Biblical Law & Justice

The e-Advocate
Monthly
…a Compilation of Works on:
Biblical Law
and Justice
Exodus 20
Deuteronomy 6:6-7; 30:16
Psalm 111:10 | Proverbs 3:1-2 | Joshua 1:8; 22:5
Matthew 7:1; 7:12 ; 19:18-19
Luke 10:27 | John 5:12 | Romans 8:1-2 | Galatians 5:14
Matthew 22:36-40
“Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities
Achieve Their Full Potential”
TLFA August 2020

Turning the Improbable
Into the Exceptional!
Page 2 of 132

The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.
Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities
Achieve Their Full Potential
Since its founding in 2003, The Advocacy Foundation has become recognized as an effective
provider of support to those who receive our services, having real impact within the communities
we serve. We are currently engaged in community and faith-based collaborative initiatives,
having the overall objective of eradicating all forms of youth violence and correcting injustices
everywhere. In carrying-out these initiatives, we have adopted the evidence-based strategic
framework developed and implemented by the Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP).
The stated objectives are:
1. Community Mobilization;
2. Social Intervention;
3. Provision of Opportunities;
4. Organizational Change and Development;
5. Suppression [of illegal activities].
Moreover, it is our most fundamental belief that in order to be effective, prevention and
intervention strategies must be Community Specific, Culturally Relevant, Evidence-Based, and
Collaborative. The Violence Prevention and Intervention programming we employ in
implementing this community-enhancing framework include the programs further described
throughout our publications, programs and special projects both domestically and
internationally.
www.TheAdvocacy.Foundation
ISBN: ......... ../2017
......... Printed in the USA
Advocacy Foundation Publishers
Philadlephia, PA
(878) 222-0450 | Voice | Data | SMS
Page 3 of 132

Page 4 of 132

Dedication
______
Every publication in our many series’ is dedicated to everyone, absolutely everyone, who by
virtue of their calling and by Divine inspiration, direction and guidance, is on the battlefield dayafter-day
striving to follow God’s will and purpose for their lives. And this is with particular affinity
for those Spiritual warriors who are being transformed into excellence through daily academic,
professional, familial, and other challenges.
We pray that you will bear in mind:
Matthew 19:26 (NIV)
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible,
but with God all things are possible." (Emphasis added)
To all of us who daily look past our circumstances, and naysayers, to what the Lord says we will
accomplish:
Blessings!!
- The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.
Page 5 of 132

Page 6 of 132

The Transformative Justice Project
Eradicating Juvenile Delinquency Requires a Multi-Disciplinary Approach
The way we accomplish all this is a follows:
The Juvenile Justice system is incredibly overloaded, and
Solutions-Based programs are woefully underfunded. Our
precious children, therefore, particularly young people of
color, often get the “swift” version of justice whenever they
come into contact with the law.
Decisions to build prison facilities are often based on
elementary school test results, and our country incarcerates
more of its young than any other nation on earth. So we at
The Foundation labor to pull our young people out of the
“school to prison” pipeline, and we then coordinate the efforts
of the legal, psychological, governmental and educational
professionals needed to bring an end to delinquency.
We also educate families, police, local businesses, elected
officials, clergy, and schools and other stakeholders about
transforming whole communities, and we labor to change
their thinking about the causes of delinquency with the goal
of helping them embrace the idea of restoration for the young
people in our care who demonstrate repentance for their
mistakes.
1. We vigorously advocate for charges reductions, wherever possible, in the adjudicatory (court)
process, with the ultimate goal of expungement or pardon, in order to maximize the chances for
our clients to graduate high school and progress into college, military service or the workforce
without the stigma of a criminal record;
2. We then enroll each young person into an Evidence-Based, Data-Driven Restorative Justice
program designed to facilitate their rehabilitation and subsequent reintegration back into the
community;
3. While those projects are operating, we conduct a wide variety of ComeUnity-ReEngineering
seminars and workshops on topics ranging from Juvenile Justice to Parental Rights, to Domestic
issues to Police friendly contacts, to CBO and FBO accountability and compliance;
4. Throughout the process, we encourage and maintain frequent personal contact between all
parties;
5 Throughout the process we conduct a continuum of events and fundraisers designed to facilitate
collaboration among professionals and community stakeholders; and finally
Page 7 of 132

6. 1 We disseminate Quarterly publications, like our e-Advocate series Newsletter and our e-Advocate
Quarterly electronic Magazine to all regular donors in order to facilitate a lifelong learning process
on the ever-evolving developments in the Justice system.
And in addition to the help we provide for our young clients and their families, we also facilitate
Community Engagement through the Restorative Justice process, thereby balancing the interesrs
of local businesses, schools, clergy, elected officials, police, and all interested stakeholders. Through
these efforts, relationships are rebuilt & strengthened, local businesses and communities are enhanced &
protected from victimization, young careers are developed, and our precious young people are kept out
of the prison pipeline.
This is a massive undertaking, and we need all the help and financial support you can give! We plan to
help 75 young persons per quarter-year (aggregating to a total of 250 per year) in each jurisdiction we
serve) at an average cost of under $2,500 per client, per year.*
Thank you in advance for your support!
* FYI:
1. The national average cost to taxpayers for minimum-security youth incarceration, is around
$43,000.00 per child, per year.
2. The average annual cost to taxpayers for maximun-security youth incarceration is well over
$148,000.00 per child, per year.
- (US News and World Report, December 9, 2014);
3. In every jurisdiction in the nation, the Plea Bargain rate is above 99%.
The Judicial system engages in a tri-partite balancing task in every single one of these matters, seeking
to balance Rehabilitative Justice with Community Protection and Judicial Economy, and, although
the practitioners work very hard to achieve positive outcomes, the scales are nowhere near balanced
where people of color are involved.
We must reverse this trend, which is right now working very much against the best interests of our young.
Our young people do not belong behind bars.
- Jack Johnson
1
In addition to supporting our world-class programming and support services, all regular donors receive our Quarterly e-Newsletter
(The e-Advocate), as well as The e-Advocate Quarterly Magazine.
Page 8 of 132

The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.
Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities
Achieve Their Full Potential
…a collection of works on
Biblical Law
and Justice
“Turning the Improbable Into the Exceptional”
Atlanta
Philadelphia
______
John C Johnson III
Founder & CEO
(878) 222-0450
Voice | Data | SMS
www.TheAdvocacy.Foundation
Page 9 of 132

Page 10 of 132

The Ten Commandments
Biblical Authority
______
Exodus 20 (NIV)
And God spoke all these words:
2
“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of
slavery.
3
“You shall have no other gods before [a] me.
4
“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in
heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall
not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a
jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third
and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a
thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7
“You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lordwill not
hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
8
“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor
and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your
God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter,
nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner
residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and
the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh
day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
12
“Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the
land the Lord your God is giving you.
13
“You shall not murder.
14
“You shall not commit adultery.
15
“You shall not steal.
Page 11 of 132

16
“You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
17
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your
neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or
anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
18
When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the
trumpetand saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They
stayed at a distance 19 and said to Moses, “Speak to us yourself and we will
listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die.”
20
Moses said to the people, “Do not be afraid. God has come to test you,
so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning.”
21
The people remained at a distance, while Moses approached the thick
darkness where God was.
Idols and Altars
22
Then the Lord said to Moses, “Tell the Israelites this: ‘You have seen for
yourselves that I have spoken to you from heaven: 23 Do not make any
gods to be alongside me; do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods
of gold.
24
“‘Make an altar of earth for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offeringsand
fellowship offerings, your sheep and goats and your cattle. Wherever I
cause my name to be honored, I will come to you and blessyou. 25 If you
make an altar of stones for me, do not build it with dressed stones, for you
will defile it if you use a tool on it. 26 And do not go up to my altar on steps,
or your private parts may be exposed.’
Deuteronomy 6:6-7 (NIV)
6
These commandments that I give you today are to be on your
hearts. 7 Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at
home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you
get up.
Page 12 of 132

Deuteronomy 30:16
16
For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience
to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and
increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering
to possess.
Psalm 111:10
10
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom;
all who follow his precepts have good understanding.
To him belongs eternal praise.
Wisdom Bestows Well-Being
Proverbs 3:1-2 New
My son, do not forget my teaching,
but keep my commands in your heart,
2
for they will prolong your life many years
and bring you peace and prosperity.
Joshua 1:8
8
Keep this Book of the Law always on your lips; meditate on it day and
night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will
be prosperous and successful.
Joshua 22:5
5
But be very careful to keep the commandment and the law that Moses the
servant of the Lord gave you: to love the Lord your God, to walk in
obedience to him, to keep his commands, to hold fast to him and to serve
him with all your heart and with all your soul.”
Judging Others
Matthew 7:1
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
Page 13 of 132

Matthew 7:12
12
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you,for
this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
18
“Which ones?” he inquired.
Matthew 19:18-19
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you
shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and
mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.
Luke 10:27
27
He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all
your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your
neighbor as yourself.
John 5:12
12
So they asked him, “Who is this fellow who told you to pick it up and
walk?”
Life Through the Spirit
Romans 8:1-2
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ
Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives
lifehas set you free from the law of sin and death.
Galatians 5:14
14
For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your
neighbor as yourself.
Matthew 22:36-40
36
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Page 14 of 132

37
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all
your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest
commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as
yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two
commandments.”
Page 15 of 132

Page 16 of 132

Table of Contents
…a compilation of works on
Biblical Law & Justice
Biblical Authority
I. Introduction: Religious Law…………………………………….. 19
II. The [Old Testament] Law of Moses……………………………. 29
III. The Ten Commandments……………………………………..... 33
IV. Christian Views on The Old Testament……………………….. 53
V. The [New Testament] Law of Christ…………………………… 67
VI. The Great Commission…….…………………………………… 71
VII. The Greatest Commandment………………………………...... 75
VIII. The Sermon On The Mount…………………………................ 81
IX. Law and Gospel…………………………………………………. 87
X. Legalism in Theology…………………………………………… 93
XI. References……………………………………………………..... 99
______
Attachments
A. Justice In The Bible: Boston College 2000
B. Justice and The Bible: Australia Summit 2007
C. God The Judge and Human Justice
Copyright © 2018 The Advocacy Foundation, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Page 17 of 132

Page 18 of 132

I. Introduction
Religious Law refers to ethical and moral codes taught by religious traditions.
Examples include Christian canon law, Islamic sharia, Jewish halakha, and Hindu law.
The two most prominent systems, Canon Law and Sharia differ significantly in that
Canon Law is based on a codified Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox law, while Sharia is
derived from multiple sources, including analogical reasoning, and juridical consensus.
Established Religions and Religious Institutions
A state religion (or established church) is a religious body officially endorsed by the
state. A theocracy is a form of government in which a God or a deity is recognized as
the supreme civil ruler.
In both theocracies and some religious jurisdictions, conscientious objectors may cause
religious offense. The contrary legal systems are secular states or multicultural societies
in which the government does not formally adopt a particular religion, but may either
repress all religious activity or enforce tolerance of religious diversity.
Bahá'í Faith
Bahá'í laws are laws and ordinances used in the Bahá'í Faith and are a fundamental
part of Bahá'í practice. The laws are based on authenticated texts from Bahá'u'lláh, the
founder of the Bahá'í Faith, subsequent interpretations from `Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi
Effendi and legislation by the Universal House of Justice. Bahá'í law is presented as a
set of general principles and guidelines and individuals must apply them as they best
Page 19 of 132

seem fit. While some of the social laws are enforced by Bahá'í institutions, the emphasis
is placed on individuals following the laws based on their conscience, understanding
and reasoning, and Bahá'ís are expected to follow the laws for the love of Bahá'u'lláh.
The laws are seen as the method of the maintenance of order and security in the world.
A few examples of laws and basic religious observances of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas which are
considered obligatory for Bahá'ís include:
Recite an obligatory prayer each day. There are three such prayers among which
one can be chosen each day.
Observe a Nineteen Day Fast from sunrise to sunset from March 2 through
March 20. During this time Bahá'ís in good health between the ages of 15 and 70
abstain from eating and drinking.
Gossip and backbiting are prohibited and viewed as particularly damaging to the
individual and their relationships.
Buddhism
Patimokkha comprises a collection of precepts for bhikkhus and bhikkhunis (Buddhist
munks and nuns).
Christianity
Within the framework of Christianity, there are several possible definitions for religious
law. One is the Mosaic Law (from what Christians consider to be the Old Testament)
also called Divine Law or biblical law, the most famous example being the Ten
Commandments. Another is the instructions of Jesus of Nazareth to his disciples in the
Gospel (often referred to as the Law of Christ or the New Commandment or the New
Covenant, in contrast to the Old Covenant). Another is the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15,
which is still observed by the Greek Orthodox Church. Another is canon law in the
Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox churches.
In some Christian denominations, law is often contrasted with grace (see also Law and
Gospel and Antithesis of the Law): the contrast here speaks to attempts to gain
salvation by obedience to a code of laws as opposed to seeking salvation through faith
in the atonement made by Jesus on the cross.
Biblical/ Mosaic law
Christian views of the Old Covenant are central to Christian theology, ethics, and
practice. The term "Old Covenant", also referred to as the Mosaic covenant, the Law of
Moses, divine law, Biblical law or God's law, refers to the statements or principles of
religious law and religious ethics codified in the first five books or Pentateuch of the Old
Testament. Views of the Old Covenant are expressed in the New Testament, such as
Page 20 of 132

Jesus' antitheses of the law, the circumcision controversy in Early Christianity, and the
Incident at Antioch and position of Paul the Apostle and Judaism. Many traditional
Christians have the view that only parts are applicable, many Protestants have the view
that none is applicable, dual-covenant theologians have the view that only Noahide
Laws apply to Gentiles, and a minority have the view that all are still applicable to
believers in Jesus and the New Covenant.
Canon law
Canon law is the body of laws and regulations made by or adopted by ecclesiastical
authority, for the government of the Christian organization and its members. It is the
internal ecclesiastical law governing the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern and
Oriental Orthodox churches, and the Anglican Communion of churches.
The way that such church law is legislated, interpreted and at times adjudicated varies
widely among these three bodies of churches. In all three traditions, a canon was
initially a rule adopted by a church council (From Greek kanon / κανών, Hebrew kaneh /
law. for rule, standard, or measure); these canons formed the foundation of canon ‏,קנה
Canons of the Apostles
The Canons of the Apostles or Ecclesiastical Canons of the Same Holy Apostles is a
collection of ancient ecclesiastical decrees (eighty-five in the Eastern, fifty in the
Western Church) concerning the government and discipline of the Early Christian
Church, incorporated with the Apostolic Constitutions which are part of the Ante-Nicene
Fathers
Page 21 of 132

Catholic Church
The canon law of the Catholic Church (Latin: jus canonicum) is the system of laws and
legal principles made and enforced by the hierarchical authorities of the Church to
regulate its external organization and government and to order and direct the activities
of Catholics toward the mission of the Church. It was the first modern Western legal
system and is the oldest continuously functioning legal system in the West, predating
the common and European civil law traditions. What began with rules ("canons")
adopted by the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem in the 1st century has blossomed
into a highly complex and original legal system encapsulating not just norms of the New
Testament, but some elements of the Hebrew (Old Testament), Roman, Visigothic,
Saxon, and Celtic legal traditions spanning thousands of years of human experience.
while the unique traditions of Oriental canon law govern the 23 Eastern Catholic
particular churches sui iuris.
Positive ecclesiastical laws, based directly or indirectly upon immutable divine law or
natural law, derive formal authority in the case of universal laws from promulgation by
the supreme legislator—the Supreme Pontiff—who possesses the totality of legislative,
executive, and judicial power in his person, while particular laws derive formal authority
from promulgation by a legislator inferior to the supreme legislator, whether an ordinary
or a delegated legislator. The actual subject material of the canons is not just doctrinal
or moral in nature, but all-encompassing of the human condition.
It has all the ordinary elements of a mature legal system: laws, courts, lawyers, judges,
a fully articulated legal code for the Latin Church as well as a code for the Eastern
Catholic Churches, principles of legal interpretation, and coercive penalties. It lacks
civilly-binding force in most secular jurisdictions. Those who are versed and skilled in
canon law, and professors of canon law, are called canonists (or colloquially, canon
lawyers). Canon law as a sacred science is called canonistics.
The jurisprudence of canon law is the complex of legal principles and traditions within
which canon law operates, while the philosophy, theology, and fundamental theory of
canon law are the areas of philosophical, theological, and legal scholarship dedicated to
providing a theoretical basis for canon law as legal system and as true law.
In the early Church, the first canons were decreed by bishops united in "Ecumenical"
councils (the Emperor summoning all of the known world's bishops to attend with at
least the acknowledgement of the Bishop of Rome) or "local" councils (bishops of a
region or territory). Over time, these canons were supplemented with decretals of the
Bishops of Rome, which were responses to doubts or problems according to the maxim,
Roma locuta est, causa finita est ("Rome has spoken, case is closed").
Later, they were gathered together into collections, both unofficial and official. The first
truly systematic collection was assembled by the Camaldolese monk Gratian in the 11th
century, commonly known as the Decretum Gratiani ("Gratian's Decree"). Pope Gregory
IX is credited with promulgating the first official collection of canons called the Decretalia
Page 22 of 132

Gregorii Noni or Liber Extra (1234). This was followed by the Liber Sextus (1298) of
Boniface VIII, the Clementines (1317) of Clement V, the Extravagantes Joannis XXII
and the Extravagantes Communes, all of which followed the same structure as the Liber
Extra. All these collections, with the Decretum Gratiani, are together referred to as the
Corpus Juris Canonici. After the completion of the Corpus Juris Canonici, subsequent
papal legislation was published in periodic volumes called Bullaria.
By the 19th century, this body of legislation included some 10,000 norms, many difficult
to reconcile with one another due to changes in circumstances and practice. This
situation impelled Pope St. Pius X to order the creation of the first Code of Canon Law,
a single volume of clearly stated laws. Under the aegis of the Cardinal Pietro Gasparri,
the Commission for the Codification of Canon Law was completed under Benedict XV,
who promulgated the Code, effective in 1918. The work having been begun by Pius X, it
was sometimes called the "Pio-Benedictine Code" but more often the 1917 Code. In its
preparation, centuries of material was examined, scrutinized for authenticity by leading
experts, and harmonized as much as possible with opposing canons and even other
Codes, from the Codex of Justinian to the Napoleonic Code.
Pope John XXIII initially called for a Synod of the Diocese of Rome, an Ecumenical
Council, and an updating to the 1917 Code. After the Second Ecumenical Council of the
Vatican (Vatican II) closed in 1965, it became apparent that the Code would need to be
revised in light of the documents and theology of Vatican II. After multiple drafts and
many years of discussion, Pope John Paul II promulgated the revised Code of Canon
Law (CIC) in 1983. Containing 1752 canons, it is the law currently binding on the Latin
(western) Roman Church.
The canon law of the Eastern Catholic Churches, which had developed some different
disciplines and practices, underwent its own process of codification, resulting in the
Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches promulgated in 1990 by Pope John Paul II.
Page 23 of 132

The institutions and practices of canon law paralleled the legal development of much of
Europe, and consequently both modern Civil law and Common law bear the influences
of canon law. Edson Luiz Sampel, a Brazilian expert in canon law, says that canon law
is contained in the genesis of various institutes of civil law, such as the law in
continental Europe and Latin American countries. Sampel explains that canon law has
significant influence in contemporary society.
Currently, all Latin-Rite Catholic seminary students are expected to take courses in
canon law (c. 252.3). Some ecclesiastical officials are required to have the doctorate
(JCD) or at least the licentiate (JCL) in canon law in order to fulfill their functions:
Judicial Vicars (c. 1419.1), Judges (c. 1421.3), Promoters of Justice (c. 1435),
Defenders of the Bond (c. 1435). In addition, Vicars General and Episcopal Vicars are
to be doctors or at least licensed in canon law or theology (c. 478.1), and canonical
advocates must either have the doctorate or be truly expert in canon law (c. 1483).
Ordinarily, Bishops are to have advanced degrees in sacred scripture, theology, or
canon law (c. 378.1.5). St. Raymond of Penyafort (1175–1275), a Spanish Dominican
priest, is the patron saint of canonists, due to his important contributions to the science
of Canon Law.
Orthodox Churches
The Greek-speaking Orthodox have collected canons and commentaries upon them in
a work known as the Pēdálion (Greek: Πηδάλιον, "Rudder"), so named because it is
meant to "steer" the Church. The Orthodox Christian tradition in general treats its
canons more as guidelines than as laws, the bishops adjusting them to cultural and
other local circumstances. Some Orthodox canon scholars point out that, had the
Ecumenical Councils (which deliberated in Greek) meant for the canons to be used as
laws, they would have called them nómoi/νόμοι (laws) rather than kanónes/κανόνες
(rules), but almost all Orthodox conform to them. The dogmatic decisions of the
Councils, though, are to be obeyed rather than to be treated as guidelines, since they
are essential for the Church's unity.
Anglican Communion
In the Church of England, the ecclesiastical courts that formerly decided many matters
such as disputes relating to marriage, divorce, wills, and defamation, still have
jurisdiction of certain church-related matters (e.g., discipline of clergy, alteration of
church property, and issues related to churchyards). Their separate status dates back to
the 11th century when the Normans split them off from the mixed secular/religious
county and local courts used by the Saxons. In contrast to the other courts of England
the law used in ecclesiastical matters is at least partially a civil law system, not common
law, although heavily governed by parliamentary statutes. Since the Reformation,
ecclesiastical courts in England have been royal courts.
The teaching of canon law at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge was abrogated
by Henry VIII; thereafter practitioners in the ecclesiastical courts were trained in civil
Page 24 of 132

law, receiving a Doctor of Civil Law (D.C.L.) degree from Oxford, or an LL.D. from
Cambridge. Such lawyers (called "doctors" and "civilians") were centred at "Doctors
Commons", a few streets south of St Paul's Cathedral in London, where they
monopolized probate, matrimonial, and admiralty cases until their jurisdiction was
removed to the common law courts in the mid-19th century. (Admiralty law was also
based on civil law instead of common law, thus was handled by the civilians too.)
Charles I repealed Canon Law in Scotland in 1638 after uprisings of Covenanters
confronting the Bishops of Aberdeen following the convention at Muchalls Castle and
other revolts across Scotland earlier that year.
Other churches in the Anglican Communion
around the world (e.g., the Episcopal Church
in the United States, and the Anglican
Church of Canada) still function under their
own private systems of canon law.
Presbyterian and Reformed Churches
In Presbyterian and Reformed Churches,
canon law is known as "practice and
procedure" or "church order," and includes
the church's laws respecting its government,
discipline, legal practice and worship.
Lutheranism
The Book of Concord is the historic doctrinal
statement of the Lutheran Church, consisting
of ten credal documents recognized as
authoritative in Lutheranism since the 16th
century. However, the Book of Concord is a
confessional document (stating orthodox
belief) rather than a book of ecclesiastical
rules or discipline, like canon law. Each
Lutheran national church establishes its own
system of church order and discipline,
though these are referred to as "canons."
The United Methodist Church
The Book of Discipline contains the laws, rules, policies and guidelines for The United
Methodist Church. It is revised every four years by the General Conference, the law
making body of The United Methodist Church; the last edition was published in 2012.
Page 25 of 132

Hinduism
Hindu law is largely based on the Manu Smriti (smriti of Manu). It was recognized by the
British during their rule of India but its influence waned after the establishment of the
Republic of India, which has a secular legal system.
Islam
Further information: Sharia, Application of sharia by country, and Islamic ethics
Sharia, also known as Islamic law إسالمي قانون)‏ qānūn ʾIslāmī), is the moral code and
religious law of Islam. Sharia is derived from two primary sources, the precepts set forth
in the Quran and the example set by the Islamic prophet Muhammad in the sunnah.
Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) interprets and extends the application of sharia to questions
not directly addressed in the primary sources by including secondary sources. These
secondary sources usually include the consensus of the ulama (religious scholars)
embodied in ijma and analogy from the Quran and sunnah through qiyas. Shia jurists
prefer to apply reasoning ('aql) rather than analogy in order to address difficult
questions.
Muslims believe sharia is God's law, but they differ as to what exactly it entails.
Modernists, traditionalists and fundamentalists all hold different views of sharia, as do
adherents to different schools of Islamic thought and scholarship. Different countries,
societies and cultures have varying interpretations of sharia as well.
Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics and
economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet,
prayer, and fasting. Where it has official status, sharia is applied by Islamic judges, or
qadis. The imam has varying responsibilities depending on the interpretation of sharia;
while the term is commonly used to refer to the leader of communal prayers, the imam
may also be a scholar, religious leader, or political leader.
The reintroduction of sharia is a longstanding goal for Islamist movements in Muslim
countries. Some Muslim minorities in Asia (e.g., in Israel or in India) have maintained
institutional recognition of sharia to adjudicate their personal and community affairs. In
western countries, where Muslim immigration is more recent, Muslim minorities have
introduced sharia family law, for use in their own disputes, with varying degrees of
success e.g., Britain's Muslim Arbitration Tribunal. Attempts by Muslims to impose
sharia on non-Muslims in countries with large Muslim populations have been
accompanied by controversy, violence, and even warfare (cf. Second Sudanese Civil
War).
Jainism
Jain law or Jaina law refers to the modern interpretation of ancient Jain Law that
consists of rules for adoption, marriage, succession and death for the followers of
Jainism.
Page 26 of 132

Judaism
Halakha (Hebrew: ‏;הלכה literally "walking") is the collective body of rabbinic Jewish
religious laws derived from the Written and Oral Torah, including the Mishnah, the
halakhic Midrash, the Talmud, and its commentaries. After the destruction of the
Second Temple by the Romans in the year 70 during the First Jewish-Roman War, the
Oral Law was developed through intensive and expansive interpretations of the written
Torah.
The halakhah has developed gradually through a variety of legal and quasi-legal
mechanisms, including judicial decisions, legislative enactments, and customary law.
The literature of questions to rabbis, and their considered answers, are referred to as
responsa. Over time, as practices develop, codes of Jewish law were written based on
Talmudic literature and responsa. The most influential code, the Shulchan Aruch,
guides the religious practice of most Orthodox and some Conservative Jews.
According to rabbinic tradition there are 613 mitzvot in the written Torah. The mitzvot in
the Torah (also called the Law of Moses) pertain to nearly every aspect of human life.
Some of these laws are directed only to men or to women, some only to the ancient
priestly groups (the Kohanim and Leviyim), members of the tribe of Levi, some only to
farmers within the Land of Israel. Some laws are only applicable when there is a Temple
in Jerusalem (see Third Temple).
Wicca
Page 27 of 132

The Wiccan Rede is a statement that provides the key moral system in the Neopagan
religion of Wicca and certain other related Witchcraft-based faiths. A common form of
the Rede is "An it harm none, do what ye will".
Page 28 of 132

II. The [Old Testament] Law
of Moses
The Law of Moses, also called the Mosaic Law or in Hebrew: ת מֹּשֶׁ‏ ה ‏,תֹּורַ‏ Torat Moshe,
refers primarily to the Torah or first five books of the Hebrew Bible. Traditionally
believed to have been written by Moses, most academics now believe they had many
authors.
Terminology
The Law of Moses or Torah of Moses (Hebrew: ת מֹּשֶׁ‏ ה ‏,תֹּורַ‏ Torat Moshe, Septuagint
Ancient Greek: νόμος Μωυσῆ, nómos Mōusē, or in some translations the "Teachings of
Moses") is a biblical term first found in the Book of Joshua 8:31-32, where Joshua writes
the Hebrew words of "Torat Moshe ורַ‏ ת מֹּשֶׁ‏ ה " on an altar of stones at Mount Ebal. The
text continues:
And afterward he read all the words of the teachings, the blessings and cursings,
according to all that is written in the book of the Torah (Joshua 8:34).
תֹּ‏
Page 29 of 132

