Skip to main content

The Righteous Justice of Job (Job 29.11-17)

 Words are often shorthand for weighty concepts, but therein lies a problem.  We think we know what someone means by the word, or even what a culture means by it.  Yet we find at some point that we do not.  This happens with virtues—weighty concepts indeed.  To one person, love means letting others make their own choices; to another, it means caring enough to intervene when someone is going to do something harmful.  The following reflection will look at the virtue ‘justice’ in regard to how it is understood in Job 29.11-17.  We have heard of the patience of Job, but what about the righteousness of Job?  

At this point in the book of Job, Job is reflecting on his life at a time when he was a respected ruler in the city.  The specific passage explains how he ruled, and in it we get his understanding of justice:

11         When the ear heard, it called me blessed,

                        and when the eye saw, it approved,

12         because I delivered the poor who cried for help,

                        and the fatherless who had none to help him.

13         The blessing of him who was about to perish came upon me,

                        and I caused the widow’s heart to sing for joy.

14         I put on righteousness, and it clothed me;

                        my justice was like a robe and a turban.

15         I was eyes to the blind

                        and feet to the lame.

16         I was a father to the needy,

                        and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know.

17         I broke the fangs of the unrighteous

                        and made him drop his prey from his teeth.

What is the meaning of ‘justice’ in this passage?  The term appears in verse 14, but its meaning is clarified through the whole passage.  Consider three versions of justice: equality justice, equity justice, and righteousness.  The terminology used here needs to be explained, and especially ‘equity’ is being used in a new sense rather than its proper meaning. 

On the first view, justice is understood with regard to equality—equal opportunity and equal access to justice.  This justice is blind in the sense that it does not ‘lift the face’ of the person in the court to see who he or she is.  It uses honest scales, not weighting one side down.  It has to do with the rule of law and the equal administration of justice.

Equity justice involves a particular, recent use of the term ‘equity.’  On this view, the meaning of ‘equity’ is not equality but a preferential administration of ‘justice’ to right past wrongs.  One aspect of this new meaning of equity has to do with discriminating against one group and privileging another group.  Instead of equal opportunity for all it seeks equal outcomes for all.  This view is based on Marxism’s affirmation of a policy of ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.’  This encourages diversity in terms of allowing individuals to contribute to society according to their unique abilities, but it does not reward them according to their abilities, merits, or hard work.  It takes what is produced and redistributes it.  A focus on outcomes, not merit, may lead one to hire someone because of their group status, not on merit.  Pressed further, the notion picks up the idea of intersectionality and applies it to justice.  Intersectionality has to do with how one’s various group identities (gender, religion, race, sexuality, etc.) intersect to define your identity.  The theory says that these different identities give you an advantage or disadvantage that is greater or lesser with respect to other people’s intersectional identity.  The groups, it is said, that have experienced discrimination or that have been victimized or that are minorities deserve weighted privilege to rectify the injustices that they have experienced, and the individual with more of these identities than someone else deserve more privilege than others.  On this view, justice is not blind, and it weights the scales in favour of the select groups that can claim historical or systemic victimhood.

The third view of justice is what we find in Job 29.11-17.  A number of Old Testament passages reflect justice in the first sense—equality justice.  These are not in view here, but this first view can be compatible with the third view and, of course, is.  Yet this passage expresses a view of justice that we might call by its cognate in v. 14, ‘righteousness,’ to distinguish it from the other two types of justice.  Like the second view, righteousness knows that the world has oppressors and oppressed.  It knows that not all will be able to receive equality justice (the first view).  The righteous ruler, Job, does not trust individuals or society to provide justice but is active to search out the victims in society.  However, righteousness is not the same as equitable justice in the particular sense described above.  It removes the oppressor’s power rather than puts the victim in the seat of power.  As verse 17 says, it breaks ‘the fangs of unrighteous’ and makes ‘him drop his prey from his teeth.’  Further, it identifies the poor, the fatherless, the widow, the blind, and the needy in order to give them a helping hand.  These are all people who have fallen out of society’s safety nets and will not recover without assistance.  Leaving them in their situation is injustice.  Righteousness is active: it removes oppression, identifies the needy, and gives them help.  In doing so, it does not oppress others by insisting on equal outcomes, by practicing reverse discrimination.  It does not treat individuals in terms of their group identity (intersectionality) but in terms of their individual needs.

In conclusion, righteousness goes beyond equality justice and its equal opportunity before the law.  It is active in removing the power of the unrighteous and seeking out those individuals in need to give them aid.  Righteousness rejects the new ‘equity’ justice that treats individuals in terms of their group or their victimhood status.  It does not automatically interpret the needy as victims, but it still reaches out to help them.  It does not treat society as all about power, and therefore its help for the needy is not to take power away from the one group and give power to the other.  It rejects reverse discrimination.  It is not opposed to merit or private property; it rejects the idea of justice as equal outcomes.  On the other hand, it finds the powerless or oppressed and brings them help.  On this view, it is not simply a law to enforce but a virtue by which to live.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

‘For freedom Christ has set us free’: The Gospel of Paul versus the Custodial Oversight of the Law and Human Philosophies

  Introduction The culmination of Paul’s argument in Galatians, and particularly from 3.1-4.31, is: ‘ For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery’ (Galatians 5.1). This essay seeks to understand Paul’s opposition to a continuing custodial role for the Law and a use of human philosophies to deal with sinful passions and desires.   His arguments against these are found in Galatians and Colossians.   By focussing on the problem of the Law and of philosophy, we can better understand Paul’s theology.   He believed that the Gospel was the only way to deal with sin not simply in terms of our actions but more basically in terms of our sinful desires and passions of the flesh. The task ahead is to understand several large-scale matters in Paul’s theology, those having to do with a right understanding of the human plight and a right understanding of God’s solution.   So much Protestant theology has articulated...
Post a Comment
Read more

Alasdair MacIntyre and Tradition Enquiry

Alasdair MacIntyre's subject is philosophical ethics, and he is best known for his critique of ethics understood as the application of general, universal principles.  He has reintroduced the importance of virtue ethics, along with the role of narrative and community in defining the virtues.  His focus on these things—narrative, community, virtue—combine to form an approach to enquiry which he calls ‘tradition enquiry.’ [1] MacIntyre characterises ethical thinking in the West in our day as ethics that has lost an understanding of the virtues, even if virtues like ‘justice’ are often under discussion.  Greek philosophical ethics, and ethics through to the Enlightenment, focussed ethics on virtue and began with questions of character: 'Who should we be?', rather than questions of action, 'What shall we do?'  Contemporary ethics has focused on the latter question alone, with the magisterial traditions of deontological ('What rules govern our actions?') and tel...
Post a Comment
Read more

The New Virtues of a Failing Culture

  An insanity has fallen upon the West, like a witch’s spell.   We have lived with it long enough to know it, understand it, but not long enough to resist it, to undo it.   The very stewards of the truth that would remove it have left their posts.   They have succumbed to its whispers, become its servants.   It has infected the very air and crept along the ground like a mist until it is within us and all about us.   We utter its precepts like schoolchildren taught their lines. Its power lies in its claims of virtuosity, distorted goodness.   If presented as the vices that they are, they would be rejected.   These virtues are proclaimed from the pulpits and painted on banners or made into flags.   They are established in our schools, colleges, universities, and seminaries.   They are the hallucinogen making our own cultural suicide bearable, even desirable.   They are virtues, but disordered, or they are the excess or deficiency of...
Post a Comment
Read more