true biblical justice. But if Christians are to make headway in this discussion, we must first ask what justice is in relation to God before we speak about what justice is in the world. If we do not ground “justice” in an objective, universal standard—namely God himself—then the concept of “justice” becomes only relative, which inevitably results in a disastrous application of so-called “justice” in the world.
In this article, I want to discuss the warrant for a universal, objective basis for justice by establishing it in God himself. Any talk of “justice” must first be grounded in God and his revealed word. I will do so in three steps. First, to speak of justice in relation to God, I must say something about God’s attributes and how justice is essential to him. Second, I will describe a biblical view of justice by first unpacking what God’s justice is within himself, then in relation to his exercise of justice in the world, and I will note that we can know what justice is due to God’s word-revelation. Third, I will conclude with a final reflection.
God is Just: Thinking Rightly about God’s Attributes
God is just means that justice is one of God’s moral attributes and that it is essential to him. Let us unpack this statement by making three points.
First, an attribute is not something we “attribute” to God as if it is a “part” of God. Why? Because God is not divisible into parts; his divine nature is singular and simple meaning that his attributes are coexistent with who he is. In other words, God’s attributes are what God is, in his entire being and perfection as the one true God. Attributes are not abstract qualities that exist independently of him; God is not dependent on anything outside of himself. God is his attributes, and each attribute is identical to God’s nature. For this reason, God does not merely possess love, holiness, and justice; he is love, holy, and just. This does not mean that we cannot make distinctions between God’s attributes, but in doing so we must never think that God’s attributes are distinct parts of his nature. God is his attributes, totally self-sufficient and perfect.
Second, all of God’s attributes are essential to him, meaning that they are all necessary for God to be God, unlike creatures who are composed of essential and accidental attributes. The latter term refers to attributes that can be lost while a thing still remains what it is. For example, we could lose a leg in a car crash, or our mental abilities due to a debilitating disease, but we would still remain essentially human. But this is not true of God. God cannot “lose” or “gain” any attributes and still be God; God is who he is in the fullness of his being and life. God’s attributes are essential to him, and thus necessary to his being. This is why we must also distinguish between what God is in himself apart from the world and the exercise of his attributes in relation to the world. This is especially important as we think about God’s relation to a fallen world that he judges and to a people that he redeems by grace. God is love, holy, and just apart from the world. But in relation to the world, especially a fallen world, God displays his wrath and judgment against human sin, but wrath is not an essential attribute of God; it is the expression of God’s holiness and justice towards a fallen world. In other words, God within himself is essentially holy, love, and just; he is not wrath.
2. Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1, Theology Proper, ed. and trans. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. (Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2014), 30.
Third, divine justice is best understood as a moral attribute of God, along with holiness and goodness. These attributes remind us that God is not only the absolute standard of objective moral norms but also the one who upholds his own glory in the redemption of his people and in his judgment of all sin and evil. We may distinguish God’s moral attributes, but given divine simplicity these attributes are all aspects of one another.
3. Vos, 127.
For example, think of the relation between God’s holiness and justice. Holiness speaks of “consecration” or “devotion to,” which then carries over to the moral realm. To be holy unto God is to honor and love what he loves, which demands specific moral entailments. Within God himself, holiness is a way of describing God’s holy love. As Geerhardus Vos reminds us: holiness is “God’s determination toward himself;”[2] it is “that attribute of God by which He seeks and loves Himself as the highest good and demands as reasonable goodness from the creatures to be consecrated to him.”[3] Holiness also conveys a primary metaphysical sense that necessitates its secondary moral sense. Regarding the former, holiness is associated with God’s aseity and uniqueness (Isa. 6:1–3; 40:18–25). Regarding the latter, holiness is associated with God as the objective moral standard of goodness, justice, and righteousness so that all that stands in opposition to God’s will and nature is sin.
4. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), 74.
Furthermore, since God is holy, in relation to the world, especially a fallen one, God must act in holy justice against sin—he cannot overlook it. God cannot deny himself and still be God. God’s holy love for himself, his name, and his glory is the supreme good. This is why Louis Berkhof argues that God’s justice is a “mode of his holiness,”[4] and Vos insists that God’s righteousness is God working outwardly “to reveal and maintain his holiness.”[5] Holiness, then, is distinguished from other attributes such as justice, but ultimately it’s inseparable from it, and both attributes are rightly viewed as essential to God in himself apart from the world.
5. Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, 130.
What is Justice? God is Just and His Exercise of Justice in the World
6. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 74.