The term occurs 15 times in the Hebrew Bible, a further 7 times in the New Testament,
and repeatedly in Second Temple period, intertestamental, rabbinical and patristic
literature.
The Hebrew word for the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, Torah (which means "law"
and was translated into Greek as "nomos" or "Law") refers to the same five books
termed in English "Pentateuch" (from Latinised Greek "five books," implying the five
books of Moses). According to some scholars, use of the name "Torah" to designate the
"Five Books of Moses" of the Hebrew Bible, is clearly documented only from the 2nd
Century BCE. In modern usage, Torah can refer to the first five books of the Tanakh, as
the Hebrew Bible is commonly called, to the instructions and commandments found in
the 2nd to 5th books of the Hebrew Bible, and also to the entire Tanakh and even all of
the Oral Law as well. Among English-speaking Christians the term "The Law" can refer
to the whole Pentateuch including Genesis, but this is generally in relation to the New
Testament where nomos "the Law" sometimes refers to all five books, including
Genesis. This use of the Hebrew term "Torah", 'Law', for the first five books is
considered misleading by 21st-century Christian bible scholar John Van Seters,
because the Pentateuch "consists of about one half law and the other half narrative."
The adjective "Mosaic" means "of Moses."
Law in the Ancient Near East
The "Law of Moses" in ancient Israel was different from other legal codes in the ancient
Near East because transgressions were seen as offenses against God rather than
solely as offenses against society (civil law). This contrasts with the Sumerian Code of
Ur-Nammu (c. 2100-2050 BCE), and the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1760 BCE,
of which almost half concerns contract law). However the influence of the ancient Near
Eastern legal tradition on the Law of ancient Israel is recognised and well documented.
For example the Israelite Sabbatical Year has antecedents in the Akkadian mesharum
edicts granting periodic relief to the poor. Another important distinction is that in ancient
Near East legal codes, as in more recently unearthed Ugaritic texts, an important, and
ultimate, role in the legal process was assigned to the king. Ancient Israel, before the
monarchical period beginning with David, was set up as a theocracy, rather than a
monarchy, although God is most commonly portrayed like a king.
Hebrew Bible
Moses and Authorship of The Law
According to the Hebrew Bible, Moses was the leader of early Israel out of Egypt; and
traditionally the first five books of the Hebrew Bible are attributed to him, though most
modern scholars believe there were multiple authors. The law attributed to Moses,
specifically the laws set out in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, as a
Page 30 of 132

consequence came to be considered supreme over all other sources of authority (any
king and/or his officials), and the Levites were the guardians and interpreters of the law.
The Book of Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 31:24–26) records Moses saying, "Take this
book of the law, and put it by the side of the Ark of the Covenant of the LORD." Similar
passages referring to the Law include, for example, Exodus 17:14, "And the LORD said
unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua,
that I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven;" Exodus 24:4,
"And Moses wrote all the words of the
LORD, and rose up early in the morning,
and built an altar under the mount, and
twelve pillars, according to the twelve
tribes of Israel;" Exodus 34:27, "And the
LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these
words, for after the tenor of these words I
have made a covenant with thee and with
Israel;" and Leviticus 26:46 "These are
the decrees, the laws and the regulations
that the LORD established on Mount
Sinai between himself and the Israelites
through Moses."
Later References to the Law in the
Hebrew Bible
the 8th century BC kingdom of Judah.
The Book of Kings relates how a "law of
Moses" was discovered in the Temple
during the reign of king Josiah (r. 641–
609 BCE). This book is mostly identified
as an early version of the Book of
Deuteronomy, perhaps chapters 5-26
and chapter 28 of the extant text. This
text contains a number of laws, dated to
Another mention of the "Book of the Law of Moses" is found in Joshua 8:30-31 .
Content
The content of the Law is spread among the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers,
and then reiterated and added to in Deuteronomy (deutero-nomy is Latinised Greek for
"Second reading of the Law"). This includes:
Page 31 of 132

The Ten Commandments
Moral laws - on murder, theft, honesty, adultery, etc.
Social laws - on property, inheritance, marriage and divorce,
Food laws - on what is clean and unclean, on cooking and storing food.
Purity laws - on menstruation, seminal emissions, skin disease and mildew, etc.
Feasts - the Day of Atonement, Passover, Feast of Tabernacles, Feast of
Unleavened Bread, Feast of Weeks etc.
Sacrifices and Offerings - the sin offering, burnt offering, whole offering, heave
offering, Passover sacrifice, meal offering, wave offering, peace offering, drink
offering, thank offering, dough offering, incense offering, red heifer, scapegoat,
first fruits, etc.
Instructions for the priesthood and the high priest including tithes.
Instructions regarding the Tabernacle, and which were later applied to the
Temple in Jerusalem, including those concerning the Holy of Holies containing
the Ark of the Covenant (in which were the tablets of the law, Aaron's rod, the
manna). Instructions and for the construction of various altars.
Forward looking instructions for time when Israel would demand a king.
Rabbinical Interpretation
The content of the instructions and its interpretations, the Oral Torah, was passed down
orally, excerpted and codified in Rabbinical Judaism, and in the Talmud were numbered
as the 613 commandments. The Law given to Moses at Sinai (Hebrew Halakhah le-
Moshe mi-Sinai למשה הלכה ‏(מסיני is a halakhic distinction.
Page 32 of 132

III. The Ten Commandments
The Ten Commandments (Hebrew: רֶׁ‏ ת הַ‏ דִּ‏ בְּ‏ רֹות ‏,עֲשֶׁ‏ Aseret ha'Dibrot), also
known as the Decalogue, are a set of biblical principles relating to ethics and worship,
which play a fundamental role in Judaism and Christianity. The commandments include
instructions to worship only God, to honour one's parents, and to keep the sabbath, as
well as prohibitions against idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, theft, dishonesty, and
coveting. Different religious groups follow different traditions for interpreting and
numbering them.
The Ten Commandments
appear twice in the Hebrew
Bible, in the books of Exodus
and Deuteronomy. Modern
scholarship has found likely
influences in Hittite and
Mesopotamian laws and
treaties, but is divided over
exactly when the Ten
Commandments were written
and who wrote them.
Terminology
English versions use "commandments."
In biblical Hebrew, the Ten
Commandments are called
(transliterated עשרת הדברים
aseret ha-d'varîm) and in
עשרת Rabbinical Hebrew
ha- (transliterated aseret הדברות
dibrot), both translatable as "the
ten words", "the ten sayings", or
"the ten matters". The Tyndale
and Coverdale English
translations used "ten verses".
The Geneva Bible used "tenne
commandements", which was
followed by the Bishops' Bible
and the Authorized Version (the
"King James" version) as "ten
commandments". Most major
The English name "Decalogue" is derived from Greek δεκάλογος, dekalogos, the latter
meaning and referring to the Greek translation (in accusative) δέκα λόγους, deka
Page 33 of 132

logous, "ten words", found in the Septuagint (or LXX) at Exodus 34:28 [3] and
Deuteronomy 10:4.
The stone tablets, as opposed to the commandments inscribed on them, are called
covenant". Lukhot HaBrit, meaning "the tablets of the ‏,לוחות הברית
Passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy
The biblical narrative of the revelation at Sinai begins in Exodus 19 after the arrival of
the children of Israel at Mount Sinai (also called Horeb). On the morning of the third day
of their encampment, "there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the
mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud", and the people assembled at the
base of the mount. After "the LORD came down upon mount Sinai", Moses went up
briefly and returned and prepared the people, and then in Exodus 20 "God spoke" to all
the people the words of the covenant, that is, the "ten commandments" as it is written.
Modern biblical scholarship differs as to whether Exodus 19-20 describes the people of
Israel as having directly heard all or some of the decalogue, or whether the laws are
only passed to them through Moses.
The people were afraid to hear more and moved "afar off", and Moses responded with
"Fear not." Nevertheless, he drew near the "thick darkness" where "the presence of the
Lord" was to hear the additional statutes and "judgments", all which he "wrote" in the
"book of the covenant" which he read to the people the next morning, and they agreed
to be obedient and do all that the LORD had said. Moses escorted a select group
consisting of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and "seventy of the elders of Israel" to a location
on the mount where they worshipped "afar off" and they "saw the God of Israel" above a
"paved work" like clear sapphire stone.
And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will
give thee tablets of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that
thou mayest teach them. And Moses rose up, and his minister Joshua: and Moses went
up into the mount of God.
— First mention of the tablets in Exodus 24:12–13
The mount was covered by the cloud for six days, and on the seventh day Moses went
into the midst of the cloud and was "in the mount forty days and forty nights." And
Moses said, "the LORD delivered unto me two tablets of stone written with the finger of
God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the LORD spake with
you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly." Before the full
forty days expired, the children of Israel collectively decided that something had
happened to Moses, and compelled Aaron to fashion a golden calf, and he "built an
altar before it" and the people "worshipped" the calf.
After the full forty days, Moses and Joshua came down from the mountain with the
tablets of stone: "And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he
saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tablets out
Page 34 of 132

of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount." After the events in chapters 32 and
33, the LORD told Moses, "Hew thee two tablets of stone like unto the first: and I will
write upon these tablets the words that were in the first tablets, which thou brakest."
"And he wrote on the tablets, according to the first writing, the ten commandments,
which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of
the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto me."
According to Jewish tradition, Exodus 20:1–17 constitutes God's first recitation and
inscription of the ten commandments on the two tablets, which Moses broke in anger
with his rebellious nation, and were later rewritten on replacement stones and placed in
the ark of the covenant; and Deuteronomy 5:4–25 consists of God's re-telling of the Ten
Commandments to the younger generation who were to enter the Promised Land. The
passages in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 contain more than ten imperative
statements, totalling 14 or 15 in all.
Traditions for Numbering
Different religious traditions divide the seventeen verses of Exodus 20:1–17 and their
parallels at Deuteronomy 5:4–21 into ten "commandments" or "sayings" in different
ways, shown in the table below. Some suggest that the number ten is a choice to aid
memorization rather than a matter of theology.
Traditions:
LXX: Septuagint, generally followed by Orthodox Christians.
Page 35 of 132

P: Philo, same as the Septuagint, but with the prohibitions on killing and adultery
reversed.
S: Samaritan Pentateuch, with an additional commandment about Mount Gerizim
as 10th.
T: Jewish Talmud, makes the "prologue" the first "saying" or "matter" and
combines the prohibition on worshiping deities other than Yahweh with the
prohibition on idolatry.
A: Augustine follows the Talmud in combining verses 3–6, but omits the prologue
as a commandment and divides the prohibition on coveting in two and following
the word order of Deuteronomy 5:21 rather than Exodus 20:17.
C: Catechism of the Catholic Church, largely follows Augustine.
L: Lutherans follow Luther's Large Catechism, which follows Augustine but omits
the prohibition of images and uses the word order of Exodus 20:17 rather than
Deuteronomy 5:21 for the ninth and tenth commandments.
R: Reformed Christians follow John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion,
which follows the Septuagint; this system is also used in the Anglican Book of
Common Prayer.
The Ten Commandments
LXX P S T A C L R Main article Exodus
20:1-17
Deuteronomy
5:4-21
— — — 1 — 1 — (1) I am the Lord thy God, which have 2 6
brought thee out of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage.
1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 Thou shalt have no other gods before 3 7
me
2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 Thou shalt not make unto thee any 4–6 8–10
graven image
3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 Thou shalt not take the name of the 7 11
Lord thy God in vain
4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it 8–11 12–15
holy
5 5 4 5 4 4 4 5 Honour thy father and thy mother 12 16
6 7 5 6 5 5 5 6 Thou shalt not kill 13 17
7 6 6 7 6 6 6 7 Thou shalt not commit adultery 14 18
8 8 7 8 7 7 7 8 Thou shalt not steal 15 19
9 9 8 9 8 8 8 9 Thou shalt not bear false witness 16 20
against thy neighbour
10 10 9 10 10 10 9 10 Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's 17a
21b
house)
10 10 9 10 9 9 10 10 Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's wife) 17b 21a
10 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's 17c
21c
servants, animals, or anything else)
— — 10 — — — — — Ye shall erect these stones which I
command thee upon Mount Gerizim
All scripture quotes above are from the King James Version.
Page 36 of 132

Religious Interpretations
The Ten Commandments concern matters of fundamental importance in Judaism and
Christianity: the greatest obligation (to worship only God), the greatest injury to a person
(murder), the greatest injury to family bonds (adultery), the greatest injury to commerce
and law (bearing false witness), the greatest inter-generational obligation (honour to
parents), the greatest obligation to community (truthfulness), the greatest injury to
moveable property (theft).
The Ten Commandments are written with room for varying interpretation, reflecting their
role as a summary of fundamental principles. They are not as explicit or detailed as
rules or many other biblical laws and commandments, because they provide guiding
principles that apply universally, across changing circumstances. They do not specify
punishments for their violation. Their precise import must be worked out in each
separate situation.
The Bible indicates the special status of the Ten Commandments among all other Torah
laws in several ways:
They have a uniquely terse style.
Of all the biblical laws and commandments, the Ten Commandments alone are
said to have been "written with the finger of God" (Exodus 31:18).
The stone tablets were placed in the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:21,
Deuteronomy 10:2,5).
Page 37 of 132

Judaism
The Ten Commandments form the basis of Jewish law, stating God's universal and
timeless standard of right and wrong – unlike the rest of the 613 commandments in the
Torah, which include, for example, various duties and ceremonies such as the kashrut
dietary laws, and now unobservable rituals to be performed by priests in the Holy
Temple. Jewish tradition considers the Ten Commandments the theological basis for
the rest of the commandments; a number of works, starting with Rabbi Saadia Gaon,
have made groupings of the commandments according to their links with the Ten
Commandments.
A conservative rabbi, Louis Ginzberg, stated in his book Legends of the Jews, that Ten
Commandments are virtually entwined, that the breaking of one leads to the breaking of
another. There is also a great bond of union between the first five commandments and
the last five. The first commandment: "I am the Lord, thy God," corresponds to the sixth:
"Thou shalt not kill," for the murderer slays the image of God. The second: "Thou shalt
have no strange gods before me," corresponds to the seventh: "Thou shalt not commit
adultery," for conjugal faithlessness is as grave a sin as idolatry, which is faithlessness
to God. The third commandment: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain,"
corresponds to the eighth: "Thou shalt not steal," for stealing result in false oath in
God's name. The fourth: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy," corresponds to
the ninth: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor," for he who bears
false witness against his neighbor commits as grave a sin as if he had borne false
witness against God, saying that He had not created the world in six days and rested on
the seventh day (the holy Sabbath). The fifth commandment: "Honor thy father and thy
mother," corresponds to the tenth: "Covet not thy neighbor's wife," for one who indulges
this lust produces children who will not honor their true father, but will consider a
stranger their father.
The traditional Rabbinical Jewish belief is that the observance of these commandments
and the other mitzvot are required solely of the Jewish people and that the laws
incumbent on humanity in general are outlined in the seven Noahide laws, several of
which overlap with the Ten Commandments. In the era of the Sanhedrin transgressing
any one of six of the Ten Commandments theoretically carried the death penalty, the
exceptions being the First Commandment, honouring your father and mother, saying
God's name in vain, and coveting, though this was rarely enforced due to a large
number of stringent evidentiary requirements imposed by the oral law.
Two Tablets
The arrangement of the commandments on the two tablets is interpreted in different
ways in the classical Jewish tradition. Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel says that each tablet
contained five commandments, "but the Sages say ten on one tablet and ten on the
other", that is, that the tablets were duplicates. This can be compared to diplomatic
treaties of the ancient Near East, in which a copy was made for each party.
Page 38 of 132

According to the Talmud, the compendium of traditional Rabbinic Jewish law, tradition,
and interpretation, one interpretation of the biblical verse "the tablets were written on
both their sides", is that the carving went through the full thickness of the tablets, yet
was miraculously legible from both sides.
Use in Jewish Ritual
The Mishna records that during the period of the Second Temple, the Ten
Commandments were recited daily, [62] before the reading of the Shema Yisrael (as
preserved, for example, in the Nash Papyrus, a Hebrew manuscript fragment from 150–
100 BCE found in Egypt, containing a version of the ten commandments and the
beginning of the Shema); but that this practice was abolished in the synagogues so as
not to give ammunition to heretics who claimed that they were the only important part of
Jewish law, or to dispute a claim by early Christians that only the Ten Commandments
were handed down at Mount Sinai rather than the whole Torah.
In later centuries rabbis continued to omit the Ten Commandments from daily liturgy in
order to prevent a confusion among Jews that they are only bound by the Ten
Commandments, and not also by many other biblical and Talmudic laws, such as the
requirement to observe holy days other than the sabbath.
Today, the Ten Commandments are heard in the synagogue three times a year: as they
come up during the readings of Exodus and Deuteronomy, and during the festival of
Shavuot. The Exodus version is read in parashat Yitro around late January–February,
and on the festival of Shavuot, and the Deuteronomy version in parashat Va'etchanan in
Page 39 of 132

August–September. In some traditions, worshipers rise for the reading of the Ten
Commandments to highlight their special significance though many rabbis, including
Maimonides, have opposed this custom since one may come to think that the Ten
Commandments are more important than the rest of the Mitzvot.
In printed Chumashim, as well as in those in manuscript form, the Ten Commandments
carry two sets of cantillation marks. The ta'am 'elyon (upper accentuation), which makes
each Commandment into a separate verse, is used for public Torah reading, while the
ta'am tachton (lower accentuation), which divides the text into verses of more even
length, is used for private reading or study. The verse numbering in Jewish Bibles
follows the ta'am tachton. In Jewish Bibles the references to the Ten Commandments
are therefore Exodus 20:2–14 and Deuteronomy 5:6–18.
Samaritan
The Samaritan Pentateuch varies in the Ten Commandments passages, both in that the
Samaritan Deuteronomical version of the passage is much closer to that in Exodus, and
in that Samaritans count as nine commandments what others count as ten. The
Samaritan tenth commandment is on the sanctity of Mount Gerizim.
The text of the Samaritan tenth commandment follows:
Christianity
And it shall come to pass when the Lord thy God will bring thee into the land of the
Canaanites whither thou goest to take possession of it, thou shalt erect unto thee large
stones, and thou shalt cover them with lime, and thou shalt write upon the stones all the
words of this Law, and it shall come to pass when ye cross the Jordan, ye shall erect
these stones which I command thee upon Mount Gerizim, and thou shalt build there an
altar unto the Lord thy God, an altar of stones, and thou shalt not lift upon them iron, of
perfect stones shalt thou build thine altar, and thou shalt bring upon it burnt offerings to
the Lord thy God, and thou shalt sacrifice peace offerings, and thou shalt eat there and
rejoice before the Lord thy God. That mountain is on the other side of the Jordan at the
end of the road towards the going down of the sun in the land of the Canaanites who
dwell in the Arabah facing Gilgal close by Elon Moreh facing Shechem.
Most traditions of Christianity hold that the Ten Commandments have divine authority
and continue to be valid, though they have different interpretations and uses of them.
The Apostolic Constitutions, which implore believers to "always remember the ten
commands of God," reveal the importance of the Decalogue in the early Church.
Through most of Christian history the decalogue was considered a summary of God's
law and standard of behaviour, central to Christian life, piety, and worship.
References in the New Testament
During his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus explicitly referenced the prohibitions against
murder and adultery. In Matthew 19:16-19 Jesus repeated five of the Ten
Page 40 of 132

Commandments, followed by that commandment called "the second" (Matthew 22:34-
40) after the first and great commandment.
And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that
I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none
good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He
saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit
adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and
thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
— Matthew 19:16-19
In his Epistle to the Romans, Paul the Apostle also mentioned five of the Ten
Commandments and associated them with the neighbourly love commandment.
Romans 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another
hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou
shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other
Page 41 of 132

commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Roman Catholicism
— Romans 13:8-10 KJV
In Roman Catholicism, Jesus freed Christians from the rest of Jewish religious law, but
not from their obligation to keep the Ten Commandments. It has been said that they are
to the moral order what the creation story is to the natural order.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church—the official exposition of the
Catholic Church's Christian beliefs—the Commandments are considered essential for
spiritual good health and growth, and serve as the basis for social justice. Church
teaching of the Commandments is largely based on the Old and New Testaments and
the writings of the early Church Fathers. In the New Testament, Jesus acknowledged
their validity and instructed his disciples to go further, demanding a righteousness
exceeding that of the scribes and Pharisees. Summarized by Jesus into two "great
commandments" that teach the love of God and love of neighbour, they instruct
individuals on their relationships with both.
Orthodox
The Eastern Orthodox Church holds its moral truths to be chiefly contained in the Ten
Commandments. A confession begins with the Confessor reciting the Ten
Commandments and asking the penitent which of them he has broken.
Protestantism
After rejecting the Roman Catholic moral theology, giving more importance to biblical
law and the gospel, early Protestant theologians continued to take the Ten
Commandments as the starting point of Christian moral life. Different versions of
Christianity have varied in how they have translated the bare principles into the specifics
that make up a full Christian ethic.
Lutheranism
The Lutheran division of the commandments follows the one established by St.
Augustine, following the then current synagogue scribal division. The first three
commandments govern the relationship between God and humans, the fourth through
eighth govern public relationships between people, and the last two govern private
thoughts. See Luther's Small Catechism and Large Catechism.
Page 42 of 132

Reformed
The Articles of the Church of England, Revised and altered by the Assembly of Divines,
at Westminster, in the year 1643 state that "no Christian man whatsoever is free from
the obedience of the commandments which are called moral. By the moral law, we
understand all the Ten Commandments taken in their full extent." The Westminster
Confession, held by Presbyterian Churches, holds that the moral law contained in the
Ten Commandments "does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the
obedience thereof".
Methodist
The moral law contained in the Ten Commandments, according to the founder of the
Methodist movement John Wesley, was instituted from the beginning of the world and is
written on the hearts of all people. As with the Reformed view, Wesley held that the
moral law, which is contained in the Ten Commandments, stands today:
Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind in all ages, as not
depending either on time or place, nor on any other circumstances liable to change; but
on the nature of God and the nature of man, and their unchangeable relation to each
other" (Wesley's Sermons, Vol. I, Sermon 25).
In keeping with Wesleyan covenant theology, "while the ceremonial law was abolished
in Christ and the whole Mosaic dispensation itself was concluded upon the appearance
of Christ, the moral law remains a vital component of the covenant of grace, having
Page 43 of 132

Christ as its perfecting end." As such, in Methodism, an "important aspect of the pursuit
of sanctification is the careful following" of the Ten Commandments.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
According to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) doctrine, Jesus
completed rather than rejected the Mosaic Law. The Ten Commandments are
considered eternal gospel principles necessary for exaltation. They appear in the Book
of Mosiah 12:34–36, 13:15–16, 13:21–24 and Doctrine and Covenants. According to the
Book of Mosiah, a prophet named Abinadi taught the Ten Commandments in the court
of King Noah and was martyred for his righteousness. Abinadi knew the Ten
Commandments from the brass plates.
In an October 2010 address, LDS president and prophet Thomas S. Monson taught
"The Ten Commandments are just that—commandments. They are not suggestions."
The Strangite denomination has different views of the Decalogue.
Sabbath Day
Main Points Of Interpretative Difference
All Abrahamic religions observe a weekly day of rest, often called the Sabbath, although
the actual day of the week ranges from Friday in Islam, Saturday in Judaism (both
reckoned from dusk to dusk), and Sunday, from midnight to midnight, in Christianity.
Sabbath in Christianity is a day of rest from work, often dedicated to religious
observance, derived from the Biblical Sabbath. Non-Sabbatarianism is the principle of
Christian liberty from being bound to physical sabbath observance. Most dictionaries
provide both first-day and seventh-day definitions for "sabbath" and "Sabbatarian",
among other related uses.
Observing the Sabbath on Sunday, the day of resurrection, gradually became the
dominant Christian practice from the Jewish-Roman wars onward. The Church's general
repudiation of Jewish practices during this period is apparent in the Council of Laodicea
(4th century AD) where Canons 37–38 state: "It is not lawful to receive portions sent
from the feasts of Jews or heretics, nor to feast together with them" and "It is not lawful
to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety". Canon
29 of the Laodicean council specifically refers to the sabbath: "Christians must not
judaize by resting on the [Jewish] Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring
the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to
be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ."
Killing or Murder
לא תרצח Multiple translations exist of the fifth/sixth commandment; the Hebrew words
(lo tirtzach) are variously translated as "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not murder".
Page 44 of 132

The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. The Hebrew Bible
contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but does not prohibit killing in
the context of warfare (1Kings 2:5–6), capital punishment (Leviticus 20:9–16) and selfdefence
(Exodus 22:2–3), which are considered justified. The New Testament is in
agreement that murder is a grave moral evil, and references the Old Testament view of
bloodguilt.
Theft
Some academic theologians, including German Old Testament scholar Albrecht Alt:
Das Verbot des Diebstahls im Dekalog (1953), suggest that the commandment
translated as "thou shalt not steal" was originally intended against stealing people—
against abductions and slavery, in agreement with the Talmudic interpretation of the
statement as "thou
shalt not kidnap"
(Sanhedrin
86a).
Idolatry
Idolatry is
forbidden
in all
Abrahamic
religions.
In Judaism
there is a
prohibition
against
worshipping
an idol or a
representation
of God, but there
is no restriction
on art or simple depictions. Islam
has a stronger prohibition, banning representations of God, and in some cases of
Muhammad, humans and, in some interpretations, any living creature.
In Gospel of Barnabas, Jesus stated that idolatry is the greatest sin as it divests a man
fully of faith, and hence of God. In his time, Idolatry is not only worshipping statues of
wood or stone; but also statues of flesh. All which a man loves, for which he leaves
everything else but that, is his god, thus the glutton and drunkard has for his idol his
own flesh, the fornicator has for his idol the harlot and the greedy has for his idol silver
and gold, and so the same for every other sinner.
In Christianity's earliest centuries, some Christians had informally adorned their homes
and places of worship with images of Christ and the saints, which others thought
inappropriate. No church council had ruled on whether such practices constituted
idolatry. The controversy reached crisis level in the 8th century, during the period of
iconoclasm: the smashing of icons.
In 726 Emperor Leo III ordered all images removed from all churches; in 730 a council
forbade veneration of images, citing the Second Commandment; in 787 the Seventh
Ecumenical Council reversed the preceding rulings, condemning iconoclasm and
sanctioning the veneration of images; in 815 Leo V called yet another council, which
Page 45 of 132

einstated iconoclasm; in 843 Empress Theodora again reinstated veneration of icons.
This mostly settled the matter until the Protestant Reformation, when John Calvin
declared that the ruling of the Seventh Ecumenical Council "emanated from Satan".
Protestant iconoclasts at this time destroyed statues, pictures, stained glass, and artistic
masterpieces.
The Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Theodora's restoration of the icons every year
on the First Sunday of Great Lent. Eastern Orthodox tradition teaches that while images
of God, the Father, remain prohibited, depictions of Jesus as the incarnation of God as
a visible human are permissible.
To emphasize the theological importance of the incarnation, the Orthodox Church
encourages the use of icons in church and private devotions, but prefers a twodimensional
depiction as a reminder of this theological aspect. Icons depict the spiritual
dimension of their subject rather than attempting a naturalistic portrayal. In modern use
(usually as a result of Roman Catholic influence), more naturalistic images and images
of the Father, however, also appear occasionally in Orthodox churches, but statues, i.e.
three-dimensional depictions, continue to be banned.
The Roman Catholic Church holds that one may build and use "likenesses", as long as
the object is not worshipped. Many Roman Catholic Churches and services feature
images; some feature statues. For Roman Catholics, this practice is understood as
fulfilling the Second Commandment, as they understand that these images are not
being worshipped.
Some Protestants will picture Jesus in his human form, while refusing to make any
image of God or Jesus in Heaven.
Strict Amish people forbid any sort of image, such as photographs.
Adultery
Originally this commandment forbade male Israelites from having sexual intercourse
with the wife of another Israelite; the prohibition did not extend to their own slaves.
Sexual intercourse between an Israelite man, married or not, and a woman who was
neither married nor betrothed was not considered adultery.
This concept of adultery stems from the economic aspect of Israelite marriage whereby
the husband has an exclusive right to his wife, whereas the wife, as the husband's
possession, did not have an exclusive right to her husband.
Louis Ginzberg argued that the tenth commandment (Covet not thy neighbor's wife) is
directed against a sin which may lead to a trespassing of all Ten Commandments.
Page 46 of 132

