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