At its heart, justice and righteousness means a “strict adherence to law,”[6] and it always carries a legal or forensic sense.[7] The standard of justice is God himself, and we know what is just due to his revelation of himself in creation and specifically Scripture. In all of God’s external works, he acts justly and righteously, consistent with his own will and nature. As the just one, God requires moral conformity of his creatures to his moral demand. God is the Lord, indeed the “Judge of the whole earth” who always does what is right (Gen. 18:25). Justice, then, means that God deals with humans according to their adherence or lack of conformity to his laws (Deut. 32:4; Pss. 19:8; 36:6; 98:9; Isa. 45:19–21; Acts 17:31). As the just one, God acts impartially, demanding that his creatures do likewise (Deut. 10:17–18)—this is something our society misunderstands due to their rejection of God as the standard of what is just. As applied to humans, alongside its legal sense, “righteousness,” can also describe what is “well pleasing” to God, or a godly person, and thus takes on strong ethical overtones (e.g., Isa. 5:7; Micah 6:8; Matt. 5:6, 10, 20). With this basic definition in place, I will make two points regarding God’s justice both in relation to himself and his exercise of justice in the world.
7. In Scripture, “justice” and “righteousness” belong to the same word group and carry a similar meaning, in contrast to English usage.
A Biblical View of Justice: Important Distinctions
Let us describe God’s justice, and thus a biblical view of justice, by the following distinctions.[8]
8. See John M. Frame, The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2002), 448.
First, God is essentially holy, just, and righteous. The only warrant for a universal, objective ground for justice is God himself. God is the law because his will and nature determines what is right and just. For this reason, a Christian view of justice stands in total contrast to our secular-postmodern society that views “justice” as a mere human social construct.
Second, in God’s external works, we see the display and exercise of God’s justice, which is the outworking of his holiness “by which he maintains himself over against every violation of his holiness, and shows in every respect that he is the Holy One.”[9] In God’s works, he demands and acts in justice consistent with himself, and he does so for his own glory (Isa. 45:22–23; 48; Rom. 3:26; 15:5, 9-11; Rev. 15:3–4; 19:2).
9. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 74-75.
In God’s external works, it’s also important to distinguish different aspects of God’s justice. First, there is rectoral or legislative justice. God as our Creator and Lord establishes just laws for us to obey for his glory and our good. Given who God is, his demand on us is absolute, thus requiring perfect obedience from us, first in Adam as our covenant head (Gen. 2:16–17), and by extension to each one of us. God has established laws by which we are to live, specifically God’s demand to love him and our neighbor, first given in creation or what is known as natural law (Ps. 19:1–6; Rom. 1:18–32), and then subsequently given further specificity in the biblical covenants. Depending on the covenant, God commands obedience to specific laws that later change due to the unfolding of God’s plan and the fulfillment that results in Christ and the new covenant. In other contexts, these mutable laws are known as positive laws, and are distinct from the moral law that is universal for all people.
For example, under the old covenant circumcision, food laws, hygiene laws, etc. were to be obeyed, but due to Christ’s work we are no longer directly under the old covenant as a covenant (Mark 7:17–23; Acts 10:9–16; 1 Cor. 7:19; 9:19–23). Yet, from creation to Christ, God’s universal moral demand is given in each covenant (Mark 12:29-31), and we are to obey all of God’s commands in light of its fulfillment in Christ and through the lens of the new covenant (Gal. 6:2).
In addition, God has enacted his laws through God-ordained authorities, which operate in their own sphere: the family (Gen. 2:18–25), the church (Matt. 18:15–20), and the government (Matt. 22:21; Rom. 13:1–7). For a society to be just, these God-ordained authorities must follow God’s law. For example, governments are not autonomous; they are ordained by God, and the prime responsibility of government is to uphold what is good and to punish evildoers, thus act according to justice. The standard by which they are to make these judgments is God’s moral law given to all people in creation, which minimally includes the sanctify of human life, the upholding of male and female, the protection of heterosexual marriage and the family, and the establishment of an environment where private property and honest work can take place. When a government does not uphold these moral goods, it’s acting in a lawless and unjust manner.
Second, there is distributive justice, by which God administers rewards (i.e., remunerative) and punishments (i.e., retributive) for right and wrong action. Much of God’s administration of justice is done through the authorities that he has established, i.e., the family, the church, and the government. When these authorities do not uphold God’s moral demands they are unjust.
Further Discussion of God’s Exercise of Justice in the World
Let us unpack God’s distributive justice whereby he exercises his justice in the world a bit more.
First, in thinking about remunerative justice (Deut. 7:9–13; 2 Chron. 6:15; Ps. 58:11; Mic. 7:20; Matt. 25:21, 34; Luke 17:10; Rom. 2:7; 1 Cor. 4:7; Heb. 11:26), we must view it in light of God’s covenant relationships and promises. God owes us nothing, but we owe him everything. God only rewards us due to his covenant promises and demands. In the creation covenant, God required perfect obedience from Adam with an attached reward, namely, to be confirmed in righteousness. But given Adam’s sin, and its subsequent transmission to all of humanity, we have broken God’s commands and deserve only divine judgment. For this reason, our receiving any good from God is not due to us, it is solely due to God’s grace, both common and saving.