Critical Historical Analysis
Early Theories
Critical scholarship is divided over its interpretation of the ten commandment texts.
Julius Wellhausen's influential hypothesis regarding the formation of the Pentateuch
suggests that Exodus 20-23 and 34 "might be regarded as the document which formed
the starting point of the religious history of Israel." Deuteronomy 5 then reflects King
Josiah's attempt to link the document produced by his court to the older Mosaic
tradition.
In a 2002 analysis of the history of this position, Bernard M. Levinson argued that this
reconstruction assumes a Christian perspective, and dates back to Johann Wolfgang
von Goethe's polemic against Judaism, which asserted that religions evolve from the
more ritualistic to the more ethical. Goethe thus argued that the Ten Commandments
revealed to Moses at Mt. Sinai would have emphasized rituals, and that the "ethical"
Decalogue Christians recite in their own churches was composed at a later date, when
Israelite prophets had begun to prophesy the coming of the messiah, Jesus Christ.
Levinson points out that there is no evidence, internal to the Hebrew Bible or in external
sources, to support this conjecture. He concludes that its vogue among later critical
historians represents the persistence of the idea that the supersession of Judaism by
Christianity is part of a longer history of progress from the ritualistic to the ethical.
By the 1930s, historians who accepted the basic premises of multiple authorship had
come to reject the idea of an orderly evolution of Israelite religion. Critics instead began
to suppose that law and ritual could be of equal importance, while taking different form,
at different times. This means that there is no longer any a priori reason to believe that
Page 47 of 132

Exodus 20:2–17 and Exodus 34:10–28 were composed during different stages of
Israelite history. For example, critical historian John Bright also dates the Jahwist texts
to the tenth century BCE, but believes that they express a theology that "had already
been normalized in the period of the Judges" (i.e., of the tribal alliance). He concurs
about the importance of the decalogue as "a central feature in the covenant that brought
together Israel into being as a people" but views the parallels between Exodus 20 and
Deuteronomy 5, along with other evidence, as reason to believe that it is relatively close
to its original form and Mosaic in origin.
Hittite Treaties
According to John Bright, however, there is an important distinction between the
Decalogue and the "book of the covenant" (Exodus 21-23 and 34:10–24). The
Decalogue, he argues, was modelled on the suzerainty treaties of the Hittites (and other
Mesopotamian Empires), that is, represents the relationship between God and Israel as
a relationship between king and vassal, and enacts that bond.
"The prologue of the Hittite treaty reminds his vassals of his benevolent acts.. (compare
with Exodus 20:2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of slavery"). The Hittite treaty also stipulated the obligations imposed
by the ruler on his vassals, which included a prohibition of relations with peoples outside
the empire, or enmity between those within." (Exodus 20:3: "You shall have no other
gods before Me"). Viewed as a treaty rather than a law code, its purpose is not so much
to regulate human affairs as to define the scope of the king's power.
Julius Morgenstern argued that Exodus 34 is distinct from the Jahwist document,
identifying it with king Asa's reforms in 899 BCE. Bright, however, believes that like the
Decalogue this text has its origins in the time of the tribal alliance. The book of the
covenant, he notes, bears a greater similarity to Mesopotamian law codes (e.g. the
Code of Hammurabi which was inscribed on a stone stele). He argues that the function
of this "book" is to move from the realm of treaty to the realm of law: "The Book of the
Covenant (Ex., chs. 21 to 23; cf. ch. 34), which is no official state law, but a description
of normative Israelite judicial procedure in the days of the Judges, is the best example
of this process." According to Bright, then, this body of law too predates the monarchy.
Hilton J. Blik writes that the phrasing in the Decalogue's instructions suggests that it was
conceived in a mainly polytheistic milieu, evident especially in the formulation of the
henotheistic "no-other-gods-before-me" commandment.
Dating
If the Ten Commandments are based on Hittite forms, it would date them to somewhere
between the 14th-12th century BCE. Archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher
Silberman argue that "the astonishing composition came together … in the seventh
century BCE". Critical scholar Yehezkel Kaufmann (1960) dates the oral form of the
Page 48 of 132

covenant to the time of Josiah. An even later date (after 586 BCE) is suggested by
David H. Aaron.
The Ritual Decalogue
Some proponents of the Documentary hypothesis have argued that the biblical text in
Exodus 34:28 identifies a different list as the ten commandments, that of Exodus 34:11–
27. Since this passage does not prohibit murder, adultery, theft, etc., but instead deals
with the proper worship of Yahweh, some scholars call it the "Ritual Decalogue", and
disambiguate the ten commandments of traditional understanding as the "Ethical
Decalogue".
According to these scholars the Bible includes multiple versions of events. On the basis
of many points of analysis including linguistic it is shown as a patchwork of sources
sometimes with bridging comments by the editor (Redactor) but otherwise left intact
from the original, frequently side by side.
Richard Elliott Friedman argues that the Ten Commandments at Exodus 20:1–17 "does
not appear to belong to any of the major sources. It is likely to be an independent
document, which was inserted here by the Redactor." In his view, the Covenant Code
follows that version of the Ten Commandments in the northern Israel E narrative. In the
J narrative in Exodus 34 the editor of the combined story known as the Redactor (or
RJE), adds in an explanation that these are a replacement for the earlier tablets which
were shattered. "In the combined JE text, it would be awkward to picture God just
commanding Moses to make some tablets, as if there were no history to this matter, so
RJE adds the explanation that these are a replacement for the earlier tablets that were
shattered."
Page 49 of 132

He writes that Exodus 34:14–26 is the J text of the Ten Commandments: "The first two
commandments and the sabbath commandment have parallels in the other versions of
the Ten Commandments. (Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5). … The other seven
commandments here are completely different." He suggests that differences in the J
and E versions of the Ten Commandments story are a result of power struggles in the
priesthood. The writer has Moses smash the tablets "because this raised doubts about
the Judah's central religious shrine".
According to Kaufmann, the Decalogue and the book of the covenant represent two
ways of manifesting God's presence in Israel: the Ten Commandments taking the
archaic and material form of stone tablets kept in the ark of the covenant, while the book
of the covenant took oral form to be recited to the people.
United States Debate Over Display On Public Property
European Protestants replaced some visual art in their churches with plaques of the
Ten Commandments after the Reformation. In England, such "Decalogue boards" also
represented the English monarch's emphasis on rule of royal law within the churches.
The United States Constitution forbids establishment of religion by law; however images
of Moses holding the tablets of the Decalogue, along other religious figures including
Solomon, Confucius, and Mohamed holding the Qur'an, are sculpted on the north and
south friezes of the pediment of the Supreme Court building in Washington. [133] Images
of the Ten Commandments have long been contested symbols for the relationship of
religion to national law.
In the 1950s and 1960s the Fraternal Order of Eagles placed possibly thousands of Ten
Commandments displays in courthouses and school rooms, including many stone
monuments on courthouse property. Because displaying the commandments can reflect
a sectarian position if they are numbered (see above), the Eagles developed an
ecumenical version that omitted the numbers, as on the monument at the Texas capitol
(shown here). Hundreds of monuments were also placed by director Cecil B. DeMille as
a publicity stunt to promote his 1956 film The Ten Commandments. Placing the plaques
and monuments to the Ten Commandments in and around government buildings was
another expression of mid-twentieth century U.S. civil religion, along with adding the
phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.
By the beginning of the twenty-first century in the U.S., however, Decalogue
monuments and plaques in government spaces had become a legal battleground
between religious as well as political liberals and conservatives. Organizations such as
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Americans United for Separation of
Church and State launched lawsuits challenging the posting of the ten commandments
in public buildings. The ACLU has been supported by a number of religious groups
(such as the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), and the American Jewish Congress), both
because they do not want government to be issuing religious doctrine and because they
feel strongly that the commandments are inherently religious. Many commentators see
Page 50 of 132

this issue as part of a wider culture war between liberal and conservative elements in
American society. In response to the perceived attacks on traditional society, other legal
organizations, such as the Liberty Counsel, have risen to advocate the conservative
interpretation. Many Christian conservatives have taken the banning of officially
sanctioned prayer from public schools by the U.S. Supreme Court as a threat to the
expression of religion in public life. In response, they have successfully lobbied many
state and local governments to display the ten commandments in public buildings.
Those who oppose the posting of the ten commandments on public property argue that
it violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States. In contrast, groups like the Fraternal Order of Eagles who support the
public display of the ten commandments claim that the commandments are not
necessarily religious but represent the moral and legal foundation of society, and are
appropriate to be displayed as a historical source of present-day legal codes. Also,
some argue like Judge Roy Moore that prohibiting the public practice of religion is a
violation of the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion.
U.S. courts have often ruled against displays of the Ten Commandments on
government property. They conclude that the ten commandments are derived from
Judeo-Christian religions, to the exclusion of others: the statement "Thou shalt have no
other gods before me" excludes non-monotheistic religions like Hinduism, for example.
Whether the Constitution prohibits the posting of the commandments or not, there are
Page 51 of 132

additional political and civil rights issues regarding the posting of what is construed as
religious doctrine. Excluding religions that have not accepted the ten commandments
creates the appearance of impropriety. The courts have been more accepting, however,
of displays that place the Ten Commandments in a broader historical context of the
development of law.
One result of these legal cases has been that proponents of displaying the Ten
Commandments have sometimes surrounded them with other historical texts to portray
them as historical, rather than religious. Another result has been that other religious
organizations have tried to put monuments to their laws on public lands. For example,
an organization called Summum has won court cases against municipalities in Utah for
refusing to allow the group to erect a monument of Summum aphorisms next to the ten
commandments. The cases were won on the grounds that Summum's right to freedom
of speech was denied and the governments had engaged in discrimination. Instead of
allowing Summum to erect its monument, the local governments chose to remove their
ten commandments.
Cultural References
Two famous films of this name were directed by Cecil B. DeMille: a silent movie
released in 1923 starring Theodore Roberts as Moses and a colour VistaVision version
of 1956, starring Charlton Heston as Moses.
Both Dekalog, a 1989 Polish film series directed by Krzysztof Kieślowski, and The Ten,
a 2007 American film, use the ten commandments as a structure for 10 smaller stories.
The receipt of the Ten Commandments by Moses was satirized in Mel Brooks's movie
History of the World Part I (1981), which shows Moses (played by Brooks, in a similar
costume to Charlton Heston's Moses in the 1956 film), receiving three tablets containing
fifteen commandments, but before he can present them to his people, he stumbles and
drops one of the tablets, shattering it. He then presents the remaining tablets,
proclaiming Ten Commandments.
In The Prince of Egypt, a 1998 animated film that depicted the early life of Moses
(voiced by Val Kilmer), the ending depicts him with the Ten Commandments at Mount
Sinai, accompanied by a reprise of Deliver Us.
Page 52 of 132

IV. Christian Views on
The Old Testament
The Mosaic covenant or Law of Moses – which Christians generally call the "Old
Covenant" (in contrast to the New Covenant) – has played an important role in the
origins of Christianity and has occasioned serious dispute and controversy since the
beginnings of Christianity: note for example Jesus' teaching of the Law during his
Sermon on the Mount and the circumcision controversy in early Christianity.
Rabbinic Judaism
asserts that Moses
presented the Jewish
religious laws to the
Jewish people and that
those laws do not apply
to Gentiles (including
Christians), with the
exception of the Seven
Laws of Noah, which (it
teaches) apply to all
people.
Most Christians believe
that only parts dealing
with the moral law (as
opposed to ceremonial
law) are still applicable,
others believe that none
apply, dual-covenant
theologians believe that
the Old Covenant
remains valid only for
Jews, and a minority
have the view that all parts still apply to believers in Jesus and in the New Covenant.
Catholic
Distinct Views
Theologian Thomas Aquinas explained that there are three types of biblical precepts:
moral, ceremonial, and judicial. He holds that moral precepts are permanent, having
held even before the Law was given, since they are part of the law of nature.
Ceremonial precepts (the "ceremonial law", dealing with forms of worshipping God and
with ritual cleanness) and judicial precepts (such as those in Exodus 21) came into
Page 53 of 132

existence only with the Law of Moses and were only temporary. The ceremonial
commands were "ordained to the Divine worship for that particular time and to the
foreshadowing of Christ". Accordingly, upon the coming of Christ they ceased to bind,
and to observe them now would, Aquinas thought, be equivalent to declaring falsely that
Christ has not yet come, for Christians a mortal sin.
However, while the judicial laws ceased to bind with the advent of Christ, it was not a
mortal sin to enforce them. Aquinas says, "if a sovereign were to order these judicial
precepts to be observed in his kingdom, he would not sin." Although Aquinas believed
the specifics of the Old Testament judicial laws were no longer binding, he taught that
the judicial precepts contained universal principles of justice that reflected natural law.
Thus some scholars refer to his views on government as "General Equity Theonomy."
Unlike the ceremonial and judicial precepts, moral commands continue to bind, and are
summed up in the Ten Commandments (though the assigning of the weekly holiday to
Saturday is ceremonial). The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
"2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for
Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; the Second Vatican
Council confirms: 'The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord ... the
mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all
men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the
Commandments.'"
2070. The Ten Commandments belong to God's revelation. At the same time they teach
us the true humanity of man. They bring to light the essential duties, and therefore,
indirectly, the fundamental rights inherent in the nature of the human person. The
Decalogue contains a privileged expression of the natural law: "From the beginning,
God had implanted in the heart of man the precepts of the natural law. Then he was
content to remind him of them. This was the Decalogue" (St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 4,
15, 1: PG 7/1, 1012).
2072. Since they express man's fundamental duties towards God and towards his
neighbour, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave
obligations. They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and
everywhere. No one can dispense from them. The Ten Commandments are engraved
by God in the human heart.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Apostles instituted the religious
celebration of Sunday without transferring to it the ceremonial obligations associated
with the Jewish Sabbath, although later some of these obligations became attached to
Sunday, not without opposition within the Church. The Roman Catholic Church thus
applies to Sunday, the Lord's Day, the Third Commandment.
Lutheran
Article V of the Formula of Concord (1577) of the Lutheran Church declares:
Page 54 of 132

“ We believe, teach, and confess that the distinction between the Law and the Gospel is to be
maintained in the Church with great diligence as an especially brilliant light, by which, according
to the admonition of St. Paul, the Word of God is rightly divided. ”
The distinction between Law and Gospel is that Law demands obedience to God's will,
while Gospel refers to the promise of forgiveness of sins in the light of the person and
work of Jesus Christ. Between 1580 and 1713 (considered the age of Lutheran
Orthodoxy) this principle was considered of fundamental importance by Lutheran
theologians.
The foundation of evangelical Lutheran biblical exegesis and exposition is contained in
the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (Article 4) (1531):
All Scripture ought to be distributed into these two principal topics, the Law and the
promises. For in some places it presents the Law, and in others the promise concerning
Christ, namely, either when [in the Old Testament] it promises that Christ will come, and
offers, for His sake, the remission of sins justification, and life eternal, or when, in the
Page 55 of 132

Gospel [in the New Testament], Christ Himself, since He has appeared, promises the
remission of sins, justification, and life eternal.
Lutherans, quoting Colossians 2 and Romans 14, believe that circumcision and the
other Old Testament ceremonial laws no longer apply to Christians.
Reformed
The view of the Reformed churches or Calvinism, referred to as Covenant Theology, is
similar to the Roman Catholic view in holding that Mosaic Law continues under the New
Covenant, while declaring that parts of it have "expired" and are no longer applicable.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) divides the Mosaic laws into three
categories: moral, civil, and ceremonial. In the view of the Westminster Divines, only the
moral laws of the Mosaic Law, which include the Ten Commandments and the
commands repeated in the New Testament, directly apply to Christians today.
Ceremonial laws, in this view, include the regulations pertaining to ceremonial
cleanliness, festivals, diet, and the Levitical priesthood.
Advocates of this view hold that, while not always easy to do and overlap between
categories does occur, the divisions they make are possible and supported based on
information contained in the commands themselves; specifically to whom they are
addressed, whom or what they speak about, and their content. For example, a
ceremonial law might be addressed to the Levites, speak of purification or holiness and
have content that could be considered as a foreshadowing of some aspect of Christ's
life or ministry. In keeping with this, most advocates also hold that when the Law is
spoken of as everlasting, it is in reference to certain divisions of the Law.
Anglican and Methodist
Anglican and Methodist theology regarding the Old Covenant is expressed by their
historic defining statements known as the Thirty-Nine Articles and Articles of Religion,
respectively.
Article 7 of the Church of England's 1563 version and other versions, as well as Article
VI of the Methodist Articles of Religion, specify only that Christians are bound by the
"commandments which are called moral," but not bound by the ceremonial, ritual, or
civil laws from the "law of Moses."
Dispensationalism
As a theological system, Dispensationalism is rooted in the writings of John Nelson
Darby (1800–1882) and the Brethren Movement, but it has never been formally defined
and incorporates several variants. Dispensationists divide the Bible into varying
numbers of separate dispensations or ages. Traditional dispensationalists believe only
the New Testament applies to the church of today whereas hyperdispensationalists
Page 56 of 132

elieve only the second half of the New Testament, starting either in the middle of Acts
or at Acts 28, applies.
Wayne G. Strickland, professor of theology at the Multnomah University, claims that his
(not necessarily "the") Dispensationalist view is that "the age of the church has rendered
the law inoperative".
This view holds that Mosaic Laws and the penalties attached to them were limited to the
particular historical and theological setting of the Old Testament. In that view, the Law
was given to Israel and does not apply since the age of the New Covenant.
Replacing the Mosaic Law is the “Law of Christ”, which however holds definite
similarities with the Mosaic Law in moral concerns, but is new and different, replacing
the original Law. Despite this difference, Dispensationalists continue to seek to find
moral and religious principles applicable for today in Mosaic Law.
Believing the New Covenant to be a new dispensation, George R. Law has proposed
that the Law of Christ is recorded in Matthew 5-7. He suggests that Matthew’s record of
Page 57 of 132

the Sermon on the Mount is structured similar to the literary form of an ancient Near
Eastern covenant treaty. Law’s theory is built on the work of Viktor Korošec, Donald J.
Wiseman, and George E. Mendenhall. This new covenant form, like other variations of
the covenant form throughout ancient history, can be identified by its combination of
ancient covenant elements. If this record in Matthew can be identified as the record of
the promised New Covenant, then its contents can also be identified as the formal
presentation of the Law of Christ (and includes Christ’s new Ten Commandments).
One view of Dispensationalism divides the Bible into these seven periods:
1. of innocence (Gen 1:1–3:7), prior to Adam's fall;
2. of conscience (Gen 3:8–8:22), Adam to Noah;
3. of government (Gen 9:1–11:32), Noah to Abraham;
4. of patriarchal rule (Gen 12:1–Exod 19:25), Abraham to Moses;
5. of the Mosaic Law (Exod 20:1–Acts 2:4), Moses to Jesus;
6. of grace (Acts 2:4–Rev 20:3), the current church age; and
7. of a literal, earthly 1,000-year Millennial Kingdom that has yet to come (Rev
20:4–20:6).
A misunderstanding of Dispensationalism sees the covenant of Sinai (dispensation #5)
to have been replaced by the gospel (dispensation #6). However, Dispensationalists
believe that ethnic Israel, distinct from the church, and on the basis of the Sinai
covenant, are featured in New Testament promises, which they interpret as referring to
a future time associated with the Millennium of Revelation 20 (dispensation #7). In
Dispensational thought, although the time from Jesus' resurrection until his return (or
the advent of the Millennium) is dominated by the proclamation of the gospel, the Sinai
covenant is neither terminated nor replaced, rather it is "quiescent" awaiting a fulfillment
at the Millennium. This time of Jewish restoration has an especially prominent place
within Dispensationalism, see also Christian Zionism.
Theonomy
Starting in the 1970s and 1980s, an obscure branch of Calvinism known as Christian
Reconstructionism argued that the civil laws as well as the moral laws should be applied
in today's society (a position called Theonomy) as part of establishing a modern
theonomic state. This view is a break from the traditional Reformed position, including
that of John Calvin and the Puritans, which holds that the civil laws have been
abrogated though they remain useful as guidance and revelation of God's character.
Some theonomists go further and embrace the idea that the whole Law continues to
function, contending that the way in which Christians observe some commands has
changed but not the content or meaning of the commands. For example, they would say
that the ceremonial commands regarding Passover were looking forward to Christ's
sacrificial death and the Communion mandate is looking back on it, the former is given
to the Levitical priesthood and the latter is given to the priesthood of all believers, but
both have the same content and meaning.
Page 58 of 132

New Covenant Theology
New Covenant Theology (or NCT), is a recently expressed Christian theological system
on this issue that incorporates aspects of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology.
NCT claims that all Old Covenant laws have been fulfilled by Christ and are thus
cancelled or abrogated in favor of the Law of Christ or New Covenant law. This can be
summarized as the ethical expectation found in the New Testament. Thus NCT rejects
antinomianism as they do not reject religious law, only the Old Covenant law. NCT is in
contrast with other views on Biblical law in that most other Christian churches do not
believe the Ten Commandments and other Divine laws of the Old Covenant have been
"cancelled."
New Covenant theologians see the Law of Christ or New Testament Law as actually
including many of the Divine Laws, thus, even though all Old Covenant laws have been
cancelled, many have still been renewed under the Law of Christ. This is a conclusion
similar to older Christian theological systems on this issue, that some Old Covenant
laws are still valid, but this understanding is reached in a different way. On the issue of
Page 59 of 132

the law, Dispensationalism is most similar to NCT, but New Covenant Theology may be
still evolving a coherent system that will better distinguish itself from it. Richard
Barcellos has criticized NCT for proposing that the Ten Commandments have been
cancelled.
Dual-Covenant Theology
Since the Nazi Holocaust, this question of whether Christianity requires a "triumphalist"
attitude towards Jews has become "very difficult" for Christians. In the past, Church's
traditions have held the "supersessionist" view that under the New Covenant the
Christian people were the new "spiritual" Israel, further, that "the old 'carnal' Israel had
been "superseded".
Many Christians now reject the supersessionist view. In direct contrast with
Supersessionism (and also the doctrines of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and Solus
Christus) is Dual-covenant theology. This is a Liberal Christian view that holds that
God's biblical covenant with the Jewish people is "everlasting."
Torah Observant
Torah-observant Christians view Mosaic Law as of continuing validity and applicability
for Christians under the new covenant. This view is based on the idea that Jesus, as the
Son of God and Messiah, could not and did not change the standard of Godly
obedience, but rather affirmed both the "weightier" and "lesser" matters of Torah for
those who have put their faith in him. There are both ethnically Jewish and Gentile
Torah-observant Christians.
Law-Related Passages with Disputed Interpretation
The Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament describes a conflict among the first
Christians as to the necessity of following all the laws of the Torah to the letter, see also
Council of Jerusalem and Incident at Antioch.
Some have interpreted the NRSV's parenthetical statement: "(Thus he declared all
foods clean.)" to mean that Jesus taught that the pentateuchal food laws were no longer
applicable to his followers, see also Antinomianism in the New Testament. The
parenthetical statement is not found in the NRSV's Matthean parallel Matthew 15:15–20
and is a disputed translation, for example, the Scholars Version has: "This is how
everything we eat is purified"; Gaus' Unvarnished New Testament has: "purging all that
is eaten." See also Strong's G2511.
The disputed word is καθαρός meaning "purity". Gerhard Kittel writes "It is of the
essence of NT religion that the older, ritual concept of purity is not merely transcended,
but rejected as non-obligatory. Religious and moral purity replaced ritual and cultic."
Jesus develops his doctrine of purity in his struggle against Pharisaism and in Matthew
23:25–26 he rejects observance of ritual purity regulations because this kind of purity is
Page 60 of 132

merely external. What defiles a person comes from within, from the human heart Mark
7:20-23
Others note that Peter had never eaten anything that was not kosher many years after
Acts 2 (Pentecost). To the heavenly vision he announced: "Not so, Lord; for I have
never eaten any thing that is common or unclean." Therefore, Peter was unaware that
Jesus had changed the Mosaic food laws, implying that Jesus did not change these
rules. Later in Acts, it should be noted that Peter realizes the vision is in reference to the
gentiles now cleaned through Christ. In Mark 7, Jesus may have been just referring to a
tradition of the Pharisees about eating with unwashed hands. The expression "purging
all meats" may have meant the digestion and elimination of food from the body rather
than the declaration that all foods were kosher. The confusion primarily centers around
the participle used in the original Greek for "purging". Some scholars believe it agrees
with the word for Jesus, which is nearly 40 words away from the participle. If this is the
case, then it would mean that Jesus himself is the one doing the purifying. In New
Testament Greek, however, the participle is rarely that far away from the noun it
modifies, and many scholars agree that it is far more likely that the participle is
modifying the digestive process (literally: the latrine), which is only two words away.
Still others believe a partial list of the commandments was merely an abbreviation that
stood for all the commandments because Jesus prefaced his statement to the rich
young ruler with the statement: "If you want to enter life, obey the commandments".
Some people claim that since Jesus did not qualify his pronouncement, that he meant
all the commandments. The rich young ruler asked "which" commandments. Jesus
gave him a partial list. The first set of commandments deal with a relationship to God
(Hebrew: בין האדם למקום bein ha'adam lamakom). The second set of commandments
deal with a relationship to men (Hebrew: בין האדם לאדם bein ha'adam la'adam). No
doubt Jesus considered the relationship to God important, but Jesus may have
Page 61 of 132

considered that the young man was perhaps lacking in this second set, which made him
obligated to men. (This is implied by his statement that to be perfect he should sell his
goods, give them to the poor and come and follow Jesus — thereby opening to him a
place in the coming Kingdom.)
Several times Paul mentioned adhering to "the Law" and preached about Ten
Commandment topics such as "idolatry". See also Law of Christ. Many Christians
believe that the Sermon on the Mount is a form of commentary on the Ten
Commandments. In the Expounding of the Law, Jesus said that he did not come to
abolish the Law, but to fulfill it (e.g. Mathew 5:17–18 "Do not think that I came to destroy
the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to
you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the
law till all is fulfilled); while in Marcion's version of Luke 23:2 we find the extension: "We
found this fellow perverting the nation and destroying the law and the prophets". See
also Adherence to the Law and Antithesis of the Law.
Hellenism
History and Background
The conquests of Alexander the Great in the late 4th century BC spread Greek culture
and colonization over non-Greek lands, including Judea and Galilee, and gave rise to
the Hellenistic age, which sought to create a common or universal culture in the
Alexandrian or Macedonian Empire based on that of 5th and 4th century BC Athens
(see also Age of Pericles), along with a fusion of Near Eastern cultures.
This synthesised Hellenistic culture had a profound impact on the customs and
practices of Jews, both in the Land of Israel and in the Diaspora. There was a cultural
standoff between the Jewish and Greek cultures. The inroads into Judaism gave rise to
Hellenistic Judaism in the Jewish diaspora which attempted to establish the Hebraic-
Jewish religious tradition within the culture and language of Hellenism. The major
literary product of the movement was the Septuagint and major authors were Philo of
Alexandria and Josephus. Some scholars consider Paul of Tarsus a Hellenist as well,
see also Paul of Tarsus and Judaism.
There was a general deterioration in relations between hellenized Jews and religious
Jews, leading the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes to ban certain Jewish religious
rites and traditions, his aim being to turn Jerusalem into a Greek polis, to be named
Antiochia. Specifically, he decreed the death penalty for anyone who observed the
sabbath or practiced circumcision, rededicated the Jewish Temple to Zeus, and forced
Jews to eat pork. Consequently, the orthodox Jews revolted against the Greek ruler
leading to the formation of an independent Jewish kingdom, known as the Hasmonaean
Dynasty, which lasted from 165 BCE to 63 BCE. The Hasmonean Dynasty eventually
disintegrated in a civil war. The people, who did not want to continue to be governed by
a corrupt and hellenized dynasty, appealed to Rome for intervention, leading to a total
Roman conquest and annexation of the country, see Iudaea province.
Page 62 of 132