In God’s promise of redemption (Gen. 3:15), he has graciously chosen to redeem us by the provision of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone rendered perfect covenant obedience. However, before Christ came and perfectly obeyed for us and paid for our sin, the biblical covenants unfolded God’s promise as they prophetically anticipated Christ’s coming. In the Old Testament, the writers of Scripture constantly appealed to the “righteousness of God” as their ground of confidence and hope (Ps. 4:1; 35:24; 143:1; Isa. 45:8; 46:13; 51:6). In this use, “God’s righteousness” may be understood as God’s covenant faithfulness, however, in the Bible’s storyline an apparent tension results. In the covenant, God demands perfect obedience to his commands tied to his own internal nature, but we do not render it. Yet God has promised to keep his promises. The resolution to how God keeps his promises and remains true to himself is ultimately only resolved in Christ and his cross (Rom. 3:21–26). For it is only in Christ that God’s absolute demand is met, and God’s justice is satisfied. And now, due to our covenantal union with him, all of God’s blessings are ours, which means that any reward we receive is solely due to God’s provision and grace (Phil. 2:13). No doubt, God disciplines his people (Prov. 3:12; Heb. 12:5) and rewards us (Matt. 6:1–2, 5, 16; Luke 12:32; Heb. 6:10), but undergirding all of God’s rewards is his initiative and grace in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Second, in thinking about retributive justice, given that God is holy and just, it means that God judges human conduct by an absolute moral standard, namely, himself and his revealed will to all people, known by natural and special revelation. God as the Judge condones no sin but judges all sin according to the absolute standard of his law.
In Scripture, related to God as the Judge of the world who always does what is right (Gen. 18:25) is his holy wrath against our sin and all evil that stands in opposition to him. No doubt, God is patient, gracious, and merciful, but never in such a way that he denies himself; God will never overlook our sin. From the very beginning, especially in light of sin, God’s retributive justice is evident (Gen. 2:17; 3:1–24; 6:5–7; etc.). Indeed, the reason for the incarnation of the divine Son and his cross is tied to a proper grasp of retributive justice (Rom. 3:25–26).
Nevertheless, retributive justice is often questioned and disputed, especially by non-orthodox theology and our larger society. In the post-Reformation era, the Socinians rejected retributive justice by arguing that God’s “justice” was not an essential attribute of God but only due to the voluntary exercise of his will. For the Socinians and many today, God was under no necessity to punish sin since God’s law is only a function of God’s will. God may decide to punish sin, but there is no necessity for him to do so, thus denying the need for Christ’s work to redeem us.
However, here’s the problem with the Socinian view and its many current expressions: it uncouples God’s execution of justice from his nature. In this view, justice is not essential to God but only a voluntary exercise of his will, which is a fundamental denial of what it means for God to be just. But the actual reason why God must punish sin is that it is against him. God is not like a human judge who adjudicates a law external to him; God is the law. When God judges, he remains true to himself, and thus his own perfect, moral demands, hence the reason why there is a collision between our sin and God’s justice, which is only resolved in the cross, and a cross that actually pays for our sin. Like the Socinians, many today reject retributive justice for similar reasons. For those who do, Christian theology, specifically one’s understanding of God, sin, Christology, the necessity and nature of the cross, and the nature of our justification before God, is forever changed.
Furthermore, such rejections of retributive justice ultimately undercut the warrant for a universal, objective morality grounded in God’s own will and nature and leave us with no objective ground for justice. Sadly, this is the path that our society has taken, and we are now beginning to see the devastating consequences of the rejection of the Christian view of justice.
Concluding Reflection
As I noted above, it’s vital that we distinguish between a biblical view of “justice” from our current secular-postmodern understanding of it. Biblically, to act justly toward one another is always according to an objective standard—God’s authoritative, inerrant, and unchanging Word. However, for our society, “justice” and “social justice” are concepts that are unhinged from an objective standard, which is now leading to the rise of the abuse of power and a redefinition of what is truly “just,” “good,” and “right.”
For this reason, our current cultural voices who cry for “justice” and then embrace abortion, deny a biblical view of sexuality and the family, who argue that logical thinking is “racist,” who endorse the destruction of private property, and embrace the unlimited power of the State, are not acting “justly” but in a lawless, ungodly, and destructive manner. In such a context, the church must clearly define what justice is according to Scripture, and distinguish true justice from current forms of “social justice.”
Today, there is probably no greater worldview clash than between a biblical view of justice and the so-called “social justice” of our secular-postmodern society. What is needed is for the church is speak to this issue with clarity, to live out what true justice is, to proclaim the truth of the gospel as our only hope for this fallen world, and courageously to take a stand against the growing tyranny of our age.