Nevertheless, the cultural issues remained unresolved. The main issue separating the
Hellenistic and orthodox Jews was the application of biblical laws in a Hellenistic
(melting pot) culture. One issue was circumcision, which was repulsive to a Greek mind.
Some theorize that the early Christians came largely from the group of hellenized Jews
who were less attached to Jewish rituals, philosophies and practices. See also Anti-
Judaism.
Paul the Apostle and Biblical Law
Some scholars see Paul the Apostle (or Saul) as completely in line with 1st-century
Judaism (a "Pharisee" and student of Gamaliel), others see him as opposed to 1stcentury
Judaism (see Pauline passages supporting antinomianism and Marcionism),
while still others see him as somewhere in between these two extremes, opposed to
"Ritual Laws" such as circumcision but in full agreement on "Divine Law". These views
of Paul are paralleled by the views of Biblical law in Christianity. See also Expounding of
the Law versus Antithesis of the Law and Christianity in the 1st century.
Page 63 of 132

Council of Jerusalem
The Council of Jerusalem of about 50 AD was the first meeting in early Christianity
called upon to consider the application of Mosaic Law to the new community.
Specifically, it had to consider whether new Gentile converts to Christianity were
obligated to undergo circumcision for full membership in the Christian community, but it
was conscious that the issue had wider implications, since circumcision is the
"everlasting" sign of the Abrahamic Covenant.
Modern differences over the interpretation of this come from the understanding of the
use of the word "Law" in Paul's writings (example: Gal 3:10) as referring only to Mosaic
Law (Torah) but in 1st century Hebrew understanding had multiple meanings which also
included Jewish and Roman civil laws.
At the time, the Christian community would have considered itself a part of the wider
Jewish community, with most of the leaders of the Church being Jewish or Jewish
proselytes.
The decision of the Council came to be called the Apostolic Decree and was that most
Mosaic law, including the requirement for circumcision of males, was not obligatory for
Gentile converts, possibly in order to make it easier for them to join the movement.
However, the Council did retain the prohibitions against eating meat containing "blood",
or meat of animals not properly slain, and against "fornication" and "idol worship".
Beginning with Augustine of Hippo, many have seen a connection to Noahide Law,
while some modern scholars reject the connection to Noahide Law and instead see Lev
17-18 as the basis. See also Old Testament Law applicable to converts and Leviticus
18.
Noted in Acts 15:19-21, James tells the Jewish believers to understand his reasoning
for writing letters to Gentile believers when he says, "For Moses has been preached in
every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."
Knowing the new converts would have to attend a synagogue in order to learn the
history of Israel and the Church, James set the Gentile believers up with a beginning
attitude of precaution towards those who would preach Moses' Law as a requirement for
Gentile believers.
The Apostolic decree may be a major act of differentiation of the Church from its Jewish
roots, the first being the Rejection of Jesus. Although the outcome is not inconsistent
with the Jewish view on the applicability of Mosaic Law to non-Jews, the Decree created
a category of persons who were members of the Christian community (which still
considered itself to be part of the Jewish community) who were not considered to be full
converts by the wider Jewish community. In the wider Jewish community these partial
converts were welcomed (a common term for them being God fearers, similar to the
modern movement of B'nei Noah, see dual covenant theology), but they as Gentiles
were excluded from the Temple proper and certain rituals. This created problems
Page 64 of 132

especially when the Christian community had become dominated by former Gentiles
with less understanding of the reasons for the dispute.
Marcion
In the middle of the second century, bishop Marcion proposed rejecting the entire
Jewish Bible, indeed he considered the God portrayed there to be a lesser deity, a
demiurge. His position however was strongly rejected by Proto-orthodox Christianity,
notably Tertullian and Irenaeus. The terms Old Testament and New Testament are
traditionally ascribed to Tertullian, but some scholars instead propose Marcion as the
source while other scholars propose that Melito of Sardis coined the phrase Old
Testament.
Johannes Agricola
In 1525, Johannes Agricola advanced the doctrine that the Law was no longer needed
by regenerate Christians. This position however was strongly rejected by Luther and in
the Formula of Concord as antinomianism.
Leo Tolstoy
In 1894, Leo Tolstoy published The Kingdom of God Is Within You, in which he
advanced the doctrine that Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, including its Antithesis of the
Page 65 of 132

Law, was the true message of Jesus. Although Tolstoy never actually used the term
"Christian anarchism", reviews of his book appear to have coined the term.
Recent Scholarship
Recent scholars influential in the debate regarding the law include F. F. Bruce, Rudolf
Bultmann, Heikki Räisänen, Klyne Snodgrass, C. E. B. Cranfield, and others, as well as
some of those involved with the New Perspectives movement.
In 1993 Zondervan published The Law, the Gospel, and the Modern Christian: Five
Views (and apparently republished it as Five Views on Law and Gospel) in which its
authors presented and debated five modern Protestant views on the topic. Willem A.
VanGemeren presented a non-theonomic Reformed view, Greg L. Bahnsen presented
the theonomic Reformed view, Walter C. Kaiser Jr. presented his own view, Wayne G.
Strickland presented his own Dispensational view, and Douglas J. Moo presented what
he calls a modified Lutheran view but is in all but name a New Covenant Theology
approach.
Page 66 of 132

V. The [New Testament]
Law of Christ
"The law of Christ" (ὁ νόμος τοῦ Χριστοῦ) is a New Testament phrase of uncertain
meaning, found only in the Pauline Epistles at Galatians 6:2 and parenthetically
(ἔννομος Χριστῷ "being under the law to Christ") at 1 Corinthians 9:21.
The majority Christian theology, known as supersessionism, states that this either
"replaces" or "completes" or "fulfills" the previous Law of Moses of the Hebrew Bible.
Dual-covenant theologians are an example of a group that reject this belief.
Closely related are the subjects of Christian views on the Old Covenant, early
Christianity and Judaism, Paul the Apostle and Judaism, abrogation of old covenant
laws, and Christian ethics.
In The Pauline Epistles
In the Epistle to the Galatians, written by the Apostle Paul to a number of early Christian
communities in the Roman province of Galatia in central Anatolia, he wrote: "Bear one
another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." (Galatians 6:2, NKJV). This could be
an allusion either to the Second greatest commandment ("love thy neighbor") or the
New Commandment ("love one another").
Possibly related, in a letter to the early Christians of Corinth, Greece, in the First Epistle
to the Corinthians, Paul wrote: "To those not having the law I became like one not
having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to
win those not having the law." (1 Corinthians 9:21, NIV).
It is not clear exactly what Paul means by the phrase, "the law of Christ". Although Paul
mentions Biblical law several times (e.g., Romans 2:12–16, 3:31, 7:12, 8:7–8, Galatians
Page 67 of 132

5:3, Acts 24:14, 25:8) and preached about Ten Commandment topics such as idolatry
(e.g., 1 Corinthians 5:11, 6:9–10, 10:7, 10:14, Galatians 5:19–21, Ephesians 5:5,
Colossians 3:5, Acts 17:16–21, 19:23–41), he consistently denies that salvation, or
justification before God, is based on "works of the law" (e.g., Galatians 3:6-14), though
the meaning of this phrase is also disputed by scholars, see for example the New
Perspective on Paul#Works of the Law.
In The Gospels
Many Christians believe that the Sermon on the Mount is a form of commentary on the
Ten Commandments. It portrays Christ as the true interpreter of the Mosaic Law. In the
Expounding of the Law, Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law or the
prophets, but to fulfill them (Matthew 5:17). In the apocryphal Gospel of Marcion's
version of Luke 23:2 we find the extension: "We found this fellow perverting the nation
and destroying the law and the prophets".
While the New Testament records several unique sayings of Jesus that may be
described as "commandments," it only records one that he explicitly identified as such.
This is the New Commandment of John 13:34-35 that the disciples should love one
another as he himself had loved them.
These commandments are commonly seen as a basis of Christian ethics.
In The Epistle of James
James 2:8-13 uses the phrases of "royal law" and "law of liberty" in reference to the
Second greatest commandment, part of Leviticus 19:18:
You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Theological Interpretations
In his Summa Theologiae I-II qq. 106-109, a section of the Summa known as the
Treatise on Law, Saint Thomas Aquinas discusses the Law of Christ as the "New Law".
He argues that it was virtually contained in the Old Law, that is the Old Testament, as a
seed but only brought to perfection by Jesus Christ who perfectly fulfilled it. The ends of
the Old and New are one and the same, being subjection to God's order, but they are
different in that the New Law makes attaining the end possible. Meanwhile, since all law
ultimately has reference to Divine Reason governing all things, the New Law contains
and helps the human being fulfill the Natural Law which prescribes acts of virtue. Thus,
Aquinas defines the New Law as "chiefly the grace itself of the Holy Ghost, which is
given to those who believe in Christ," but adds that it also "contains certain things that
dispose us to receive the grace of the Holy Ghost, and pertaining to the use of that
grace." Therefore,"the New Law is in the first place a law that is inscribed on our hearts,
but that secondarily it is a written law".(ST I-II q. 106.3)
Page 68 of 132

The Catholic theologian Bernhard Häring presents the Law of Christ as Christ himself in
his person because Jesus was able to fulfill the law and provide us with the effect of this
fulfillment.
The Evangelical theologian Douglas J. Moo argues that "the law of Christ" is strongly
connected to the Mosaic Law, for example that nine of the Ten Commandments are
included.
George R. Law argues that the New Covenant is the Law of Christ, and that the details
are expressed in the Sermon on the Mount.
Page 69 of 132

Page 70 of 132

VI. The Great Commission
In Christianity, The Great Commission is the instruction of the resurrected
Jesus Christ to his disciples to spread his teachings to all the nations of the world. The
most famous version of the Great Commission is in Matthew 28:16–20, where on a
mountain in Galilee Jesus calls on his followers to baptize all nations in the name of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The Great Commission is similar to the episodes of the commissioning of the Twelve
Apostles found in the other Synoptic Gospels, though with significant differences. Luke
also has Jesus dispatching disciples during his ministry, sending them to all the nations
and giving them power over demons, including the Seventy disciples. The dispersion of
the Apostles in the traditional ending of Mark is thought to be a 2nd-century summary
based on Matthew and Luke.
It has become a tenet in Christian theology emphasizing ministry, missionary work,
evangelism, and baptism. The apostles are said to have dispersed from Jerusalem and
founded the apostolic sees. Preterists believe that the Great Commission and other
Bible prophecies were fulfilled in the 1st century while futurists believe Bible prophecy is
yet to be fulfilled at the Second Coming.
Some students of historical Jesus hypothesize the Great Commission as reflecting not
Jesus' words but rather the Christian community in which each gospel was written. (See
Sayings of Jesus.) Some scholars, such as John Dominic Crossan, assert that Jesus
did commission the apostles during his lifetime, as reported in the Gospels. Others,
however, see even these lesser commissions as representing Christian invention rather
than history.
Page 71 of 132

History
It is unknown who coined the term Great Commission, but it was likely first used as a
summary for the passage by Justinian von Welz. However, it was popularized by
Hudson Taylor.
Scholars such as Eduard Riggenbach (in Der Trinitarische Taufbefehl) and J. H.
Oldham et al. (in The Missionary Motive) assert that even the very concept did not exist
until after the year 1650, and that Matthew 28:18–20 was traditionally interpreted as
having been addressed only to Jesus's disciples then living (believed to be up to 500),
and as having been carried out by them and fulfilled, not as a continuing obligation upon
subsequent generations.
New Testament accounts
The most familiar version of the Great Commission is depicted in Matthew 28:16–20,
Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed
them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came
and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go
therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and
of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded
you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Other versions of the Great Commission are found in Mark 16:14–18, Luke 24:44–49,
Acts 1:4–8, and John 20:19–23. In Luke, Jesus tells the disciples to preach repentance
and forgiveness, and promises that they will have divine power. In John, Jesus says the
disciples will have the Holy Spirit and the authority to forgive sins and to withhold
forgiveness. In Acts, Jesus promises the disciples that the Holy Spirit will inspire them.
All these passages are composed as words of Christ spoken after his resurrection.
The call to go into the world in Matthew 28 is prefaced a mere four chapters earlier
when Jesus states that the Gospel message will be heard by representatives of all
nations, at which time the end will come.
Interpretations
The commission from Jesus has been interpreted by evangelical Christians as meaning
that his followers have the duty to go, make disciples, teach, and baptize. Although the
command was initially given directly only to Christ's eleven Apostles, evangelical
Christian theology has typically interpreted the commission as a directive to all
Christians of every time and place, particularly because it seems to be a restatement or
moving forward of the last part of God's covenant with Abraham in Genesis 12:3. Some
Christians, like members of the Bruderhof Communities, see their life of church
community as taught in Acts 2 and 4, as their part of proclaiming the gospel to all men.
Page 72 of 132

Commentators often contrast the Great Commission with the earlier Limited
Commission of Matthew 10:5–42, in which they were to restrict their mission to their
fellow Jews, who Jesus referred to as "the lost sheep of the house of Israel". (Matthew
15:24)
Preterists believe that the Great Commission was already fulfilled based on the New
Testament passages "And they went out and preached everywhere" (Mark 16:20), "the
gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven"
(Colossians 1:23), and "Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel
and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has
been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the scriptures of the
prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to
all the nations" (Romans 16:25–26).
Page 73 of 132

The Jewish Encyclopedia: Gentiles: Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah states:
R. Emden ‏,(יעב"ץ)‏ in a remarkable apology for Christianity contained in his appendix to
"Seder 'Olam" (pp. 32b–34b, Hamburg, 1752), gives it as his opinion that the original
intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven
moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law — which explains the
apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and the
Sabbath.
Page 74 of 132

VII. The Greatest Commandment
The Great Commandment (or Greatest Commandment) is a
name used in the New Testament to describe the first of two commandments cited by
Jesus in Matthew 22:35–40 and Mark 12:28–34. These two commandments are
paraphrases taken from the Old Testament and are commonly seen as important to
Jewish and Christian ethics.
In Mark, when asked "which is the great commandment in the law?", the Greek New
Testament reports that Jesus answered, "Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God, The Lord is
One; Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with
all thy mind", before also referring to a second commandment, "Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself." Most Christian denominations consider these two
commandments to be the core of correct Christian lifestyle.
Page 75 of 132

New Testament Accounts
Gospel of Matthew
Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This
is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Gospel of Mark
— Matthew 22:35-40
In the Gospel of Mark, the Shema is included:
And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and
perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment
of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel;
The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first
commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Gospel of Luke
— Mark 12:28-31
And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I
do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest
thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and
with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as
thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
Gospel of John
— Luke 10:25-28
He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night. Therefore,
when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified
in him. If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall
straightway glorify him. Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me:
and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you. A new
commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye
also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have
love one to another. Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus
Page 76 of 132

answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me
afterwards.
— John 13:30-36
Deuteronomy
Old Testament References
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy
God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Leviticus
— Deuteronomy 6:4-5
17[a]
You must not hate your brother in your heart.
17[b]
You must surely reprove your fellow citizen
17[c]
so that you do not incur sin on account of him.
18[a]
You must not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the children of your people,
Page 77 of 132

[18b]
but you must love your neighbor as yourself.
[18c]
I am the LORD.
— Leviticus 19:17-18
Love the Lord thy God
Matthew Henry sums up the question of which is the great commandment:
It was a question disputed among the critics in the Law. Some would have the Law of
Circumcision to be the Great Commandment, others the Law of the Sabbath, others the
Law of Sacrifices, according as they severally stood affected, and spent their zeal; now
they would try what Christ said to this question, hoping to incense the people against
him, if he should not answer according to the vulgar opinion; and if he should magnify
one commandment, they would reflect on him as vilifying the rest.
Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on the Bible, wrote:
This is the first and great commandment. It is "first and greatest":
1. In its antiquity; being as old as the world, and engraved originally on our very
nature.
2. In its dignity; as directly and immediately proceeding from and referring to God.
3. In its excellence; being the commandment of the new covenant, and the very
spirit of the Divine adoption.
4. In its justice; because it alone renders to God his due, prefers him before all
things, and secures to him his proper rank in relation to them.
5. In its sufficiency; being in itself capable of making men holy in this life, and happy
in the other.
6. In its fruitfulness; because it is the root of all commandments, and the fulfilling of
the law.
7. In its virtue and efficacy; because by this alone God reigns in the heart of
humans, and humans are united to God.
8. In its extent; leaving nothing to the creature, which it does not refer to the
Creator.
9. In its necessity; being absolutely indispensable.
10. In its duration; being ever to be continued on earth, and never to be discontinued
in heaven.
Page 78 of 132

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God" is explained to mean "Act in such a manner that God
will be beloved by all His creatures." Consequently, Israel, being, as the priest-people,
enjoined like the Aaronite priest to sanctify the name of God and avoid whatever tends
to desecrate it (Lev. xxii. 32), is not only obliged to give his life as witness or martyr for
the maintenance of the true faith (see Isa. xliii. 12, μάρτυρες; and Pesik. 102b; Sifra,
Emor, ix.), but so to conduct himself in every way as to prevent the name of God from
being dishonored by non-Israelites.
Twice every day the Jew recites the Shema Yisrael, which contains the words: "Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy might"
(Deut. vi. 5). This verse is understood to enjoin him to willingly surrender life and fortune
whenever the cause of God demands it, while it at the same time urges him to make
God beloved by all his creatures through deeds of kindness, as Abraham did (Sifre,
Deut. 32).
Although only asked about the first commandment, Jesus included the second
commandment in his answer. This double reference has given rise to differing views
with regard to the relationship that exists between the two commandments, although
Page 79 of 132

typically "love thy God" is referred to as "the first and greatest commandment", with
"love thy neighbour" being referred to as "the second great commandment". It may
simply reflect the "seven rules (Middot) of Hillel", in this case the first one, called Ḳal wa-
‏.(וחומר קל (Hebrew: ḥomer
Love Thy Neighbour as Thyself
When asked which is the greatest commandment, the Christian New Testament depicts
Jesus paraphrasing the Torah: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and
with all thy soul, and with all thy mind," before also paraphrasing a second passage;
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Most Christian denominations view these two
commandments as, together, forming the core of the Christian religion. The second
passage is considered to be a form of the Golden Rule (circa 1300 BCE).
Page 80 of 132

VIII. The Sermon on The Mount
The Sermon on The Mount (anglicized from the Matthean Vulgate Latin
section title: Sermo in monte) is a collection of sayings and teachings of Jesus, which
emphasizes his moral teaching found in the Gospel of Matthew (chapters 5, 6, and 7). It
is the first of the Five Discourses of Matthew and takes place relatively early in the
Ministry of Jesus after he has been baptized by John the Baptist and preached in
Galilee.
The Sermon is the longest continuous section of Jesus speaking found in the New
Testament, and has been one of the most widely quoted elements of the Canonical
Gospels. It includes some of the best known teachings of Jesus, such as the
Beatitudes, and the widely recited Lord's Prayer. The Sermon on the Mount is generally
considered to contain the central tenets of Christian discipleship.
Background and Setting
The Sermon on the Mount is the longest piece of teaching from Jesus in the New
Testament, and occupies chapters 5, 6 and 7 of the Gospel of Matthew. The Sermon
has been one of the most widely quoted elements of the Canonical Gospels.
Page 81 of 132

This is the first of the Five Discourses of Matthew, the other four being Matthew 10,
Matthew 13 (1–53), Matthew 18 and the Olivet discourse in Matthew 24.
The Sermon is set early in the Ministry of Jesus, after he has been baptized by John the
Baptist in chapter 3 of Matthew's Gospel and gathered his first disciples in chapter 4.
Before this episode, Jesus had been "all about Galilee" preaching, as in Matthew 4:23,
and "great crowds followed him" from all around the area. The setting for the sermon is
given in Matthew 5:1-2. Jesus sees the multitudes, goes up into the mountain, is
followed by his disciples, and begins to preach. The sermon is brought to its close by
Matthew 8:1, which reports that Jesus "came down from the mountain followed by great
multitudes".
Components
While the issue of the exact theological structure and composition of the Sermon on the
Mount is subject to debate among scholars, specific components within it, each
associated with particular teachings, can be identified.
Matthew 5:3–12 discusses the Beatitudes. These describe the character of the people
of the Kingdom of Heaven, expressed as "blessings". The Greek word most versions of
the Gospel render as "blessed," can also be translated "happy". (See Matthew 5:3–12 of
Young's Literal Translation for an example.) In Matthew, there are eight (or nine)
blessings, while in Luke there are four, followed by four woes.
In almost all cases the phrases used in the Beatitudes are familiar from an Old
Testament context, but in the sermon Jesus gives them new meaning. Together, the
Beatitudes present a new set of ideals that focus on love and humility rather than force
and exaction; they echo the highest ideals of Jesus' teachings on spirituality and
compassion.
In Christian teachings, the Works of Mercy, which have corporal and spiritual
components, have resonated with the theme of the Beatitude for mercy. These
teachings emphasize that these acts of mercy provide both temporal and spiritual
benefits.
Matthew 5:13–16 presents the metaphors of salt and light. This completes the profile of
God's people presented in the beatitudes, and acts as the introduction to the next
section.
There are two parts in this section, using the terms "salt of the earth" and Light of the
World to refer to the disciples – implying their value. Elsewhere, in John 8:12, Jesus
applies Light of the World to himself.
Page 82 of 132

Jesus preaches about hell and what hell is like: "But I say unto you, That whosoever is
angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and
whosoever shall say to his brother "Raca (fool)" shall be in danger of the council: but
whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Matthew 5:22 KJV
The longest discourse in the Sermon is Matthew 5:17–48, traditionally referred to as the
Antitheses or Matthew's Antitheses though Gundry disputes that title. In the discourse,
Jesus fulfills and reinterprets the Old Covenant and in particular its Ten
Commandments, contrasting with what "you have heard" from others. For example, he
advises turning the other cheek, and to love your enemies, in contrast to taking an eye
for an eye. According to most interpretations of Matthew 5:17, 18, 19, and 20, and most
Christian views of the Old Covenant, these new interpretations of the Law and Prophets
are not opposed to the Old Testament, which was the position of Marcion, but form
Jesus' new teachings which bring about salvation, and hence must be adhered to, as
emphasized in Matthew 7:24–27 towards the end of the sermon.
In Matthew 6 Jesus condemns doing what would normally be "good works" simply for
recognition and not from the heart, such as those of alms (6:1–4), prayer (6:5–15), and
Page 83 of 132

fasting (6:16–18). The discourse goes on to condemn the superficiality of materialism
and call the disciples not to worry about material needs, but to "seek" God's kingdom
first. Within the discourse on ostentation, Matthew presents an example of correct
prayer. Luke places this in a different context. The Lord's prayer (6:9–13) contains
parallels to 1 Chronicles 29:10–18.
The first part of Matthew 7, i.e. Matthew 7:1–6 deals with judging. Jesus condemns
those who judge others before first judging themselves: "Judge not, that ye be not
judged."
In the last part in Matthew 7:7–29 Jesus concludes the sermon by warning against false
prophets.
Teachings and Theology
The teachings of the Sermon on the Mount have been a key element of Christian ethics,
and for centuries the sermon has acted as a fundamental recipe for the conduct of the
followers of Jesus. Various religious and moral thinkers (e.g. Tolstoy and Gandhi) have
admired its message, and it has been one of the main sources of Christian pacifism.
In the 5th century, Saint Augustine began his book Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount by
stating:
If any one will piously and soberly consider the sermon which our Lord Jesus Christ
spoke on the mount, as we read it in the Gospel according to Matthew, I think that he
will find in it, so far as regards the highest morals, a perfect standard of the Christian life
The last verse of chapter 5 of Matthew (5:48) is a focal point of the sermon that
summarizes its teachings by advising the disciples to seek perfection." The Greek word
telios used to refer to perfection also implies an end, or destination, advising the
disciples to seek the path towards perfection and the Kingdom of God. It teaches that
God's children are those who act like God.
The teachings of the sermon are often referred to as the Ethics of the Kingdom: they
place a high level of emphasis on "purity of the heart" and embody the basic standard of
Christian righteousness.
Theological Structure
The issue of the theological structure and composition of the Sermon on the Mount
remains unresolved. One group of theologians ranging from Saint Augustine in the 5th
century to Michael Goulder in the 20th century, see the Beatitudes as the central
element of the Sermon. Others such as Bornkamm see the Sermon arranged around
the Lord's prayer, while Daniel Patte, closely followed by Ulrich Luz, see a chiastic
Page 84 of 132

structure in the sermon. Dale Allison and Glen Stassen have proposed a structure
based on triads. Jack Kingsbury and Hans Dieter Betz see the sermon as composed of
theological themes, e.g. righteousness or way of life.
Interpretations
Analysis and Interpretation
The high ethical standards of the sermon have been interpreted in a wide variety of
ways by different Christian groups and Craig S. Keener states that at least 36 different
interpretations regarding the message of the Sermon exist, which he divides into 8
categories of views:
1. The predominant medieval view, "reserving a higher ethic for clergy, especially in
monastic orders"
2. Luther's view that it represents an impossible demand like the Law of Moses
3. The Anabaptist literal view which directly applies the teachings
4. The Social Gospel view
5. The Christian existentialism view
6. Schweitzer's view of an imminent eschatology referring to an interim ethic
7. Dispensational eschatology which refers to a future Kingdom of God
Page 85 of 132

8. Inaugurated eschatology in which the Sermon's ethics remain a goal to be
approached, yet realized later
Anabaptist groups would hold the Sermon on the Mount to be the primary section of the
Gospels that gives direction to how a Christian should live. For example, Matthew 6:24
says "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other;
or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and
mammon." For this reason, certain Anabaptist groups such as the Bruderhof and
Hutterites share all their possessions.
Comparison with the Sermon On The Plain
While Matthew groups Jesus' teachings into sets of similar material, the same material
is scattered when found in Luke. The Sermon on the Mount may be compared with the
similar but more succinct Sermon on the Plain as recounted by the Gospel of Luke
(6:17–49), which occurs at the same moment in Luke's narrative, and also features
Jesus heading up a mountain, but giving the sermon on the way down at a level spot.
Some scholars believe that they are the same sermon, while others hold that Jesus
frequently preached similar themes in different places.
Comparison with Buddhist Teachings
Although modern parallels between the teachings of Jesus and Buddhist philosophy
(concerning both the principle of dependent origination and the concept of no-self as a
basis for morality) have been drawn (by the 14th Dalai Lama for example), these
comparisons emerged after missionary contacts in the 19th century, and there is no
historically reliable evidence of contacts between Buddhism and Jesus during his life.
Modern scholarship has almost unanimously agreed that claims of the travels of Jesus
to Tibet, Kashmir or India (see Unknown years of Jesus) and the influence of Buddhism
on his teachings are without historical basis.
According to the Perennial Philosophy
According to perennialist author Frithjof Schuon, the message of the Sermon is a
perfect synthesis of the whole Christian tradition. The text has the largest number of
perennial and universal doctrines, and spiritual advice of all Scripture. Much of what
Bible readers remember from Scripture derives from the Sermon. Source of spiritual
and moral instructions, the Sermon on the Mount is regarded by the Perennial
Philosophy "as the quintessence itself of religion". Perennialism considers the
injunctions of the Sermon on the Mount as belonging to the esoteric dimension of
Christianity.
Page 86 of 132

IX. Law and Gospel
In Protestant Christianity, the relationship between Law and Gospel—God's Law
and the Gospel of Jesus Christ—is a major topic in Lutheran and Reformed theology. In
these religious traditions, the distinction between the doctrines of Law, which demands
obedience to God's ethical will, and Gospel, which promises the forgiveness of sins in
light of the person and work of Jesus Christ, is critical. Ministers use it as a
hermeneutical principle of biblical interpretation and as a guiding principle in homiletics
(sermon composition) and pastoral care. It involves the supersession of the Old
Covenant (including traditional Jewish law, or halakha) by the New Covenant and
Christian theology.
Other Christian groups have a view on the issue as well, or more generally views of the
Old Covenant, though the matter has not usually been as hotly debated or rigorously
defined as in the Lutheran and Reformed traditions.
Page 87 of 132

Sometimes the issue is discussed under the headings of "Law and Grace", "Sin and
Grace", "Spirit and Letter", and "ministry (διακονíα, diakonia) of death/condemnation"
and "ministry of the Spirit/righteousness".
Martin Luther and Lutheran Theologians
Lutheran View
A specific formulation of the distinction of Law and Gospel was first brought to the
attention of the Christian Church by Martin Luther (1483–1546), and laid down as the
foundation of evangelical Lutheran biblical exegesis and exposition in Article 4 of the
Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1531): "All Scripture ought to be distributed into
these two principal topics, the Law and the promises. For in some places it presents the
Law, and in others the promise concerning Christ, namely, either when [in the Old
Testament] it promises that Christ will come, and offers, for His sake, the remission of
sins, justification, and life eternal, or when, in the Gospel [in the New Testament], Christ
Himself, since He has appeared, promises the remission of sins, justification, and life
eternal.". The Formula of Concord likewise affirmed this distinction in Article V, where it
states: "We believe, teach, and confess that the distinction between the Law and the
Gospel is to be maintained in the Church with great diligence..."
Martin Luther wrote: "Hence, whoever knows well this art of distinguishing between Law
and Gospel, him place at the head and call him a doctor of Holy Scripture." Throughout
the Lutheran Age of Orthodoxy (1580–1713) this hermeneutical discipline was
considered foundational and important by Lutheran theologians.
This distinction was the first article in Patrick`s Places (1528) by Patrick Hamilton.
Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther (1811–1887), who was the first (and third) president of
the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, renewed interest in and attention to this
theological skill in his evening lectures at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis 1884-85.
Book of Concord
The Formula of Concord distinguished three uses, or purposes, in the Law in Article VI.
It states: "[T]he Law was given to men for three reasons ..."
1. that "thereby outward discipline might be maintained against wild, disobedient
men [and that wild and intractable men might be restrained, as though by certain
bars]"
2. that "men thereby may be led to the knowledge of their sins"
3. that "after they are regenerate ... they might ... have a fixed rule according to
which they are to regulate and direct their whole life"
Page 88 of 132

The primary concern was to maintain that the Law should continue to be used by
Christians after they had been regenerated by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel to
counter the doctrine of Johannes Agricola, who taught that the Law was no longer
needed by regenerate Christians." Confessional Lutheranism teaches that the Law
cannot be used to deny the Gospel, neither can the Gospel be used to deny God's Law.
The three uses of the Law are:
1. Curb - Through fear of punishment, the Law keeps the sinful nature of both
Christians and non-Christians under check. This does not stop sin, since the sin
is already committed when the heart desires to do what is wrong, yet it does stop
the open outbreak of sin that will do even further damage.
2. Mirror - The Law serves as a perfect reflection of what God created the human
heart and life to be. It shows anyone who compares his/her life to God's
requirement for perfection that he/she is sinful.
3. Guide - This use of the law that applies only to Christians. The law becomes the
believer's helper. Empowered by the gospel truth of forgiveness and
righteousness in Christ, the believer's new self eagerly desires to live to please
the Triune God.
Reformed View
The distinction between law and gospel is a standard formulation in Reformed theology,
though in recent years some have characterized it as distinctively Lutheran. Zacharias
Page 89 of 132

Ursinus sharply distinguished the law and gospel as "the chief and general divisions of
the holy scriptures" in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. Louis Berkhof
called the law and the gospel "the two parts of the Word of God as a means of grace."
Law and Gospel are found in both testaments.
In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, the Reformer John Calvin distinguished three
uses in the Law. Calvin wrote the following: "[T]o make the whole matter clearer, let us
survey briefly the function and use of what is called the 'moral law.' Now, so far as I
understand it, it consists of three parts."
1. "[W]hile it shows God's righteousness . . . , it warns, informs, convicts, and lastly
condemns, every man of his own unrighteousness" (2.7.6).
2. It functions "by fear of punishment to restrain certain men who are untouched by
any care for what is just and right unless compelled by hearing the dire threats in
the law" (2.7.10).
3. "It admonishes believers and urges them on in well-doing" (2.7.12-13).
This scheme is the same as the Formula of Concord, with the exception that the first
and second uses are switched.
In later Reformed scholasticism the order is the same as for Lutherans. The three uses
are called:
1. The usus politicus sive civilis, the political or civil use, is a restraint on sin and
stands apart from the work of salvation. It is part of God's general revelation or
common grace for unbelievers as well as believers.
2. The usus elenchticus sive paedagogicus, the elenctical or pedagogical use which
confronts sin and points us to Christ.
3. The usus didacticus sive normativus, the didactic use, which is solely for
believers, teaching the way of righteousness.
The Heidelberg Catechism, in explaining the third use of the Law, teaches that the
moral law as contained in the Ten Commandments is binding for Christians and that it
instructs Christians how to live in service to God in gratitude for His grace shown in
redeeming mankind. John Calvin deemed this third use of the Law as its primary use.
Lutheran and Reformed Differences
Scholastic Lutheran and Reformed theologians differed primarily on the way in which
the third use of the law functions for believers. The Reformed emphasized the third use
(tertius usus legis) because the redeemed are expected to bear good works. Some
Lutherans saw here the danger of works-righteousness, and argued that the third use
Page 90 of 132

should always return believers to the second use and again to Christ rather than being
the ultimate norm.
Additionally, some have suggested that the third use of the law is not found at all in
Luther but comes from Melanchthon. Although some Lutherans have rejected that view,
it has caused others to dispute the validity of the "third use" of the Law entirely. Paul
Althaus, for instance, writes in his treatise on Law and Gospel: "This [ethical] guidance
by the Holy Spirit implies that God's concrete commanding cannot be read off from a
written document, an inherited scheme of law. I must learn afresh every day what God
wants of me. For God's commanding has a special character for each individual: it is
always contemporary, always new. God commands me (and each person) in a
particular way, in a different way than He commands others.... The living and spiritual
character of the knowledge of what God requires of men in the present moment must
not be destroyed by rules and regulations." Such theologians believe the third use leads
to or encourages a form of legalism and is possibly an implicit denial of sola fide.
Conversely, Reformed Christians have sometimes seen this two-use scheme of some
modern Lutherans as leading to a form of antinomianism.
Some believe that "for Luther the pedagogic use of the Law was primary, while for
Calvin this third or didactic use was the principal one; yet [historically] both the Lutheran
and the Reformed traditions maintain the threefold conceptualization."
Imperative and Indicative
Certain recurring grammatical patterns in the Old Testament and in the New involving
the sequencing of imperative and indicative predicates are taken by theologians as
Page 91 of 132

central to the relationship between Law and Gospel. Daniel Defoe discusses three pairs
of these predicates in his second and final sequel to Robinson Crusoe, Serious
Reflections (1720): "forbear and live", "do and live", "believe and live". According to
Defoe, the first was established with Adam in paradise, the second as the Law with the
children of Israel, and the third as the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
However Luther viewed all imperative commands as law, even the command to believe
the Gospel. In The Bondage of the Will he writes,
"[T]he commands exist to show, not our moral ability, but our inability. This includes
God's command of all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel, an impossible
act of will apart from a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit uniting us to Christ .." p. 149
Page 92 of 132

X. Legalism in Theology
Legalism (or nomism), in Christian theology, is the act of putting the Law of Moses
above the gospel, which is 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, by establishing requirements for
salvation beyond faith (trust) in Jesus Christ, specifically, trust in His finished work - the
shedding of His blood for our sins, and reducing the broad, inclusive, and general
precepts of the Bible to narrow and rigid moral codes. It is an over-emphasis of
discipline of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of misguided rigour,
pride, superficiality, the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God or
emphasizing the letter of law at the expense of the spirit. Legalism is alleged against
any view that obedience to law, not faith in God's grace, is the pre-eminent principle of
redemption. On the viewpoint that redemption is not earned by works, but that obedient
faith is required to enter and remain in the redeemed state, see covenantal nomism.
In the New Testament
The words 'legalism' or 'legalist' do not occur in the Old or New Testaments. Legalism's
root word, "law" (Greek nomos), occurs frequently in the New Testament, and
sometimes is interpreted as legalism. In 1921, Ernest De Witt Burton stated that in Gal.
2:16, "nomou is here evidently used ... in its legalistic sense, denoting divine law viewed
Page 93 of 132

as a purely legalistic system made up of statutes, on the basis of obedience or
disobedience to which individuals are approved or condemned as a matter of debt
without grace. This is divine law as the legalist defined it." The Greek of Paul's day
lacked any term corresponding to the distinct position of "legalism", "legalist", or
"legalistic", leading C.E.B. Cranfield to commend "the possibility that Pauline statements
which at first sight seem to disparage the law, were really directed not against the law
itself but against that misunderstanding and misuse of it for which we now have a
convenient terminology" (legalism). Messianic Jewish Bible translator David H. Stern
cited these two scholars to support the translation framework that often "'nomos' means
'legalism' and not God's Torah", especially in Paul's constructs erga nomou (literally
"works of law", rendered by Stern "legalistic observance of Torah commands") and upo
nomon (literally "under law", rendered by Stern by 13 words, "in subjection to the
system which results from perverting the Torah into legalism").
One concept of legalism, the belief that salvation can be earned by obedience to laws,
is referred to in various New Testament books, including Galatians. In this case, some
Jews who had become Christians believed that in order to obtain salvation, both faith in
Christ (as Messiah), and obedience to the Mosiac laws were required, such as the
cases of the circumcision controversy and the Incident at Antioch. Generally, however,
these cases are referred to as the Judaizer controversy, rather than a legalism
controversy, but the two are related.
Legalism refers to any doctrine which states salvation comes strictly from adherence to
the law. It can be thought of as a works-based religion. Groups in the New Testament
said to be falling into this category include the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes,
Judaizers, and Nicolaitans. They are legalists because they emphasized obeying the
Law of Moses, in the case of the Pharisees and Scribes, to the letter without
understanding the concept of grace. Jesus condemned their legalism in Matthew 23.
The Pharisees love of the praises of men for their strict adherence is said to be a prime
example of legalism.
Legalism is sometimes confused with obedience. New Testament books such as
Romans, speak of grace and obedience together. An example is found in Romans 1:5
(New American Standard Version) speaking of Christ 'through whom we have received
grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles, for
His name's sake...' The goal of receiving the grace was to bring about obedience of
faith. Here grace, faith and obedience are tied together. Other references are in Acts
5:29, 32; Romans 16:19; 2 Corinthians 7:15; Hebrews 5:9.
Legalism is also confused with discipline, which is often spoken of in a positive light.
See 1 Corinthians 9:17; 1 Timothy 4:7; 2 Timothy 1:7 and Hebrews 12:5–11.
A third common misunderstanding of legalism is the word law. Law in many places in
the Bible refers to the Law of Moses, see also Biblical law in Christianity. In Galatians
the Judaizers were trying to insist that salvation required that a person be circumcised
prior to obeying the Law of Christ. Galatians 2:16 says, "Knowing that a man is not
Page 94 of 132

justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed
in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of
the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (King James Version). The
faith here is the Law of Christ and the law here is the Law of Moses. The legalism of the
Judaizers was that obedience to the law of Moses was necessary to be saved.
Legalism in the New Testament is believed by some as being revealed by the life of
Saul prior to his conversion. Some believe that Saul sought to redeem himself by his
works of persecution of the church and its ultimate destruction. Acts 26:9–11 reveals, "I
verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus
of Nazareth. Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in
prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to
death, I gave my voice against them. And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and
compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted
them even unto strange cities" (King James Version). Galatians 1:13–14 states, "For ye
have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond
measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews'
religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of
the traditions of my fathers" (King James Version). These two texts emphasize the
nature of Saul's religion, works.
However, in this passage the obedience is not tied to the obeying of specific Old
Testament laws, such as keeping Sabbath or circumcision.
At the Council of Jerusalem, c. 50, James the Just decreed the Apostolic Decree:
"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles
are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols,
and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood. For Moses of old
time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every
Sabbath day" (Acts 15:19–21).
Though the Apostolic Decree is no longer observed by many Christian denominations
today, it is still observed in full by the Greek Orthodox. and it was a very effective
philosophy during that time.
Page 95 of 132

In Intra-Christian Relations
Roman Catholic Church
In Roman Catholicism, good works are done in service to God and one's neighbour, by
faith working through love. In contrast, a severity in the imposition of, or overly
scrupulous conformity to any rule of piety, may be charged with legalism.
In an attempt to resolve the dispute over legalism, the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine
of Justification was a document issued in 1999 by Lutheran-Catholic clerical
representatives, declaring a common belief in Sola gratia, that grace alone can save the
faithful, and that there is a progressive infusion of grace in the spirit of the believer.
Eastern Orthodox Churches
The Eastern Orthodox, for another example, rejects the satisfaction theory of the
atonement as legalistic. The satisfaction theory states that mankind's Original Sin
violated God's law, resulting in all men being born guilty: an idea prevalent in the
writings of Tertullian and Augustine of Hippo of the Western Church. Anselm formally
developed the theory that the legal problem of guilt before the Law, required the legal
solution of retribution, in order to achieve a just salvation. The solution was for God's
son Jesus to willingly die on the Cross in place of humanity, thus allowing the legal
penalty to be fully carried out, satisfying the justice of God, and thus clearing the way for
mercy to be shown to sinners. The Eastern Orthodox charge that this theory is too
dependent upon Roman legal concepts of retribution and justice. [citation needed]
Protestant Churches
In Protestant, Evangelical, Christian theology, especially in popular versions of the
same, the charge of legalism is an accusation of overzealous adherence to the word of
the Bible (as law) in all things said, established or accomplished in a believer's life (cf.
bibliolatry). In that context, to apply the criticism of legalism to a theological position or
religious attitude implies that the accused has overturned the Gospel of salvation
through faith and new life in Jesus Christ and has instead substituted some principle of
personal works of strict adherence to the word, through action, thought, or speech for
the unearned grace of God.
In History
Throughout the history of Christianity, certain beliefs and practices have tended to draw
charges of legalism. These include:
Asceticism, such as fasting and other forms of self-denial.
Page 96 of 132

The keeping of Christian Sabbath, especially regarding prohibitions of various
otherwise innocent activities on the day of worship.
Various extra-biblical ordinances and customs that become associated not just
with wisdom but with holiness, in the contemporary situation, such as prohibitions
against theater, movies, dancing, rock music, playing cards, interracial marriage
or mixed bathing.
Total abstinence from alcohol (See also Christianity and alcohol.)
Ritualism, a superficial or superstitious use of customary prayers and liturgy.
Similarly, certain exclusive ritual practices, such as rigorous insistence on the
tetragrammaton as the only name by which God is honored, dietary laws,
Page 97 of 132

Saturday Sabbath, or Passover (Christian holiday), especially when practicing
these rituals is held necessary for salvation.
Sacraments, especially when the underlying theology allegedly views them as
communicating God's grace automatically (compare ex opere operato).
Various rigorous and restrictive beliefs, such as that, only the King James
Version of the Bible constitutes God's word.
The belief that Christian families should homeschool.
The belief that women should never wear pants or shorts.
Iconoclasm
Tithing
Circumcision
Puritanism
Judaizing
Restorationism
Christian Reconstructionism, which is based on the belief that Christians should
still obey and enforce the full Mosaic law.
Several underlying dynamics appear in these controversies. The permitted scope of
veneration of material objects versus claims that such veneration is idolatry, affects the
perceived sanctity of ritual spaces and objects, and therefore of the rituals and customs
themselves. Teachings about the authority of the church, the sources of legitimacy of
that authority, and the role of clergy versus the priesthood of all believers, also affect
these debates.
Page 98 of 132

XI. References
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_law
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Moses
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_the_Old_Covenant
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Christ
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Commission
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Commandment
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_Gospel
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(theology)
11. http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/offices/mission/pdf1/ju9.pdf
12. http://hermeneutics.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/justiceandbible.pdf
13. file:///C:/Users/tuh41865/Downloads/law_and_justice_bible_studies.pdf
Page 99 of 132

Notes
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 100 of 132

Notes
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 101 of 132

Page 102 of 132

Attachment A
Justice In The Bible
Boston College 2000
Page 103 of 132

Boston College -- Office of University Mission and Ministry
“Justice in the Bible”
BY RICHARD J. CLIFFORD, S.J.
Published in Jesuit Education 21: Conference Proceeding on the Future of Jesuit Higher
Education. Martin R. Tripole, S.J., Ed. (Philadelphia: Saint Joseph's University Press, 2000).
All rights reserved. Used with permission of St. Joseph's University Press.
It is a pleasure to take part in a symposium that takes seriously the Bible including the
Old Testament / Hebrew Scriptures. I want to thank Father Fitzmyer for his thorough
analysis of the vocabulary of justice in the Bible and in the translations that served as official
texts in the Latin Church and the Greek Orthodox Church. I have little to add to his
treatment, and will strike out instead on a less lexical and more impressionistic path. I will be
speaking mostly about social justice, that is, justice among human beings, especially the
members of the holy community.1
Justice in the Bible, all agree, is relational--how a thing, act, or person relates to a
standard of justice, in this case God. In biblical religion there is no order or fate beyond God
to which things conform; Yahweh, the Most High, is the standard of justice and those
properly related to God become just.2 I will talk about three major "founding moments" in
the Bible, for in them the standard of divine justice is especially clear: the origin of the world
in Genesis 1-11, the origin of Israel in the Book of Exodus, and the origin of New Israel in
the Gospels.
Origins were important in the ancient Near East and in the Bible, for it was then that the
imprint and purpose of the Creator was freshest and most visible. Ancient authors used
cosmogonies and stories of origin to explore the purposes of God or the gods; such stories
were the philosophy and theology of the time. Those ages did not have our discursive essay
(narrative was for them the vehicle of serious thought) nor did they assume historical
development from simple to complex. The world was given whole and entire at the
beginning. To know the origin of something was, in some sense, to know its essence.
http://www.bc.edu/offices/mission/ 1

Boston College -- Office of University Mission and Ministry
The First Founding Moment: Genesis 1--11
Genesis 1-11, it is widely agreed, consists of two cosmogonies (cc.1and 2-11). The first (the
familiar seven-day creation account) is also an introduction, providing a lens for viewing the
second creation account (cc. 2-11). The whole section, despite its deft treatment of human
psychology, is profoundly theocentric, highlighting two aspects of God that are indispensable
for understanding biblical justice: God is generous and God is just. I will say a word about
each aspect.
God Is Generous
In the seven-day creation account in Genesis 1, God's generosity finds expression in the two
defining imperatives given to the human race in 1:28: (1) be fertile and multiply; (2) fill the
earth and subdue it. The chapters that follow tell how human beings fulfill these imperatives:
they "multiply" (the genealogies with their famous "begats" in cc. 4, 5, and 11) and they
"fill" the earth and subdue it" as they move out to their diverse lands and take possession of
them (cc.10-11).In other words, human beings are commanded to participate in the rhythms
of the good universe, a point that is very clear with regard to land. Parenthetically, the
command "Subdue [ the earth ]" does not command people to exploit the earth but to take
possession of the territory God has given them. In Genesis 10, each of the seventy nations is
to have its own land. Later, when Israel takes its own land, the prophets insist that every
Israelite family have its land over which God alone has domain.3 God intends that people
enjoy and be satisfied with the bounty of creation; be sated is a favorite verb in the Bible4 as
in Ps 22:26, "The poor shall eat and be satisfied." The prophets condemn land grabbing as
rebellion against God's generous will that all members of the Israelite community be sated.
Woe to those whose greed keeps others from enjoying what God has given to all.
God Is Just
The same chapters show God acting justly, affirming righteous behavior (e.g., rescuing
Noah) and frustrating wicked behavior (Adam and Eve, Cain, Lamech, etc.). God is not
http://www.bc.edu/offices/mission/ 2

Boston College -- Office of University Mission and Ministry
capricious or volatile like the gods in comparable literatures, but responds predictably (albeit
mysteriously) to human actions, seconding what is right and bringing to naught what is
wrong. In assessing these chapters, it is all too easy to focus on the sins (Adam and Eve, Cain,
the illicit marriages, the human race building their city) to the neglect of God and God's
blessing. Many Christian commentators have read the chapters too pessimistically, ending up
with a "low anthropology" that forgets the God-centered perspective. Jewish tradition can
instruct us here, for it has generally focused on the transmission of the blessing in the face of
human resistance to receiving it.
We cannot leave these chapters without commenting on the most quoted Genesis verses
on social justice (1:26-27): "So God created humankind in his image, / in the image of God
he created him (adam='them')." The image of God is an important concept even within
Genesis. Gen 5:1 shows that the image is transmitted to succeeding generations, and 9:6 uses
it is as the basis of the prohibition against murder (you can slay animals in the post-Flood
world but not human beings). What does the image of God mean? A historical comparison
may help. Comparable ancient creation accounts invariably depicted human beings as slaves
of the gods, created to build their temples, observe their rituals, and carry out their
commands. In some creation accounts, the king was created separately as the gods'
representative on earth, a kind of lieutenant making sure that human labor benefited the
gods. In a sense, the king represented the god(s) as a statue represented a person. Genesis
borrows this language about the privilege and role of kings but extends it to all human
beings: all human beings are made in the image and likeness of God. In the Genesis text, the
author seems to say two things: (1) human beings share in the dominion of God over the rest
of creation (1:28), furthering the goodness of the world; (2) human beings have value in
themselves, for human blood may not be shed because of the image of God (Gn 9:6).
http://www.bc.edu/offices/mission/ 3

Boston College -- Office of University Mission and Ministry
The Second Founding Moment: The Exodus as the Originating
Moment of Israel
The Exodus is not only the "going out" from Egypt, but the whole narrative of the
oppression of the Hebrews, God's defeat of Pharaoh their oppressor, and the journey to
Sinai, where they agree to be God's people and accept his covenant and law.
Norbert Lohfink5 has pointed out that the misery of the poor Hebrews is expressed in
terms of economic exploitation and social degradation (Dt 26). According to Exodus 1-6, it
is system-related and produced by human malice. God addresses the evil in a new and
unexpected way. Instead of alleviating the Hebrews' distress through the time-honored
means of giving to the poor, Israel's God Yahweh removes the slaves from the impoverishing
situation; he leads them out from the Egyptian system. God's work here is a new creation.
What is created is a society having all the usual institutions of a nation of that time: a God
(with a house), a leader, a land, and laws. But because Israel has been liberated from Pharaoh
and led out from Egypt, it becomes, in the phrase of Lohfink, a "contrast-society." Because it
is different from the nations, it becomes something for them to watch--a model. The point is
succinctly and memorably made in Exodus:
"You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, / how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought
you to myself. / Now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, / you shall be
my treasured possession out of all the peoples. / Yes, the whole earth is mine, but you shall
be my priestly kingdom and a holy nation" (19:3-6).
Israel agrees and God forms their society. Israel, shaped by the just God, will show the
nations God's generosity and power. The holy community has a mediating role regarding
divine justice.
The Third Founding Moment: The Work of Jesus as a New Exodus
and Foundation of a New Israel
New in New Testament should not be taken in a supersessionist sense, i.e., the replacement
of something "old and worn out," but something like "the latest and best form of the ancient
http://www.bc.edu/offices/mission/ 4

Boston College -- Office of University Mission and Ministry
tradition." Jesus' work was interpreted as a new exodus, a reform or refounding of Israel, as
one can see by his choosing the Twelve, feeding the people in the wilderness, fulfilling
Moses' law giving, making a new covenant and sealing it with blood, etc. The greatest
symbol for his reform, however, was the kingdom of God,6 a formulation from the turbulent
centuries preceding Jesus that expressed God's rule over Israel in the present and eventual
triumph over all evil powers, including the oppressive Roman empire. The phrase echoes the
kingship of the Lord in the exodus (cf. Ex 15, esp. v.18). Jesus' program included such
emphases as care for the poor, reliance on God, de-emphasis on honor and human authority,
just relations within the community. Though the bare list of virtues might sound safely
traditional, they in fact had political implications both for the ruling class and for the Roman
occupiers.
Jesus' work is the third of those founding moments when God's justice is on clear and
compelling display. That's why Christians study the New Testament! There are many
contemporary implications of the justice of the New Testament, but let me single out three
points: (1) Jesus' solidarity with the poor and his bringing those at the margin (including
women) to new roles, especially in Luke (note that Jesus actually associateswith poor people
and does not simply talk about them!); (2) the New Testament underlines the eschatological
dimension of justice, telling us that the work of justice one does in one's lifetime is linked
somehow to the just world that God will build in the future; (3) the most provocative legacy,
however, may be the powerful analogy it provides for interpreting our world: the just God
liberates people from oppressors or false gods, and forms them into a just community.
Notes
1. [back] See John R. Donahue, S.J., "Biblical Perspective on Justice," The Faith That Does
Justice: Examining the Christian Sources of Social Change, John C. Haughey, S.J., ed. (New
York: Paulist Press, 1977), 68-112, and his annotated bibliography in "What Does the Lord
Require?: A Bibliographical Essay on the Bible and Social Justice," Studies in the Spirituality
http://www.bc.edu/offices/mission/ 5

Boston College -- Office of University Mission and Ministry
of Jesuits 25/2 (March 1993). For the ancient Near Eastern context, see Leon Epsztein, Social
Justice in the Ancient Near East and the People in the Bible, trans. John Bowden (London:
SCM, 1986); Moshe Weinfeld, Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near
East(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995).
2. [back] A point made effectively by Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, trans. and
abridged by M. Greenberg (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1961), 22, 32-33 among
other places.
3. [back] See further R. Coote, Amos among the Prophets: Composition and
Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981),24-39.
4. [back] E.g., Dt 6:11; 8:10, 12; Ps 37:19.
5. [back] See further Norbert F. Lohfink, Option for the Poor: The Basic Principles of
Liberation Theology in the Light of the Bible (Berkeley: BIBAL Press, 1987).
6. [back] See further John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York:
Doubleday, 1991), 2.243f.
http://www.bc.edu/offices/mission/ 6

Page 104 of 132

Attachment B
Justice and The Bible:
Australia Summit 2007
Page 105 of 132

Justice and the Bible
Paper presented at Summit Australia conference, January 2007.
Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc.(Hons), M.A.
SA Co-ordinator, Centre for Worldview Studies
INTRODUCTION
‘Justice’ is a common word and a familiar concept. Almost every mature person knows intuatively
what is ‘just,’ and can intuatively identify ‘injustice.’ However, precisely defining what the word
‘justice’ means, or what the concept of justice encompasses is not so simple.
This paper seeks to evaluate historical and contemporary notions of justice, as well as analysing
what the Bible has to say about the topic. The application of justice to general and specific issues
faced by the church today are also examined.
HISTORICAL VIEWS OF JUSTICE
Thinking about justice and what it entails has a long history. The most significant early treatise on
the topic was presented by Aristotle in books V and VII of his Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle
identified that there is a universal kind of justice that relates to all human beings: “…for there seems
to be a kind of justice that obtains for any human being in relation to anyone capable of sharing in
law and taking part in agreement…to the extent that the other is a human being.” 1 In this sense, a
person is just if he or she is moral, compassionate and obeys the law. In other words, a just person
acts virtuously toward other people.
Yet, Aristotle also noted that there are multiple forms of justice. 2 He identifies ‘merit’ as a principle
of justice and also its attendant problems: “everybody agrees that what is just in distributions must
accord with the some kind of merit, but everybody is not talking about the same kind of merit.” 3
Proportionality also features in his discussion: “the just in the distribution of things belonging to the
community always follows the proportion we have described (…if the distribution is from public
funds, it will follow the same ratio that the individual contributions have to one another); and the
unjust which is opposed to the just in this sense is what contravenes the proportional.” 4
Aristotle argued that when it comes to ‘rectificatory justice,’ people should be treated equally
before the law: “…it makes no difference whether a decent person has defrauded a worthless one or
a worthless person has defrauded a decent one, or whether the adultery was committed by someone
decent or someone worthless; the law pays attention solely to the difference created by the damage
1 C. Rowe (translator), Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) 221 (Book VII.11).
2 Ibid, 160 (Book V.2).
3 Ibid, 162 (Book V.3).
4 Ibid, 163 (Book V.4).

Justice and the Bible 2
done, and where one person is committing an injustice, another suffering it, or one person inflicted
and another has been damaged, it treats them as equal. So what is unjust in this sense the judge tries
to equalize…” 5
Aristotle’s ideas undoubtedly had a significant impact on the Hellenistic world when the Christian
church was in its infancy. Thus, it is not surprising to see similar ideas echoed by Christian
theologians down through the centuries. Augustine, for example, proclaimed justice and judgment
according to merit or deserts: “while our soul is shut up in this earthly body, judgment and justice
are to be done, which shall be profitable for us hereafter, when ‘every one shall receive according to
that he hath done in the body, whether good or bad.’ 6 In addition, he presented the ‘golden rule’ as
an ethic for just living:
…what man if questioned about justice, when he hath not a cause, would not easily answer what is just?
Inasmuch as the hand of our Maker in our very hearts hath written this truth, “That which to thyself thou
wouldest not have done, do not thou to another.” Of this truth, even before that the Law was given, no
one was suffered to be ignorant, in order that there might be some rule whereby might be judged even
those to whom Law had not been given.” 7
Thomas Aquinas likewise advocated the principle of merit or deserts: “…the act of justice in
relation to its proper matter and object is indicated in the words, ‘Rendering to each one his
right,’…‘a man is said to be just because he respects the rights [jus] of others.’” 8
John Calvin also held to the principle of merit or deserts, but went beyond this to proclaim a
principle of moral uprightness and “doing good to all”:
In the names of justice and judgment he comprehends that equity, by which to every one is given what is
his own. If we would make a distinction, justice is the name given to the rectitude and humanity which we
cultivate with our brethren, when we endeavour to do good to all, and when we abstain from all wrong,
fraud, and violence. But judgment is to stretch forth the hand to the miserable and the oppressed, to
vindicate righteous causes, and to guard the weak from being unjustly injured. 9
For Calvin, this also meant that injustice should be forcibly repressed and those who act unjustly
must be punished for their deeds:
For in the minds of many the love of equity and justice grows cold, if due honour be not paid to virtue,
and the licentiousness of the wicked cannot be restrained, without strict discipline and the infliction of
punishment. The two things are comprehended by the prophet when he enjoins kings and other rulers to
execute "judgement and righteousness," (Jer. 21: 12; 22: 3.) It is righteousness (justice) to take charge at
the innocent, to defend and avenge them, and set them free: it is judgement to withstand the audacity of
the wicked, to repress their violence and punish their faults. 10
PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE
When consideing what justice entails many related principles come to mind including equality,
fairness, merit, need, and reciprocation. However, these different principles, when applied to
specific situations, will more often than not lead to mutually exclusive judgments. Furthermore,
many of the concepts may be applied in different ways. If justice is giving people their due on the
basis of what is fair, then what is their due? It may be fair that they receive the same pay for the
same work. However, if Joe works harder than Jane, is it not fair that he is paid more?
The following sections examine in more detail these basic principles.
5 Ibid, 163-164 (Book V.4).
6 Augustine, The City of God 17.4.
7 Augustine, Expositions on the Book of Psalms 58.1.
8 Aquinas, Summa Theologica 2.2.58(1).
9 John Calvin, Genesis I.38.19.
10 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 4.20.9.
Andrew Kulikovsky 20/04/2008 2

Justice and the Bible 3
Fairness
Justice as fairness was a phrase used by legal philosopher John Rawls to describe his specific view
of justice. 11 Nevertheless, it is clear that the general concept of fairness is closely related to justice.
However, it is not always easy to determine what is and is not fair. For example, just procedures
when trying a person for alleged crimes are intended to be fair on the accused and give them every
opportunity to defend themselves. However, in many cases, these strict procedures can result in
damning evidence being rejected as a result of minor or inadvertant oversights by the prosecution,
which in turn may cause guilty parties to be acquitted and set free purely on a legal technicality.
Thus, fair procedures could lead to an unfair outcome.
Fairness may also be considered in terms of equality. Is it not fair that two people who do
essentially the same work are paid the same? Is it not fair that everyone pay the same amount of
tax? Is it not fair that the law treats everyone the same? The concept of equality is further examined
in the next section.
Equality
As noted above, it is a common view that justice requires that all people are treated equally before
the law. In other words, like cases should be handled in the same manner without respect for the
parties involved. However, if a government or dictator passes legislation that everyone caught
shoplifting shall have their hands cut off, we would rightly object that this law is unjust!
Alternatively, the government could legislate that all found innocent of shoplifting will have their
left hand cut off. In both these cases, the government or ruler seeks to treat everyone equally, but
the result is clearly unjust. Therefore, it is clear that impartiallity or non-discrimination is not
enough to satisfy the demands of justice. Moreover, equality at one level often leads to inequality at
other levels. 12 Put another way, to produce equal results one must treat people unequally. However,
treating people equally will produce unequal results. 13 This is because all people are not inherently
equal in character and ability. All people have different intellectual ability, physical characteristics
and morals. The only attribute common to all is that we are God’s creatures, and thus we all stand
as equals in our relationship with God.
Although there is certainly a deep connection between justice and equal treatment, this connection
does not mean that equal treatment necessarily implies equal shares, as egalitarians argue. 14
Egalitarianism implies that we must embrace certains kinds of unequal treatment in order to achieve
a more preferable form of equality. 15 As Schmidtz points out, egalitarianism is not the same as
humanitarianism. Humanitarians are concerned with how people fare. Egalitarians, on the other
hand, are concerned with how different people fare relative to one another. 16 Indeed, when Martin
Luther King proclaimed his ‘dream’ that his children would be judged “not by the color of their
skin but by the content of their character” he was describing a principle of justice based on equal
treatment and merit, not a principle based on equal shares.
At this point, it is important to recognise that living in a society is not a race. In a race, all
competitors start on an equal footing because a race is meant to measure relative performance.
11 See section 0 below.
12 Schmidtz, Elements of Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) 14-15.
13 Ronald Nash, Social Justice and the Christian Church (Lima, Ohio: Academic Renewal Press, 2002) 36.
14 Schmidtz, 109.
15 Ibid, 110.
16 Ibid, 114.
Andrew Kulikovsky 20/04/2008 3

Justice and the Bible 4
Society, on the other hand, is meant to provide a safe and fulfilling environment in which to live
where there is no arbitrary bias or exclusion. In order to live a happy and fulfilled life, people need
a good and secure footing, not necessarily an equal footing. 17 It is essential to understand that many
people start with more because their parents provided them with more: a positive, stable family
environment; inherited wealth; and superior education. These benefits are the gifts of loving
parents. They are not unjust in themselves nor are they the result of unjust actions. Therefore, the
goal should be to improve each person’s prospects, not to equalise them. 18
Although many egalitarians acknowledge that achieving economic equality is impossible, they
believe the answer lies in the doctrine of ‘equality of opportunity.’ Egalitarians believe that
opportunities are not fairly distributed, and those with more wealth and power have many more and
better opportunities. Therefore, they want government authorities to take control and ensure that
there is a level playing field and that everyone receives the same opportunities. Although this may
seem a reasonable step to take, it is ultimately a fundamental denial of reality. Power and wealth are
not the only factors that result in more and better opportunities. A person’s basic intelligence
(usually a derivative of their parents’ intelligence), their family life and upbringing, their place of
residence (country, state or region), their native language, their religion and/or system of values,
their emotional and psychological makeup, their phsyical appearance (stature, beauty, and physical
strength), all contribute significantly to the number and kinds of opportunities available to each
person. No amount of interference can change these realities. A smart beautiful person will always
have more and better opportunities than a simple unattractive person. The only other options are to
tear down those with natural advantages by somehow destroying those advantages, or by launching
a program of eugenics where every person born has the same genetic characteristics. Such options,
however, are clearly horrific, not to mention fundamentally unjust. 19
From the above, it is clear that justice and equality are not the same. Sometimes equal treatment or
equal distribution is just, but often it is not.
Merit and Deserts
In many cases, fairness requires that we treat people according to what they have done or achieved.
In other words, people get their ‘just deserts.’ Desert can depend on effort, performance, excellence,
character, or the mere fact of being human. 20 If one person works harder than another, it is fair and
just that that person be paid more. If a person steals another person’s property, it is fair and just that
that person is punished for their crime and made to return the stolen property.
However, there are many cases where success is achieved and reward is gained from good fortune,
pure luck or coincidence. 21 Why should anyone be rewarded in these cases? Of course, everyone is
lucky to some degree but luck does not guarantee success. Effort and ability are still required. Luck
and good fortune, however, reduce the amount of effort required. 22 For example, people born in the
western world at this time in history have far greater chance of achieving success, prosperity and
long life, yet many still live in squalor, fail in business and die young.
17 Ibid, 117.
18 Ibid, 118.
19 George Reisman, Capitalism (Ottawa, IL: Jameson, 1998) 337-338.
20 Schmidtz, 31.
21 Ibid, 14-15.
22 Ibid, 35.
Andrew Kulikovsky 20/04/2008 4

Justice and the Bible 5
The principle of merit/deserts is also concerned with ‘just deserts.’ In other words, the principle of
merit/deserts implies a proportionality principle, i.e. the punishment must fit the crime; the reward
must reflect the effort. A greater crime requires a sterner punishment. A greater effort demands a
greater reward.
Need
Some argue that the existence of people in need in a world of plenty is fundamentally unjust, and
that this warrants preferential treatment for those with the greatest needs. However, it is not at all
obvious why someone should receive X in preference to others simply because that person needs
X? Should a medical school student get the grade they need or the grade they deserve? Would
anyone wish to undergo surgery if it was to be conducted by someone who passed medical school
as a result of such grading, because the surgeon was a member of some needy, disadvantaged, or
marginalised group?
Furthermore, if we distribute or reward according to need, we often get more need! This is called a
‘moral hazard.’ In a race, rewarding speed induces speed. Likewise, rewarding need induces more
need. As Schmidtz puts it: “It reduces people to do what manifests need rather than what meets
need.” 23 In family situations, if we give more attention to children in need, we may in fact generate
more needy children. 24
It is also unclear how the principle of need will lead to just outcomes. For example, women deserve
the vote not because they are needy or a disadvantaged minority, but because they are equal
citizens. As Schmidtz points out: “[I]f we care about need—if we really care—then we want social
structures to allow and encourage people to do what works. Societies that effectively meet needs,
historically speaking, have always been those that empower and reward exercises of productive
capacities by virtue of which people meet needs.” 25
Reciprocation
Reciprocity involves returning good in proportion to the good we have received, and to make
restitution for any harm we have done:
The details differ strikingly from place to place, time to time, and every society is profuse with forms.
There are rituals of gift-giving, unspoken undertakings between lovers, patterns of family life,
expectations among friends, duties of fair play, obligations of citizenship, contracts—all understood as
reciprocal. There is an intricate etiquette for it all, and it is commected (both in theory and practice) to
prudence, self-interest and altruism, basic human needs, social welfare, notions of desert and duty, justice,
and fairness. 26
This principle echoes the Biblical ‘golden rule’ of Luke 6:31: “Do to others as you would have
them do to you.”
However, as Buchanan noted, the principle of reciprocity implies that justice can only be obtained
by those who are capable of doing favours. Yet not everyone can repay a debt or a favour—
especially if it was not ask for. 27
23 Ibid, 167.
24 Ibid, 14-15.
25 Ibid, 167.
26 Lawrence Becker as cited by Schmidtz, 75.
27 Schmidtz, 14-15.
Andrew Kulikovsky 20/04/2008 5

Justice and the Bible 6
All of the above principles have had varying influences on our conception of justice and how it
should be practiced. For example, by the 15 th century, English common law had become
preoccupied with procedural justice, such that, provided the procedural formalities were met, a
person would be bound by a contract even if it was entered into by mistake or even fraud. The king
eventually responded to such claims of injustice by charging the Chancellor (whos normal job was
to issue writs) with the responsibility of redressing these situations. It is important to note that the
Chancellors at this time were trained as priests. This meant that when they assessed claims of
injustice, they did not base their judgments on the accumulated body of judicial precedent and
legalistic form as the common law judges did. Rather, they based their judgments on Christian
principles of justice and fairness. This body of law became known as ‘equity’, and where equity and
common law were in conflict, equity would always prevail. The body set up to hear such claims
was known as the Court of Chancery, and the Chancellors (or Lord Chancellors as they were later
known) who comprised the Court had discretionary power over the rights of disputing parties. If a
party had a legal right or remedy but was not morally deserving of that right or remedy because they
had acted dishonestly or negligently, the Court of Chancery could stop them assering their right or
deny them their remedy. 28
Principles of justice, then, are often mutually exclusive and apply to different and limited types of
situations. For example, if we ask what are children due? The answer is: What they need. What are
citizens due? Equality before the law. What are partners due? Reciprocity. What are contestants/
candidates/competitors due? Fair acknowledgment of their demonstrated merit. What are employees
due? What they have earned. What are the poor and least advantaged due? A chance or opportunity
to improve their situation. 29 This lead Schmidtz to conclude that justice is a cluster concept, and that
we need to examine competing views of justice by looking at what those views produce i.e. what
are the consequences? 30
From the above, it can be argued that determining which principle of justice to apply in a specific
situation is deeply rooted in the moral question of what is right and wrong: A person who
deliberately or maliciously harms or kills another is unjust because that person has committed a
serious crime. A contract involves a binding agreement, and a party that breaks that agreement and
offers no compensation is unjust, because they have acted dishonestly. A person who slanders or
defames another is unjust because they have lied and/or acted maliciously. A person who is
negligent in their duties is unjust because they have acted carelessly and irresponsibly. A
manufacturer that makes a faulty product is unjust because they have acted irresponsibly and
negligently. Parents who fail to provide and care for their children are unjust because they have a
moral duty and responsibility to look after them. Citizens who claim their legal rights but do not
fulfill their social responsibilities to their fellow citizens are unjust because they have broken the
social contract that citizenship implies. A competitor, contestant or candidate who cheats when
competing in a game or race is unjust because they have broken the rules and acted dishonestly.
Indeed, law courts, when deciding new and complex cases, before they are able to determine which
party in the dispute is ‘right’ or ‘just,’ often design new legal tests and principles which are almost
always based on moral notions and principles.
28 Catriona Cook et. al., Laying Down the Law, 5 th edition (Sydney: LexisNexis Butterworths, 2001) 17-18.
29 Schmidtz, 18-19.
30 Ibid, 12.
Andrew Kulikovsky 20/04/2008 6

Justice and the Bible 7
MODERN VIEWS OF JUSTICE
Arguably, the two most influential modern thinkers about justice are John Rawls and Robert
Nozick. Although their theories of justice are quite complex, the key difference between them is
that Rawls prefers ‘just’ (i.e. equal) outcomes, while Nozick prefers ‘just’ (i.e. fair) procedures and
processes.
Rawls argued that just principles are those that would be selected by any person in a society where
they had no knowledge of their race, gender, intelligence, ability, physical characteristics, financial
situation or the position they would occupy. He suggested two principles: (1) each person should
have equal rights and basic liberties to the extent that these do not infringe upon another’s similar
rights and liberties; and (2) social and economic inequalities are only justified when (a) they are
reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to
all. Rawls calls this ‘justice as fairness.’ 31 It is also commonly called ‘social justice.’
There are, however, serious problems with this view. Firstly, principle (1) does not necessarily lead
to just outcomes. What if two men—one black, one white, but equal in all other respects—who do
not know their race, are presented with two scenarios: (1) each is paid $100 per week, or (2) the
white man is paid $1000 per week and the black man is paid $500 per week? Which scenario should
they choose? Clearly option (2) provides them both with superior income regardless of the colour of
their skin, but this situation would be unjust according to Rawls because it is based solely on racial
grounds. 32
Principle (2) is also problematic, as John Hospers points out:
Suppose that the distribution of goods in a society (which for the sake of simplicity we shall take to
consist of five persons only) is 6-6-4-4-4. Now an invention comes along which will enormously increase
the standard of living, so that the resulting dtsribution becomes 50-50-40-40-3. Would it be justified? No,
presumably the invention would have to be suppressed in spite of the great rise in the standard of living of
almost everyone, because one person in the society is slightly worse off because of it.” 33
Hospers goes on to cite the automobile as a real life example. The automobile benefited everyone
except the manufacturers of buggy whips. Thus, Hospers concludes: “No major innovation would
ever have occurred, from the dawn of history to the present, no matter how great its benefit to
mankind,” because there would always be “someone somewhere who [would be] worse off because
of it.” 34
Unlike Rawls’ forward-looking end-result theory of justice, Nozick held to an historical approach to
justice. He held that “past circumstances or actions can create differential entitlements or
differential deserts to things.” 35 Nozick points out that advocates of distributive end-result justice
believe present distribution is unjust because it does not match their view of how things ought to be
distributed, and that this ‘injustice’ should be rectified. They also believe that this rectification
requires compulsory redistribution through force. 36 Nozick, on the other hand, held that end-result
distributive justice ignores ethically relevant factors in the history of how people obtained their
present property. What constitutes justice or injustice is not who holds what but how each person
acquired their property. If a person acquires property justly then their holding is just, irrespective of
whether they earned it, needed it, or deserved it. If a person inherited real-estate frrom the estate of
31 John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971) 60.
32 Brian Barry, The Liberal Theory of Justice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973) 16-17.
33 John Hospers, “A review of ‘A Theory of Justice’” The Freeman (December 1973) 753.
34 Ibid, 753.
35 Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974) 155.
36 Ibid, 168.
Andrew Kulikovsky 20/04/2008 7

Justice and the Bible 8
a deceased relative, then they have acquired it justly even if they did nothing to deserve it, or if they
already own several houses and have no need for another. If two workers receive equal wages, and
one squanders them while the other saves, then their will eventually be a significant difference in
each of the workers’ wealth and holdings. But no unjust actions have led to this situation and the
worker who accumulated his savings has committed no moral wrong. This led B. J. Diggs to
conclude that “the assumption that there is a problem of redistribution is the fundamental mistake of
all theories of justice whose basic concern is to determine ‘who ends up with what.’” 37
Distributive end-result justice is also incompatible with freedom:
(1) Assume society has distributive justice;
(2) Citizens are free to exchange or transfer their property to whomever they choose;
(3) Assume appropriation of others’ property by theft, force, fraud or other criminal activity is recognised as
unjust; and
(4) Initial holdings are evenly distributed and were acquired justly.
Given (2) and the general nature of human beings, their varying ability, the different levels of effort
they exert, and luck (or lack of it), it is inevitable that some will eventually have much more wealth
than others. Yet, according to (2) and (4), all states of distribution derived justly from the initial
state are also just regardless of how far they deviate from the initial situation. Therefore, defenders
of distributive justice have three options: (1) Do nothing—accept the situation as just; (2) Try to
rectify or fix the situation—despite the fact that nothing unjust has actually occurred—through
redistribution, in order to return to the initial situation. This would need to happen constantly, and
those that are deprived of property that they acquired justly would receive no compensation and
have no recourse, and this deprivation would be held as being just; or (3) Ban free exchanges and
transfers. 38 Given that option (1) stands fundamentally against redistributive end-result justice,
advocates are left with options (2) and (3), which are not only totally impractical but necessitate a
wholesale denial of basic rights to freedom. As Nozick points out,
no end-state principle of justice can be continuously realized without continuous interference with
people’s lives. Any favored pattern would be transformed into one unfavored by the principle, by people
choosing to act in various ways; for example, by people exchanging goods and services with other people,
or giving things to other people, things the transferers are entitled to under the favored distributional
pattern. To maintain a pattern one must continually interfere to stop people from transferring resources as
they wish to, or continually (or periodically) interfere to take from some persons resources that others for
some reason chose to transfer to them. 39
Therefore, such forms of ‘social justice’ can only be achieved by top-down autocratic totalitarian
governments which suppress personal freedom and basic human rights. Yet a surprising number of
Christians advocate precisely the kind of ‘social justice’ that would require this kind of government
action.
BIBLICAL JUSTICE
It goes without saying that any serious discussion of Biblical justice must be based on the actual
statements of Scripture with respect to their proper theological, historical and literary context. Yet,
increasingly, many writers on this topic approach the Bible with preconceived ideas of what
Biblical justice entails and proceed to read these ideas back into the text. Kevin Rudd, the present
leader of the opposition in the Australian federal parliament, for example, asserts that “the starting
37 B. J. Diggs, “Liberty Without Fraternity” Ethics 87 (1977) 105.
38 Nash, 48-51.
39 Nozick, 163.
Andrew Kulikovsky 20/04/2008 8

Justice and the Bible 9
point with Christianity is a theology of social justice…” 40 As will be shown below, only a person
who has never read the Bible could make such a statement with any sincerity.
Moral Uprightness
Jim Wallis asserts that “righteousness is often synonymous with justice, and the two words are
sometimes used interchangeably.” 41 This assertion is based on the fact that both ‘righteousness’ and
‘justice’ are possible renderings of the Hebrew word qdece () and the Greek word dikaiosu/nh
(). However, it is linguistically naïve to assume that because an instance of or
in one particular context may be translated as ‘justice,’ then all instances of these words
may be translated as such. In other words, Wallis incorrectly assumes that the meaning of the word
in a specific context “is much broader than the context itself allows.” Donald Carson notes that this
is a common exegetical fallacy and labels it as the ‘unwarranted adoption of an expanded semantic
field.’ 42
The Hebrew word appears in the Old Testament 119 times in 112 verses. 43 Although it
usually refers to personal holiness or moral uprightness, it is also used in many other different ways
including as a reference to honest scales, weights and measures, 44 judging in legal disputes, 45
fairness, 46 legal rights, 47 in reference to ritual sacrifices, 48 personal integrity, 49 honesty, 50 and in
reference to restoration/rectification. 51 The feminine form, hqfdfc; ( ), is used 159 times in
150 verses 52 and also usually refers to moral uprightness. It also has other meanings, including
honesty, 53 good government, 54 legal rights, 55 innocence, 56 vindication, 57 salvation, 58 prosperity, 59
and integrity. 60
The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis notes that and
indicate
right behavior or status in relation to some standard of behavior accepted in the community. It also entails
the adjudication of such behavior or status as well as the more abstract sense of some claim to it.
Nowhere, however, is this standard made explicit, nor is covenant invoked as a ground or basis for qdacf.
If a special notion like covenant is assumed, it remains firmly in the background. The picture is rather one
akin to natural law, where tacit assumptions about behavior are held in common, but nonetheless real for
40 Kevin Rudd, “Values, policy and public life” ABC Radio: Saturday Extra, November 4, 2006,
41 Jim Wallis, The Soul of Politics (New York: The New Press, 1994) 193.
42 Donald A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2 nd edition (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1996) 60-61.
43 Morphological search performed with GRAMCORD 2.4x on Groves-Wheeler Westminster Hebrew Morphology v.
3.1.
44 Lev 19:36, 25:15, Job 31:6, Ezek 45:10.
45 Deut 1:16, Ps 9:4, 58:1, Isa 16:5, 58:2, Jer 11:20.
46 Prov 31:9.
47 Ecc 5:7.
48 Deut 33:19, Ps 51:19.
49 Job 6:29.
50 Prov 12:17, 16:13.
51 Job 8:6.
52 Morphological search performed as in n. 43.
53 Gen 30:33.
54 2 Sam 8:15, 1 Chr 18:14.
55 2 Sam 19:28 (right of appeal), Neh 2:20 (property claim).
56 1 Kgs 8:32, 2 Chr 6:23, Isa 5:23.
57 Ps 24:5, Isa 54:17.
58 Ps 69:27.
59 Prov 8:18.
60 Isa 45:23.
Andrew Kulikovsky 20/04/2008 9

Justice and the Bible 10
that. Even in the legal context of standards for judicial behavior, [there appears to be a] self-evident
nature of the assumed standard. 61
Similarly, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament describes the words as “conformity to an
ethical, moral standard” which is “the nature and will of God.” 62 This meaning is also
communicated when it is contrasted with ‘wickedness.’ 63
Further evidence that / does not in itself directly correspond to ‘justice’ is the fact that
it appears many times in close connection with the Hebrew word +pf#$;mi () which is routinely
translated as ‘just’ or ‘justice.’ 64
Perhaps the best description of the kind of personal righteousness or moral uprightness referred to
may be found in Ezekiel 18:5-9:
Suppose there is a righteous man who does what is just and right. He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of the house of Israel. He does not defile his neighbor’s wife or lie with a woman
during her period. He does not oppress anyone, but returns what he took in pledge for a loan. He does not
commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked. He does not lend at
usury or take excessive interest. He withholds his hand from doing wrong and judges fairly between man
and man. He follows my decrees and faithfully keeps my laws. That man is righteous; he will surely live,
declares the Sovereign LORD.
Jeremiah 22:3 also describes this kind of moral righteousness: “This is what the LORD says: Do
what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no
wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this
place.”
In the New Testament, the Greek word dikaiosu/nh () is used in a similar fashion. It
appears 92 times in 86 verses. 65 It, too, most often refers to personal holiness and moral
uprightness, 66 but may also refer to the just nature of a judge. 67 John the Baptist was an example of
righteousness, 68 and the Holy Spirit will convict us of matters in regard to righteousness. 69
Righteousness can be obtained through faith in Christ rather than by works, 70 and righteous people
live by faith. 71 Righteousness is a central element of the Kingdom of God. 72 Abraham was righteous
because he believed God. 73 Noah was a preacher of righteousness. 74 God loves righteousness but
hates wickedness. 75 Righteousness should be the driving motive for the conduct of one’s life, but
our acts of righteousness should be performed covertly. 76
Thus, when English translations of the Bible use the word ‘just’ or ‘justice’—in both the Old and
New Testaments—the Biblical authors are most likely referring to personal holiness and moral
61 See ‘qdacf’ in Willem A. VanGemeren (editor), New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and
Exegesis (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1997). Henceforth, NIDOTTE.
62 See ‘qdece’ in Harris et al. (editors), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980).
63 Ps 45:8, Ecc 3:16.
64 Gen 18:19, Ps 33:5, 37:6, 89:15, Prov 1:3, 2:9, 21:3, Isa 58:2, Jer 33:15, Hos 2:21.
65 Morphological search performed as in n. 43.
66 Matt 5:17-20.
67 Rev 19:11.
68 Matt 21:32.
69 John 16:8.
70 Rom 3:21-22,4:1-8, 9:30-32, Gal 2:15-16.
71 Rom 1:17.
72 Rom 4:17, Matt 6:33.
73 Rom 4:3.
74 2 Pet 2:5.
75 Heb 1:9.
76 Matt 6:1.
Andrew Kulikovsky 20/04/2008 10

Justice and the Bible 11
uprightness, and the context will be the final determinant. The Hebrew and Greek words behind the
translation are never used to refer to the kind of economic social justice principles advocated by
those who stand on the ‘religious left’ side of politics and economics.
Equality and Partiality
Given that equality on one level usually leads to inequality at another, it is not surprising that many
Christians advocate an inconsistent program in respect to equality and partiality. To many Christian
social justice advocates, any material inequality at all is viewed as inherently unjust, regardless of
how that inequality came about, and even if the party that is less well off, is still, by all reasonable
criteria, very well off. When social justice advocates talk about the poor, needy and disadvantaged,
they are not just referring to those suffering oppression and fammon in far away lands. They also
have in mind those people in prosperous countries who are less prosperous, even though they have
no lack of food, shelter, clothing or government and aid agency support. In other words, from the
perspective of social justice advocates, it is fundamentally unjust that a successful businessman
owns a million dollar mansion and two holiday homes regardless of how they were acquired, while
a labourer rents a basic house from the government housing authority. Social justice advocates,
therefore, have no objections to showing partiality in these circumstances in order to redress this
material inequality.
For example, Brian Edgar claims that Biblical justice is “[a] concept biased in favour of the
disadvantaged.” 77 Unfortunately, he does not present any Scriptural support for his claim. This is
not surprising given that Scripture explicitly prohibits showing bias or partiality in matters of justice
to anyone, including the poor. For example, Leviticus 19:15 states: “Do not pervert justice; do not
show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” Showing
partiality to the poor is described as a perversion of justice. Exodus 23:3 states that favouritism
should not be shown to a poor man even in a lawsuit. There was also no partially when Moses took
a census and God required an offereing of half a shekel from everyone over the age of twenty years
(Ex 30:14-15). The rich were explicitly forbidden from giving more, and the poor were explicitly
prohibited from giving less. The poor did not expect material favoritism from God. What the poor
expected was fair dealings from merchants when selling their produce (Amos 2:6-7).
In 1 Peter 1:17, Peter states that God the Father judges each person’s work impartially. In Galatians
3:28, Paul makes it clear that in Christ there is no racial, social or sexual discrimination or
favouritism. All people stand equal before God. Similarly, in a church setting, James (2:1-9) warns
his readers not to show favouritism. 78 Furthermore, Paul instructed Timothy not to do anything out
of favouritism in regard to the handling of the conduct and character of church elders (I Tim 5:21).
Ross Langmead, however, points to Luke 4 as Jesus’ manifesto for the “Good News” being
especially for the poor, the blind and the captives. 79 But these words are a quotation of a Messianic
prophecy in Isaiah (61:1-2a and 58:6). The Messiah is to proclaim the good news (Gk.
eu0aggeli/z"w, ) to the poor. The good news is salvation, not any form of ‘social justice.’
The “poor” are the spiritually poor. The “blind” are the spiritually blind. The “captives” are those
that are spiritually captive. The “year of the Lord’s favour,” is not an indication of favoritism but of
77 Brian Edgar, “Grace as a Subversive Social Value” Faith and Community 4.
78 Note that verse 1 is a generic statement. James specifically condemns showing partiality to the rich merely as an
example, given that the rich were apparently oppressing the poor at that time (v. 6). There is no reason to assume that
James advocated that the poor should be favoured above the rich.
79 Ross Langmead, “Ten Reasons Why Justice is Essential to the Gospel”, Unpublished paper,
Andrew Kulikovsky 20/04/2008 11

Justice and the Bible 12
blessing, and, in light of the allusion to the year of Jubillee, of salvation, in that slaves would have
been freed.
Note also that Jesus associated with wealthy individuals on several occasions. He dined with the
wealthy chief tax collector, Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10), and declared that he had come to “seek and
to save the lost” regardless of whether they were rich or poor. He also raised the daughter of Jairus,
a synagogue ruler (Mark 5:22-43). Jesus’ response to these men was very different to that which he
gave to the rich young ruler (Luke 18:18-25), which indicates that his response to the rich young
ruler was specific to that individual and his spiritual condition not a general condemnation of
wealth.
However, there are many Old Testament passages which refer to God showing favor or people
seeking God’s favor. But these verses refer to God bestowing His approval and blessing on people
who have acted righteously. This kind of favor is not exclusive, and is granted to anyone who obeys
God and lives a righteous life. Thus, there is no sense of God arbitrarily favoring one person or
group of people over another.
Merit, Deserts and Reciprocity
The concept of merit and deserts features in the Bible on several occasions. When choosing
‘overseers’ (1 Tim 3:2-7), they must be above reproach, a veteran Christian, married to only one
woman, self-controlled, respectable, able to successfully manage their own family, and have a good
reputation with others, among other things. Likewise, deacons must be worthy of respect,
blameless, and sincere (1 Tim 3:8-12).
The Parable of the Talents (Matt 25:14-30) also captures the notions of merit and desert. The men
entrusted with five talents and two talents invested the money and doubled it. They were duly
rewarded for their good work. The man entrusted with one talent was lazy and fearful and did
nothing with it. He was duly punished for his lack of action. The merit principle that good deeds
will be rewarded while evil deeds will be punished is further reinforced by Paul in Romans 2:6-11:
God ‘will give to each person according to what he has done.’ To those who by persistence in doing good
seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who
reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every
human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for
everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism.
For faithful Christians, various crowns shall be awarded on the day of reckoning. The Crown of
Righteouness awaits all those who look forward to Christ’s appearing (2 Tim 4:8). The Crown of
Life is awarded to those who love God (James 1:12). The Crown of Glory awaits those who serves
as faithful shepherds of God’s people (1 Pet 5:4).
Indeed, the very fact that, in the end, some people will spend eternity in Heaven while others will
spend it in Hell, demonstrates that, although based more on what Christ has done rather than any
merit or desert of our own, this ‘ultimate’ reward or punishment is still awarded according to our
own personal choice to accept Christ or reject Him.
As noted above, the principle of reciprocity is found in Scripture in the ‘Golden Rule’ (Luke 6:31):
“Do to others as you would have them do to you.” In Colossians 3:25, Paul declares that wrong
actions will be repaid regardless of who does them: “Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his
wrong, and there is no favoritism.” Likewise, Job 20 describes the fate of a wicked man who
oppressed the poor.
Andrew Kulikovsky 20/04/2008 12

Justice and the Bible 13
But note that Jesus extends this principle in John 13:34: “A new command I give you: Love one
another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. Love one another as I have loved you.”
Jesus’ view of reciprocation is not to merely love those who love you, but to love everyone
including your enemies (Luke 6:27-35). Likewise, Jesus commanded us to be merciful because our
heavenly Father is merciful (Luke 6:36). This is the message of the Parable of Unforgiving Servant
(Matt 18:23-35). The servant was condemned beause, despite being shown mercy by his master, he
himself was not prepared to show mercy to his fellow servant.
In essense, this extended notion of reciprocation is the thesis of the Hollywood movie ‘Pay it
Forward.’ Various characters in the movie were the objects of good deeds, but instead of repaying
their debt to the one who did good to them, they would it “pay it forward” and do good to another.
Justice, Law and Government
The majority of references to “justice” in the Bible actually relate to a person’s legal rights. When
the sage exhorts us to “[s]peak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all
who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy” (Prov 31:8-
9), he is talking about the legal rights of the poor and destitute. When Absalom expressed his desire
to be a judge so that “everyone who has a complaint or case could come to [him] and [he] would see
that [they get] justice” (2 Sam 15:4), Absalom is talking about the courts upholding a person’s legal
rights. When Amos declares that the people “oppress the righteous and take bribes and…deprive the
poor of justice in the courts,” he is clearly referring to their legal rights being denied.
The Hebrew word most often rendered as ‘just’ or ‘justice’ in the Old Testament is +pf#$mi ().
It occurs 424 times in 406 verses, 80 and when rendered as ‘just’ or justice,’ is used in numerous
ways including as a reference to conformity with the law, 81 moral uprightness rooted in God’s
character, 82 doing the right thing, 83 and justice in legal disputes. 84 It can also refer to laws or
statutes, 85 legal rights, 86 legal proceedings in general, 87 correct weights and measures, 88
specified/prescribed offerings, 89 a judge’s decision/verdict, 90 and a sentence of punishment. 91
In the New Testament, the Greek word kri/sij () occurs 47 times in 46 verses and mostly
refers to divine judgment, especially in respect to the ‘day of judgment.’ 92 The word e)kdi/khsij
() is also rendered as ‘justice’ in three verses, 93 but like the word’s use elsewere, it carries
the connotation of vengence and punishment.
80 Morphological search performed as in n. 43.
81 Gen 18:19.
82 Ps 106.3.
83 Gen 18:25.
84 Exod 23:6.
85 Exod 15:25, 21:1.
86 Exod 21:9.
87 Num 35:12, Isa 3:14, Deut 1:17.
88 Lev 19:35-36.
89 Lev 5:10, 9:16, Num 29:6, 18, 21.
90 1 Kgs 3:2.
91 1 Kgs 20:40.
92 Matt 11:22, 12:41.
93 Luke 18:7,8, 2 Cor 7:11.
Andrew Kulikovsky 20/04/2008 13

Justice and the Bible 14
From the above, it is clear that when English translations of the Bible employ the word ‘justice,’ the
intended meaning is not any form of end-result distributive ‘social justice’ but to conformity with
the law, legal rights and judgements, moral uprightness and in some cases retribution.
Governments, then, in performing their role of doing and maintaining justice, must ensure that noone
is above the law (Job 34:17-19), that everyone regardless of the social status, maintains their
legal rights, that laws and statutes created are fair and just (Isa 10:1-2), that law breakers are
adequately punished, and that sufficient remedies are available to victims.
Grace, Compassion and the Poor and Needy
Christians and non-Christians who hold to socialist or left-wing political and economic principles
view justice as almost entirely consisting of end-result distributive ‘social justice.’ For example,
Edgar argues that “[f]rom a Christian and Biblical point of view justice means giving to people
according to need and even giving more than they might receive according to the principle of
equality.” 94 Thus, advocates of social justice are pre-occupied with assisting the poor and needy.
While there is certainly nothing wrong with assisting the poor and needy—indeed, it is a divine
imperative (Prov 29:7)—there is clearly much more to justice, both Biblically and generally, than
just this.
At this point, it is important to understand what is meant when the Bible refers to the poor and/or
needy. “Where Western thinking stresses the economic aspect of poverty, the [Ancient Near East]
understood poverty in the context of shame and honor.” Several Hebrew words are used to describe
such people. ynI(f () is used 80 times. It describes those who do not own their own land and
therefore need economic protection. The related word wnF(f () occurs 25 times and refers to the
oppressed or afflicted, and reflects the close connection between the oppressed and the poor. In
other words, their poverty is a result of them being oppressed. ld@a () is used 48 times, and
emphasises the subject’s weakness and vulnerability, and is used by Amos to describe peasant
farmers who have lost their lands to wealthy unscrupulous landlords (Amos 2:7). These people are
not presented as totally destitute since they are able to offer sacrifices and may be taxed (Lev 14:21,
Amos 5:11). 95 NwOyb;)e () occurs 42 times and describes those who are virtually destitute
because they have no means of their own and are completely dependent on others for their daily
survival. Nk@'s;mi (, ‘beggar’, ‘poor’) which is used 4 times and refers to those “whose social
status has destined them to belong to the lower strata of the honor/shame table.” 96 Note also that
poverty is, on occasion, used metaphorically to imply a person’s religious need (Matt 5:3).
The Biblical poor, then, are those who are vulnerable to abuse beause they are not economically
well off and/or have no kinsmen to protect them. As a result, they have sufferred oppression, had
their legal and moral rights suppressed, and been treated unfairly.
Because Christian social justice advocates tend to read their preconceived ideas into Scripture
(eisegesis) instead extacting ideas from Scripture (exegesis), they often display a general confusion
of concepts. Langmead, for example, states: “Justice is fairness embedded in the structures of
society. Biblical justice goes further than strict justice, and is imbued with grace, mercy and
forgiveness. It is structural love.” 97 But justice has nothing at all to do with grace, mercy or love.
94 Brian Edgar, “EA Statement on the Demise of ATSIC” Working Together 2 (2004) 9.
95 See ‘ld@a’ in NIDOTTE.
96 See ‘NwOyb;)e’ in NIDOTTE.
97 Langmead, .
Andrew Kulikovsky 20/04/2008 14

Justice and the Bible 15
These are totally separate concepts. In fact, there is an uneasy tension between justice on the one
hand, and love, grace, and mercy on the other. We are all sinful, rebellious human beings. God’s
justice demands that we die as a result, because the penalty for sin is death (Rom 3:23). Because of
God’s love, grace and mercy, however, He sent His own son, Jesus Christ, to die in our place so that
we may escape the justice that demands death and become justified through Christ.
Note also that Langmead’s view of justice implicitly lays all blame for the existence of poverty on
‘society’ and/or ‘government’ (cf. “the structures of society”). He and others assume—
incorrectly—that poverty (=injustice) is purely a result of governments and society in general acting
unjustly. He never considers that, in many cases, poverty comes as a result of laziness, foolishness
or just plain bad luck, and has nothing at all to do with government or other aspects of society.
In fact, a survey of the Proverbs shows how completely unbiblical such a view is. The Proverbs
explicitly state that poverty can come about as a result of laziness, sleep, selfishness, lack of
discipline, lack of action, impulsiveness, preoccupation with pleasures, drunkeness and gluttony,
and chasing of fantasies. 98 Wealth and prosperity, on the other hand, may come from honouring the
Lord, from wisdom, diligence, generosity, and righteousness (Heb. qydica, ). 99
The views of Edgar, Langmead and other end-result distributive social justice advocates, eminates
from left-wing Marxist/socialist economic ideology, and, as Nash points out, is not biblical in any
sense:
[I]t is essential to the Leftist’s cause that he read into biblical pronouncements about justice,
contemporary notions of distributive justice. When the Bible says that Noah was a just man, it does not
mean that he would have [advocated left-wing politics and economics]. It means simply that he was a
righteous man. Likewise, many Christians on the Left seek to reinterpret Jesus’ earthly mission in
exclusively economic and political terms. In their view, Jesus came primarily to deliver those who were
poor and oppressed in a material sense. But every member of the human race is poor in the sense of being
spiritually bankrupt. Jesus came to end our spiritual poverty by making available the righteousness that
God demands and that only God can provide. It is heresy to state that God’s love for people varies in
proportion to their wealth and social class. It is nonsense to suggest that all the poor are good and all the
rich are evil. 100
There is no doubt that, according to Scripture, the ‘righteous’ or ‘just’ have a definite obligation to
protect, and to look after the poor and needy (Jam 1:27), but this is a personal obligation based in
grace, mercy, love and compassion, not a mandate for government sponsored compulsory
redistribution or ‘positive discrimination’ programs.
APPLICATION OF BIBLICAL JUSTICE
Wallis asserts that “[t]he prophetic tradition insists that religion that does not manifest itself in
action for justice is false religion.” 101 However, this is typical of the kind of semantic equivocation
that social justice advocates employ in order persuade people to adopt their particular program.
Nowhere does he analyse in detail what biblical justice entails. He simply assumes that when the
Bible uses the word ‘justice’ it is talking about his brand of end-result distributive justice.
98 Prov 6:10-11, 10:4, 11:24, 13:18, 14:23, 20:13, 21:5, 21:17, 23:21, 28:19.
99 Prov 3:9, Prov 8:12-18, Prov 10:4, Prov 11:24, Prov 15:6.
100 Ronald Nash, “Socialism, Capitalism and the Bible” Imprimus 14/7 (July 1985).
101 Wallis, The Soul of Politics, 194.
Andrew Kulikovsky 20/04/2008 15

Justice and the Bible 16
Another favourite proof text of social justice advocates is Matthew 5:6: “Blessed are those who
hunger and thirst for justice [Gk. ], for they will be filled.” As discussed in section 0
above, refers not to social justice, but to personal holiness and moral uprightness.
Therefore, we must be sure of what the Scriptures are actually saying before we can entertain any
proposed application. As Petuchowski explains:
It becomes a matter of biblical exegesis and hermeneutics to determine whether or not the biblical
texts…really commit the latter-day believer to an espousal of socialism in the modern world…Still it is
quite possible to produce one-sided and partisan collections of biblical and rabbinic proof-texts which
would clearly demonstrate [a commitment] to this or that political program or social action platform.” 102
Economic Equality
As noted above, social justice advocates believe that any economic inequality is fundamentally
unjust. The Australian Evangelical Alliance’s treatise on economic issues asserts that, “Christians
will not only consider whether particular economic approaches and policies enhance the economic
position of society as a whole but will also consider the justice of the distribution of wealth and
resources” 103 and that “the Christian gospel calls for preferential treatment for the socially and
economically poor and disadvantaged.” 104
For example, Edgar, who is the Director of Theology and Public Policy for the Australian
Evangelical Alliance, is quick to point out the economic inequalities between aborigines and other
citizens, and claim that these inequalities are fundamentally unjust:
[T]here are serious injustices in the indigenous community which might well be referred to as the result of
‘stolen-wealth’. The Evangelical Alliance…affirms that as long as aboriginal people continue to suffer
poor health, low life-expectancy and the distressing effects of other detrimental social conditions there
will remain a need to recognize that ‘the common wealth’ of our society is not yet evenly or fairly
distributed. 105
There is no question that aborigines suffer poor health, low life-expectancy and other detrimental
social conditions, but it is completely unfair (‘unjust’) to lay the responsibility for this problem
solely on non-indigenous people. Even if we assume that aborigines were indeed illegally
dispossessed of their land at the time of English settlement (and that is a highly questionable view
in light of Michael Connor’s The Invention of Terra Nullius 106 ), to what extent are those living
today, over 200 years later, responsible? Why should people who were not parties to the allegedly
unjust transfer, pay compensation to the descendants of the alleged vitims of illegal dispossession?
102 Jacob Petuchowski, “The Altar Throne Clash Updated” Christianity Today (September 23, 1977) 20-21.
103 Anonymous, ‘Christian Values and Economic Policies’ Australian Evangelical Alliance, 2004,
.
104 Ibid.
105 Brian Edgar, “Stolen Wealth and Indigenous Issues at the Commonwealth Games” (Australian Evangelical Alliance,
2006) . Curiously, Tom Slater (“The Christian
Cause in Australia” (Australian Evangelical Alliance, 2006)
) argues that even this
is not enough: “According to the ancient prophets, where there is no justice in the land, there is no healing for the land.
The open wound on the soul of this country is our failure to redress the injustices perpetrated on its indigenous peoples,
and our land will be healed only when there is true reconciliation with them. So-called “practical reconciliation” [the
present government policy that rejects symbolic expressions of reconciliation and attempts instead to address the
immediate disadvantage of Indigenous people] not only falls far short of the demand for justice, it brings the word
“reconciliation” into disrepute in the community, and leads to an understandable cynicism in the minds of many,
especially and understandably the minds of our Indigenous sisters and brothers. If we in the church claim to be able to
give a lead in matters of spirituality within the life of our nation, we must lead the way in ensuring true reconciliation.”
106 Michael Connor, The Invention of Terra Nullius: Historical and legal fictions on the foundation of Australia
(Paddington, NSW: Macleay Press, 2005).
Andrew Kulikovsky 20/04/2008 16

Justice and the Bible 17
Moreover, it is questionable whether any kind of economic redistribution will fix any of these
problems. Alcoholism is one of the chief causes of Aboriginal health problems. Giving Aboriginals
more money may well just increase alcoholism and exacerbate their poor health. Free education
programs are only beneficial if Aboriginal people attend them and work at them. Despite the huge
amounts of government assistance given to aboriginal people and communities over the years, these
problems remain. As the Proverbs state, destitution, and a lack of money and resources, is the result
of poverty, not the cause of it.
Similarly, Jim Wallis asserts that the Biblical Jubilee year of Leviticus 25 teaches a regular
economic redistribution in order to level our material wealth to rectify the “human tendency toward
overaccumulation by some while others lose ground.” 107 This, however, is a highly selective
reading of the description of the Jubilee year. Firstly, the Jubilee did not provide for the cancellation
of debts. In fact, in normal circumstances a person who was indebted to another and could not pay
was forced to work for the person to whom they were in debt. A family member could redeem them
before the Jubilee year, but they had to pay a price for doing so (Lev 25:23-24; 47-54). Thus, the
person owed the debt would not necessarily lose anything at the time of the Jubilee, since they
would have had the benefit of the debtor’s (free) labour for a period of time. 108 Secondly, the
release of slaves related only to Israelites who possessed fellow Israelites as forced labourers as a
result of unpaid debts. It did not affect the possession of foreign slaves (Lev 25:44-46). Thirdly, the
return of property affected only that property that lay outside the city walls (i.e. agricultural land). It
did not affect land inside the cities, or other economic resources such as fishing boats and livestock
(Lev 25:29-30). Fourthly, the Jubilee redistribution did not always help all the poor. It provided
nothing to immigrants who had no original inheritance. People born just after a Jubilee year would
still have to suffer almost 50 years of economic inequality, and being poor, many would die before
the next Jubilee year. In reality, the Jubilee year would have little effect and provide little
immediate assistance to many of the poor. Fifthly, the amount of economic levelling would be
minimal, because knowledge of when the Jubilee year was due to occur would almost certainly
affect the way trade and commerce was conducted. No reasonable person would pay full price for a
piece of land that they would have to return in one or two years time. Thus, the value of land would
be highest just after the Jubilee and gradually decrease as the next Jubilee approaches. A person
who buys land just after a Jubilee year will pay a price in the full knowledge that he will have to
surrender it in 50 years. He will hold the land during this time and have every opportunity to use it
as an economic resource to produce wealth. On the other hand, a person wishing to purchase land
one or two years before a Jubilee year would only ever pay a fraction of what the land would
normally be worth because he knows that he has only a limited period of time to use the land to
create wealth (cf. Lev 25:15-17).
Wallis also asserts that the Sabbath year of Deuteronomy 15:1-9 offers a Biblical mandate for the
periodic cancellation of debt. Verse 1 (NIV) states: “At the end of every seven years you must
cancel debts.” However, there is much debate over whether this refers to permanent cancellation of
debt or a temporary suspension for one year. 109 The Hebrew word rendered as “cancel” in the NIV,
107 Wallis, The Soul of Politcis, 273. See also Ronald J. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (London: Hodder &
Stoughton, 1990) 79.
108 Obviously if the debtor became a forced labourer just before the year of Jubilee they would only have to suffer under
this situation for a very short period of time. However, the person owed the debt would have the power to determine
when their debt is called up. They could simply wait for a year or so until after the Jubilee has passed (since the Jubilee
does not require cancellation of debts) and then call up the debt. This would mean the debtor could potentially serve up
to fifty years.
109 Earl S. Kalland, ‘Deuteronomy’ in Frank E. Gaebelein (editor), Expositors Bible Commentary, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Zondervan, 1992).
Andrew Kulikovsky 20/04/2008 17

Justice and the Bible 18
NLT and GNB is h+@fmi#$; ( ) and is only used in this passage. However, all the standard
Hebrew lexicons define this word as ‘remission’ rather than ‘cancellation.’ 110 Although the verb
+ma#$f (), from which the noun is derived, has a much broader meaning, there is one instance
which is helpful. In Exodus 23:11, the verb refers to letting agricultural land lie unused for a year so
that the poor may get food from it. This was not a permanent release of the land, and the following
year the owner would use the land again. In addition,
a temporary respite is suggested both by the wording of v. 2 (‘he [the creditor] shall not press his
neighbor’) and by the fact that a special Year of Jubilee would have been unnecessary if the intention of
the sabbatical law had been the total, permanent cancellation of all debts and the permanent restoration of
all mortgaged property…It seems, then, that Deut 15:1-3 is instructing creditors to return pledges to
debtors and not to press for any loan repayments for the duration of the year of release…In v. 9, those
who are in a position to lend are exhorted not to be grudging and halfhearted in their response to poverty
and hardship, but to give cheerfully and generously, even when the seventh year, the year of
remission…is imminent. 111
It should also be noted that after the Israelites conquered the land of Canaan, the land was not
divided up evenly between the tribes in the first instance. The allocation was done by lot, and some
tribes received larger parcels of land than others. Manasseh, for example, received two huge
parcels, whereas Benjamin received only one small parcel, and the Levites were given none (Josh
18-19).
Sider, on the other hand, cites 2 Corinthians 8:13-15 as support for economic redistribution. 112
However, in this passage Paul encourages the Corinthians to give aid to the Jerusalem church out of
their abundance. Note that Paul did not command or coerce the Corinthians. This was to be a gift
according to their own discretion (2 Cor 8:7-12). Again, Sider is confusing grace and compassion
with justice.
Yet one of the strongest refutations of the equating of justice and material redistribution can be
found in the words of Jesus Himself. In Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42, Jesus points out that the
religious leaders routinely gave away a tenth of their produce, yet He chastises them because they
“neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulnes.” If material
redistribution to the poor is ‘doing justice’ then why does Jesus chastise them for neglecting justice?
In fact, Jesus does not stop there. He proceeds to condemn them in the harshest possible terms.
Despite their self-righteous superiority, beneath their veneer of piousness they were really
hypocrites, fools and blind guides. They were greedy, self-indulgent and wicked, had hearts like
tombs, and were like snakes and vipers (Matt 23, Luke 11:38-52).
In addition, experience shows that when redistributive social justice policies are implemented, not
only do these policies injure those who are deprived of their legitimate rights or claims to their
property, but the recipients of redistributed property are also not helped because they end up
becoming more and more dependent on these distributions. Thus, they ultimately lose any
motivation to work and improve themselves and their situation, and are therefore disempowered and
enslaved. 113 Ironically, in light of these experiences and the clear failure and injury caused by
110 See R. Whitaker, F. Brown, S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs, The Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English
Lexicon of the Old Testament (Princeton Theological Seminary, 1997, c1906); William L. Holladay (editor), A Concise
Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1988); Ludwig Koehler and
Walter Baumgartner et. al., Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995).
111 See ‘+ma#$f’ in NIDOTTE.
112 Ronald J. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1990) 78.
113 Nash, 60.
Andrew Kulikovsky 20/04/2008 18

Justice and the Bible 19
redistributive justice, its proponents argue that, rather than rejecting the idea, this is reason for
giving redistributive authorities more power! 114
Alternatively, social justice advocates push the principle of equal opportunity. As noted above, this
principle is equally flawed. Furthermore, advocates display a fundamental misunderstanding of
what an opportunity is. Reisman defines an opportunity as “merely an occasion on which successful
action is possible. It is a situation that an individual can take advantage of to his gain.” 115 Yet, it
should be noted that opportunities—even very good ones—do not guarantee success. The
opportunity needs to be seized and exploited, and this requires effort. Moreover, exploiting one
opportunity usually opens the door to more and better opportunities. In fact, there is really no
scarcity of opportunities in a free society. This is why we should not promote ‘equality of
opportunity’ but rather ‘freedom of opportunity.’ 116 Different opportunities will be open to different
people, and that cannot be changed because all people are different. But a land of opportunity does
not necessarily need to be a land of equal opportunity. 117
Ultimately, principles of equality applied to economics, education and other public policy areas lead
to social leveling. Those with superior intellect or ability are often prevented from reaching their
full potential. 118 This may in fact be the goal of many socialist ideolgues. Yet the irony is that those
who do well because of their superior intellect or ability are the kind of people that can make life
much better for the poor and disadvantaged through their scientific discoveries, medical cures and
technological innovations. Likewise, their successful business ventures will provide those at the
lower end of the social spectrum with more employment and training opportunities, which could
ultimately free them from poverty and improve their lot in life.
Advocacy for the Poor and Needy
Once again, Edgar asserts that “[j]ustice is not biblical justice unless in some way it involves the
weak, the poor, or the socially disadvantaged.” 119 In light of the discussion of Biblical justice above
this is clearly not true. Certainly, Biblical justice involves advocacy for the poor and the needy, but
there is more to Biblical justice than this.
Edgar adds:
Scriptural justice is not defined primarily either in individual terms or in abstract terms of fairness or
equality, it means very practical, down-to-earth actions which take place to ensure that the weak are
protected from abuse, that the poor have what they need, the stranger in the land is shown hospitality and
that the socially disadvantaged are cared for. There is then, a need for every society to ‘discriminate’ in a
positive sense and determine what is right socially and corporately - and not just personally and
individually.” 120
Although these broad notions appear quite reasonable, they are superficial. How exactly should they
be implemented in policy? Who exactly are the “poor”? Does this include those on a minimum
wage, or only those who have no property or income? Does the “socially disadvantaged” include
those who went to a public school rather than a private one? What constitutes abuse? What effect
will any legislation have on economic and contractual freedom? What exactly do the ‘poor’ need?
Are their needs limited to food, shelter and clothing, or do we include mobile phones, X-Box games
114 Ibid, 60-61.
115 Reisman, 338.
116 Ibid.
117 Schmidtz, 137.
118 Nash, 37.
119 Brian Edgar, “Biblical Justice” Working Together 1 (2004) 2-3.
120 Brian Edgar, “A Discussion of Same-sex Relationships and the Law” (Australian Evangelical Alliance, 2006)
Andrew Kulikovsky 20/04/2008 19

Justice and the Bible 20
consoles and plasma television sets? Who exactly should be considered a “stranger in the land”? A
visiting tourist only, or an illegal alien? What consitutes hospitality? How does one “determine
what is right socially and corporately”? What if this conflicts with what is right “personally and
individually”? Which takes precedence? Edgar does not even ask these questions let alone answer
them.
In his short essay on Biblical justice, Edgar presents the most illogical argument—a string of nonsequeters—that
Biblical justice sometimes requires preferential treatment for groups who have
greater need: 121
1. In forgiving and justifying us, God does not give us what we deserve.
2. Therefore, Biblical justice involves giving people what they do not deserve.
3. Because the Greek - and Hebrew word groups may be translated as either ‘justice’ or ‘righteousness’,
the two concepts are intimately linked and cannot be seperated.
4. Therefore, there is also an intimate connection between being justified and doing justice.
5. The gospel (and biblical justice) consists of both being justified by faith and doing justice.
6. The justice that must be done is social justice and consists of assisting and advocating for the poor and needy,
where we give them what they do not deserve.
Again, Edgar confuses justice with grace. Giving people what they do not deserve is an act of grace
not an act of justice. ‘Justice’ and ‘righteousness’ cannot be used interchangeably to render the
Biblical words and . ‘Doing justice’ may be an aspect of living righteously, but it
is not part of the Christian gospel per se. In fact, the Christian gospel denies that we can do anything
to obtain salvation. We must instead submit to God’s grace and accept his forgiveness. ‘Doing
justice’ by assisting the poor and needy is an obligation of those who have responded to the gospel.
It is not part of the gospel itself.
Edgar also has a more radical plan for Christians to change society: “Justice and justification by
faith, worship and political action, the spiritual and the material, personal change and structural
change belong together. As in the life of Jesus, being, doing and saying are at the heart of integral
task.” 122 Similarly, Neville claims that Jesus called for social transformation as confirmed by the
nature of his mission and that His teaching was aimed at addressing social relations and social
justice. 123 However, this fanciful nonsense sounds more like Karl Marx than Jesus Christ. Jesus did
not preach any such revolutionary gospel. Admittedly, this is what the people and the disciples
expected, but that was not what the gospel of God’s kingdom was about. Neither Jesus nor the
apostles preached against slavery. Although Jesus ministered to prostitutes and encouraged them to
leave their life of sin, He did not preach emancipation of women. Nor did he advocate minimum
wages and social welfare when he came across beggars and the sick. Edgar’s and Neville’s claims
are eisegesis not exegesis. They are projecting modern socialist notions onto the text—notions
which are totally foreign to the intent of the author. Such fanciful interpretations are surely a gross
abuse of Scripture.
Sider asserts that Scripture reveals that God regularly chastises the rich because they either oppress
or neglect the poor, and will eventually be cut down. 124 This may be true in some circumstances but
it is certainly not a general truth that rich people oppress or neglect the poor. On the contrary, not
only have wealthy individuals helped the poor by providing employment opportunities, and cheaper
121 Edgar, “Biblical Justice”.
122 Ibid, “Biblical Justice” 2.
123 David Neville, “Jesus’ Vision of God’s Fair Reign” Unpublished paper, 2005,
.
124 Sider, 61, 64-65.
Andrew Kulikovsky 20/04/2008 20

Justice and the Bible 21
and better products and services, many are also incredibly generous philanthropists. 125 Sider never
considers the more likely possibility that wealthy people became wealthy, not by oppressing the
poor, but by working hard and using their intelligence. Indeed, Sider appears to be saying that
poverty is a virtue in itself while acquiring great wealth—even by legitimate means—is somehow
immoral.
Again, there is no question that Christians must assist the poor and needy. The Scriptures are clear
on this. However, assisting the poor and needy is not limited to providing economic aid and
financial assistance. The legal texts indicate a primary interest in protecting the rights of those who
are on the lowest rungs of society, because these people (orphans, widows, and the very poor) lack
power and this makes them vulnerable to abuse. 126 Likewise, Proverbs 31:8-9 states: “Speak up for
those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge
fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” Amos, on the other hand, points out that God
pronounces judgment on those who oppress the poor and needy (Amos 2:7, 4:1, 5:11).
But how should Christians go about doing this? What policies should be employed? Christian
socialists believe that poverty can be almost eradicated completely if a program of economic
redistribution is adopted. Thus, Christian socialists have created and promoted The Micah
Challenge, and have been quick to endorse the secular Make Poverty History campaign, both of
which call for economic redistribution at various levels. Steven Bradbury argues that
the Micah Challenge is a deeply spiritual conviction: that the Creator of the universe requires all
governments to “give justice to the weak and the orphan; maintain the right of the lowly and destitute”,
and to “rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked” (Psalm 82). What we
have in this Psalm is a profound prophetic vision. The world’s political leaders are gathered by God into a
global forum…God is in charge. He has but one question to ask of these powerful men and women: “How
long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?” “Give justice to the weak and the
orphan; maintain the right of the lowly and destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from
the hand of the wicked.” This is God’s mandate to all governments, regardless of their political ideology
or religious persuasion. All political leaders are accountable to God for their performance in delivering
policies that respond effectively to the needs of poor and oppressed communities. 127
However, Bradbury’s appeal to Psalm 82 as Scriptural support for his view is misguided, and
another instance of lazy exegesis where one reads their own interpretation back into the text instead
of doing the exegetical hard work. Psalm 82 is an exhortation in the form of a prophetic vision. The
presence of the similes “like humankind” and “like the princes/chieftains” in verse 7 make it
impossible to assume that the “gods” could be human beings. 128 Rather, the “gods” are pagan
deities, distortions of the One True God (verse 6: “sons of the “Most High”) and are portrayed as
being nothing more than subjects who must render an account to the God of Israel for all their evil
and unjust acts. The imagery of the pagan pantheon of gods is used to dramatically present God’s
impending judgment of evil rulers who oppress the people. 129 Therefore, Psalm 82 offers no support
for the view that national governments may take on complete responsibility for eliminating world
poverty.
According to Scripture, assisting the poor and needy is characteristic of those who are righteous.
When applied to people, righteousness is a personal characteristic and the obligation to assist the
poor and needy is a personal obligation. Christians should show grace and compassion to the poor
125 See, for example, Business Week magazine’s list of the 50 most generous (American) philanthropists up to 2005:
.
126 See ‘NwOyb;)e’ in NIDOTTE.
127 Steven Bradbury, ‘Seizing the Time – the Micah Challenge’ Australian Evangelical Alliance, 2004,
.
128 Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51-100, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1998) 340.
129 Mattitiahu Tsevat, “God and the Gods in Assembly” HUCA 40-41 (1969-70) 123-37.
Andrew Kulikovsky 20/04/2008 21

Justice and the Bible 22
and needy, forgive them their debts, and aid them in their useful endeavors, not just because God
has commanded us to do so, but because ultimately we all depend on the grace and compassion of
God. When we show grace to others we mimic the grace of God. This is the message of the parable
of the unforgiving servant (Matt 18:23-35). Moreover, the personal nature of the obligation to assist
the poor is reinforced by Jesus’ command to give covertly:
Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have
no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets,
as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they
have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what
your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in
secret, will reward you (Matt 6:1-4).
It is unrealistic to think, as socialists do, that poverty can be effectively eradicated by economic
redistribution. Their belief is based on the false assumption that poverty is simply a resource
problem, but as the Proverbs indicate, poverty often results from laziness, foolishness and
oppressive rulers. This reality is reflected in the tension that exists in Deuteronomy 15. In verse 4,
God wills that “there should be no poor among you,” but in verse 11, God decalres: “There will
always be poor people in the land.” The solution to this tension appears to be verse 5, which
predicates the absence of the poor on obedience to God’s commands.
It is also a mistake to think, as Christian socialists do, that assisting the poor and needy is limited to
material and economic considerations. In Psalm 72, the psalmist describes the actions of a just king.
He takes pity on the weak and the needy and saves them from death, and he rescues them from
oppression and violence. Yet such acts will normally require physical force and/or open war. Social
justice preachers talk about assisting the poor in such circumstances but are reticent to take any
meaningful action. The cases of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and the slaughter in Darfur province in
Sudan, are good examples.
Jim Wallis, for example, writes:
Saddam Hussein was an evil ruler, no doubt about it. Add to that description—extraordinarily brutal and
unbelievably cruel…Those who minimized his evil were morally irresponsible, and those who
underestimated his willingness to commit mass murder (again) were making a serious mistake…Saddam
Hussein and his government had cruelly repressed the Iraqi people and were a real threat to other
countries in the region and potentially to the world. He had used chemical weapons and had stockpiled
biological weapons, and he was trying hard (though unsuccessfully, we have learned) to acquire nuclear
weapons.” 130
Yet Wallis concludes: “But that was not enough for a war…” 131 The deposing of Saddam by the
USA and its allies, according to Wallis, was unjust because it violated international law, was unwise
and immoral. 132 This is a very perculiar conclusion from someone who rightly ackowledges
Saddam’s evil actions and brutality, that all diplomatic attempts at resolution had failed and were
unlikely to succeed in the future given that “[t]he only commitmment Saddam Hussein had ever
shown was to the preservation of his own power.” 133
This is not unlike the situation in Sudan’s Darfur province, where thousands are being slaughtered
every year. Mark Steyn highlights the utter foolishness of relying on international consensus before
acting to stop injustice:
If you think the case for intervention in Darfur depends on whether or not the Chinese guy raises his
hand, sorry, you're not being serious. The good people of Darfur have been entrusted to the legitimacy of
130 Jim Wallis, God’s Politics (New York: HarperCollins, 2005) 108-109, 110-111.
131 Ibid, 108.
132 Ibid, 113-116.
133 Ibid, 108.
Andrew Kulikovsky 20/04/2008 22

Justice and the Bible 23
the UN for more than two years and it's killing them. In 2004, after months of expressing deep concern,
grave concern, deep concern over the graves and deep grave concern over whether the graves were deep
enough, Kofi Annan took decisive action and appointed a UN committee to look into what's going on.
Eventually, they reported back that it's not genocide.
Thank goodness for that. Because, as yet another Kofi-appointed UN committee boldly declared,
“genocide anywhere is a threat to the security of all and should never be tolerated.” So fortunately what’s
going on in the Sudan isn’t genocide. Instead, it’s just hundreds of thousands of corpses who happen to be
from the same ethnic group, which means the UN can go on tolerating it until everyone’s dead, at which
point the so-called “decent left” can support a “multinational” force under the auspices of the Arab
League going in to ensure the corpses don’t pollute the water supply. 134
Christian social justice advocates also ignore the importance of work, which is clearly affirmed in
Scripture, 135 and how it has proved to be the most successful weapon in combatting poverty. As
Allister Heath pointed out, multinational companies have improved the lives of the poor in Africa,
more than do-gooder charities:
[T]he stark reality is that the remarkable alleviation of poverty witnessed in recent years in Asian
countries such as India and China has nothing to do with handouts and everything to do with governments
embracing the institutions of capitalism. The only way sub-Saharan Africa will be able to feed and clothe
its people is if African politicians follow suit, and that is where multinationals, the foot soldiers of the
market economy, come in.
The widespread view, even among those who should know better, is that multinationals exploit workers
in poor countries by paying them extremely low wages and keeping them in sweatshop conditions, then
make a bundle by selling the goods they make at huge profit margins in the West.
A related argument is that multinationals regularly violate the human rights of their poorest workers and
perpetuate the disgrace that is child labour. But the truth, as is so often the case, is the opposite.
…Far from exploiting the rock-bottom wage rates generally paid in the poorest countries, multinationals
tend to pay well above the going rate in the areas in which they are located.
In the case of US multinationals, pay is 40 per cent to 100 per cent above local wages. No wonder locals
queue up to get a job whenever a multinational opens its doors in a poor country: wages that may look
miserable to us allow their recipients in Burma or Bangladesh to live in relative comfort.
Working conditions in factories owned and operated by multinationals are invariably superior to those of
their local competitors. Western firms also know better than to employ child labour, if only to protect
themselves from adverse publicity back home. Multinationals help to transfer capital, resources, skills and
technical know-how across borders. Workers trained by global companies are invariably more productive
than those in local firms, and when the workers move on they take their knowledge with them, helping to
spread better working practices, increased productivity and higher living standards.
It is also wrong to believe that multinationals make huge profits from factories in Asia or Latin America.
Competition is such that producing manufactured goods to export to the West is a low-margin business.
After wages, raw material costs and transport are taken into account, there is little left.
The case of Vietnam is especially instructive. Workers fortunate enough to work for multinationals there
enjoy a standard of living that is twice as high as that of the rest of the population.
In a paper debunking the sweatshop myth, Paul Glewwe, a leading development economist, revealed that
the average wage-earner in Vietnam earned US23c an hour, but workers in foreign-owned businesses
fared far better, making an average of US42c an hour. When Glewwe conducted his work, 15 per cent of
Vietnamese were classified as very poor and 37 per cent as poor. But nobody working for multinationals
was classified as very poor and only about 8 per cent were poor, proving that working for a foreign
company is the best way to escape poverty and deprivation. Foreign employers drive wealth creation,
pushing up everybody's wages.
The presence of multinationals in Vietnam also disproportionately benefits women and the young, two
groups that are usually marginalised in poor countries. Two-thirds of workers in foreign-owned
businesses in Vietnam are women, and nearly two-thirds are in their 20s, confirming that globalisation is
driving social change and female emancipation. 136
134 Mark Steyn, “New Coalition of Willing Needed in Darfur” The Australian (May 8, 2006).
135 2 Thess 3:6ff, 1 Thess 4:10-11, Eph 4:28.
136 Allister Heath, “The gift of work is best of all” The Australian (December 19, 2006). See also Paul Glewwe, “Are
Foreign-Owned Businesses in Viet Nam Really Sweatshops?” University of Minnesota Extension Service Newsletter
701 (Summer, 2000) .
Andrew Kulikovsky 20/04/2008 23

Justice and the Bible 24
CONCLUSION
Christian socialists do not distinguish between the different meanings and nuances of justice
presented in Scripture. They just assume that any reference to justice automatically refers to
distributive social justice. However, as shown above, this is not the case. Moreover, Christians who
focus on advocacy for the poor and disadvantaged do not distinguish between free and generous
giving (which the Bible teaches) and the welfare state funded by high taxation (which the Bible
does not teach). Thus, it is ironic that Edgar believes “there is a need to read our Bible without any
blinkers. Biblical justice means not less Bible but more, especially the gospels and prophets.” 137
Indeed, if social justice advocates follow Edgar’s advice they would abandon their commitment to
social justice.
Nobel prize winning economist, Friedrich Hayek, noted that clergymen have been active promoters
of ‘social justice,’ “while increasingly losing their faith in a supernatural revelation” and “appear to
have sought a refuge and consolation in a new ‘social’ religion which substitutes a temporal for a
celestial promise of justice, and who hope that they can thus continue their striving to do good.” 138
Christian socialists believe that Christians are obliged to accept statist redistribution to aid the poor
and some even cast doubt on the genuineness of the Christian commitment of those who do not
openly embrace their redistributive policies. 139
Jesus told his disciples that the two greatest commandments were to “love the Lord your God with
all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” and to “love your neighbour as
yourself” (Matt 22:37-40; Mark 12:30-31). These commandments are summaries of the decalogue
(ten commandments). The first four commandments relate to loving God whole-heartedly. The
remaining six relate to loving our neighbour as ourselves. If we love our fellow humans we will
honor our parents, we will not murder or commit adultery. We will not steal from our neighbour, or
lie about them. We will not covet their property. Yet ‘Christian socialists’ advocate policies that
bare false witness against their fellow humans by implying that their wealth is inherently unjust or
was obtained unjustly. They never consider that a person may have obtained wealth through the
application of their intelligence, innovation and hard work. They advocate policies that encourage
covetessness of others’ property instead of encouraging people to obtain their own property. They
advocate policies that effectively result in state sanctioned theft since such policies call for the
involuntary transfer of property by force of law. Such policies are clearly in error and stand against
the spirit of Scriptural teaching. Therefore, it is right to respond to Christain social justice advocates
today, as Jesus once responded to the religious leaders of his day in another context: “You are in
error because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matt 22:29).
137 Edgar, “Biblical Justice”, 3.
138 Friedrich Hayek, Law, Legislation and Liberty, 3 volumes (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973-1979) 2:66.
139 Nash, 69.
Andrew Kulikovsky 20/04/2008 24

Page 106 of 132

Attachment C
God The Judge and Human Justice
Page 107 of 132

God the Judge and Human Justice
__ JOURNAL OF LAW AND RELIGION __ (forthcoming 2016)
Randy Beck*
The biblical authors often portray God as a royal Judge who brings justice to a fallen creation.
This portrayal analogizes God’s role in governing humanity to the role played by judges in
human legal systems. The divine Judge, like human judges, investigates and evaluates conduct,
measuring human acts against applicable laws. Like human judges, He fashions punishments and
rewards to accomplish justice in light of the conduct disclosed.
The recurring biblical portrayal of God as a Judge invites reflection on the relationship between
divine and human justice. How far should the analogy between God and human judges be taken?
Should judges “imitate God, in whose Seat they sit?” 1 Or might the differences between God and
human judges mean that some judgments are only appropriate for God to impose? 2
This paper considers what insights divine justice might offer for human law. I begin by analyzing
three biblical accounts of divine justice: Jesus’ story of the rich man and Lazarus, the punishment
of King Uzziah for usurping priestly functions, and the reward bestowed on Jesus for resisting
the devil’s temptations. In each account, God implements a sophisticated form of retributive
justice, artistically applying the principle “as he has done it shall be done to him.” (cite) This
biblical understanding of divine justice can help us understand and evaluate human legal
systems, playing a role analogous to the idea of perfect competition in economic analysis.
I. Biblical Portrayals of Divine Justice
A. The Rich Man and Lazarus
In Luke’s gospel, Jesus tells the story of the rich man and Lazarus. The narrative concerns a rich
man who feasts daily. He routinely walks past a poor beggar named Lazarus, but never stops to
* Justice Thomas O. Marshall Chair of Constitutional Law, University of Georgia School of Law (US)
1
Francis Bacon, Of Judicature, in FRANCIS BACON, THE ESSAYS 316, 320 (1625) (Scolar Press 1971).
2
Vladimir Soloviev, On the Death Penalty, LAW AND MORALITY: ESSAYS IN APPLIED ETHICS (1897), in II THE
TEACHINGS OF MODERN CHRISTIANITY ON LAW, POLITICS AND HUMAN NATURE 430 (John Witte & Frank S.
Alexander, eds., 2007).

Draft: February 2016
help. Jesus artistically describes how the rich man and Lazarus effectively trade places in the
afterlife. The account reflects a sustained parallelism between what the rich man does (or fails to
do) in this life and what happens in the life to come:
The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)
This Life
The rich man lives luxuriously
Lazarus is hungry and covered with sores
Lazarus longs for crumbs from the rich man’s
table
Lazarus begs, but the rich man fails to help
The rich man is presumably well known;
Lazarus is overlooked
The Afterlife
Lazarus rests in Abraham’s bosom
The rich man is thirsty and tormented by flame
The rich man longs for drops of water from
Lazarus’ finger
The rich man begs, but Lazarus cannot help
Lazarus has a name; the rich man’s name is
never mentioned
The Mosaic “eye-for-an-eye” principle assumes a simple scenario in which one individual
assaults another. In Jesus’ story, the rich man commits no act of violence. He hardly notices
Lazarus. Does retributive justice apply to wrongful inaction? The Proverbs anticipated this
question and offered a picture of retributive justice in these circumstances: “Whoever closes his
ear to the cry of the poor will himself call out and not be answered.” (Proverbs 21:13) Jesus’
story offers an extended illustration of the proverb, clarifying how divine justice responds to
indifference in the face of suffering.
B. Uzziah and the Priests
The author of Chronicles tells the story of Uzziah, who became king of Judah in place of his
father. (II Chronicles 26) “[A]s long as he sought the Lord, God made him prosper.” As an old
man, however, Uzziah’s pride led to his downfall. Uzziah entered the temple to burn incense,
where he was confronted by Azariah and a company of priests:
“It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord, but for the priests, the sons of
Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense. Go out of the sanctuary, for you have done
wrong, and it will bring you no honor from the Lord God.” Then Uzziah was angry. Now
he had a censer in his hand to burn incense, and when he became angry with the priests,
leprosy broke out on his forehead in the presence of the priests in the house of the Lord,
by the altar of incense. And Azariah the chief priest and all the priests looked at him, and
behold, he was leprous in his forehead! And they rushed him out quickly, and he himself
hurried to go out, because the Lord had struck him. And King Uzziah was a leper to the
day of his death, and being a leper lived in a separate house, for he was excluded from the
2

Draft: February 2016
house of the Lord. And Jotham his son was over the king’s household, governing the
people of the land. (II Chronicles 26:18b-21)
From one perspective, we could say that Uzziah was unwilling to let God rule in God’s “house,”
so the punishment made it impossible for Uzziah to rule in his own “house.” 3 From a broader
perspective, however, Uzziah’s punishment reflects the harm inflicted on Israel’s communal life.
Kings were to be descendants of David, from the tribe of Judah. Temple functions were reserved
for priests from the tribe of Levi. By assigning the kingship and priesthood to different tribes,
God implemented a form of separation of powers, ensuring a degree of partition between religion
and politics. In his pride, Uzziah challenged this divided structure, seeking a place at the center
of both political and religious life. Since Uzziah sought to usurp religious authority God had not
given him, he was effectively deprived of the political authority God had given him.
Uzziah’s usurpation of priestly functions rested on an implicit claim that he was morally fit to
serve in the temple. Divine justice not only undermined the king’s objective, but also responded
to Uzziah’s implicit assertion. The authority of the high priest was represented by a gold plate
worn on his forehead, engraved with the words “Holy to the Lord.” (Exodus 28:36-38) In
response to Uzziah’s misconduct, God gave the king leprosy, a sign of uncleanness, in the same
location as the high priest’s inscription.
C. Jesus’ Resistance to Temptation
Discussions of “justice” often focus on punishment, but giving people what they deserve also
involves rewards for meritorious conduct. Matthew’s gospel displays this sort of divine justice,
artistically linking Jesus’ virtuous conduct near the beginning of his public ministry, when he
resists the devil’s temptations, with the honors bestowed on Jesus as the gospel draws to a close.
Matthew 4:8-10 Matthew 28:16-20
The devil takes Jesus to a very high
“mountain”
Jesus refuses to “worship” the devil
The devil offers to “give” Jesus “all” the
kingdoms
The disciples meet Jesus on a “mountain”
The disciples “worship” Jesus
Jesus says “all” authority has been “given” to
him
3
Many thanks to Beth Beck for this observation.
3

Draft: February 2016
These passages describe the first and last times Jesus ascends a mountain in Matthew’s gospel,
narrative details with structural significance. The passages are linked by the theme of proper
worship. Jesus rejects the devil’s temptation based on the Deuteronomic injunction that one must
worship God alone. The gospel subtly reveals Jesus’ divine identity when the disciples worship
Jesus at the end of the book. Comparison of the accounts also reveals parallelism between the
inducement offered by Satan and the honor bestowed on Jesus after he triumphs over the cross.
The devil offered to “give” Jesus “all” the kingdoms of the world and their glory. Because Jesus
resisted temptation, God “gives” him “all” authority in heaven and on earth, a reward like, but
greater than, the inducement offered by Satan.
II.
Jesus and the Lex Talionis
In the Sermon on the Mount from Matthew’s gospel, Jesus seems to call into question the
talionic “eye-for-an-eye” principle from the law of Moses:
You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to
you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to
him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your
cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. (Matthew
5:38-41)
This passage has led some Christians to conclude that “Jesus explicitly repudiated the lex
talionis.” 4 If Jesus in fact rejected the talionic principle, that could call into question the broader
norm of retributive justice.
Several other passages from the Sermon on the Mount, however, assume that God as Judge
enforces the demands of retributive justice. Consider a familiar petition from the Lord’s Prayer:
“forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.” Jesus elaborates: “For if you
forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not
forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”
(Matthew 6:14-15) Notice that Jesus’ teaching rests on a talionic understanding of divine justice;
God treats people the same way they treat others. Another familiar passage makes a similar
point: “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be
judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.” (Matthew 7:1-2) Retributive
justice may also underlie a number of the Beatitudes. For instance, “Blessed are the merciful, for
they shall receive mercy” seems perfectly retributive; the blessed are treated the same way they
treat others. (Matthew 5:7)
4
United Methodist Church, 2004 Book of Resolutions, Resolution #246.
4

Draft: February 2016
We must therefore read Jesus’ teaching concerning the talionic principle against a background
assumption of divine retribution. In place of “[a]n eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” from
the law of Moses, Jesus instructs “[d]o not resist the one who is evil,” offering three illustrations.
Notice that each illustration involves a connection between the talionic principle and Jesus’
suggested response. If one person slaps another on the cheek, the talionic principle would call for
a retaliatory slap on the aggressor’s cheek. When Jesus says “turn to him the other [cheek] also,”
he urges the victim to accept the punishment the aggressor deserves. Similarly, if someone evil
sues for a person’s tunic, the talionic response would be to demand the plaintiff’s garment in
return. Instead, Jesus tells the victim to “let him have your cloak as well,” accepting the
retributive punishment earned by the wrongdoer. The talionic response to being forced to walk a
mile would be to force the aggressor to walk a mile in a different direction. Jesus instead asks the
victim to “go with him two miles.”
Jesus does not question the justice of retribution, but asks his followers to set aside the demands
of justice or, more precisely, to fulfill the demands of justice on behalf of those who wrong them.
Jesus’ teaching may be more comprehensible when we recall that this instruction is a picture of
what Jesus accomplished in the crucifixion as explained in other parts of the New Testament.
Jesus’ death fulfilled the demands of justice on behalf of those who were his enemies. We should
not be surprised, then, that echoes of this passage reverberate through Matthew’s account of
Jesus’ trial and execution. We see Jesus slapped on the face during his trial before the high
priest. (Matthew 26:67-68) We see him stripped of his garments by Roman soldiers. (Matthew
27:31, 35) We see him forced to go from Gethsemene to Caiaphas, then from Caiaphas to Pilate,
and then from Pilate to Golgotha. (Matthew 26:57, 27:2, 31)
Jesus does not reject retributive justice in the Sermon on the Mount, but instead draws novel
implications from the assumption of divine retribution. The talionic principle gives retributive
justice a backward looking focus. Jesus gives retributive justice a forward looking focus in the
Golden Rule: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the
Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 7:12) Christians are not to treat others the way others treated
them in the past; instead they must treat others the way they would like to be treated in the
future.
III.
God’s Justice and Human Justice
Having examined biblical depictions of divine justice, we can now consider implications for
human law. This is analogous to the use made of the idea of perfect competition in economic
analysis. A model of perfect competition helps economists because “the operation of a purely
competitive economy provides us with a standard, or norm, against which the efficiency of the
5

Draft: February 2016
real-world economy can be compared and evaluated.” 5 Similarly, we can describe perfect justice
by reference to the characteristics of God as Judge and the relationship between acts and
consequences in his judgments. These features of perfect justice can then help us evaluate human
legal systems and identify shortcomings and limitations of human law.
A. God’s Character as a Model for Human Judges
Biblical narratives about divine justice rest on the foundation of God’s character. Attributes that
make God an ideal Judge can be used to evaluate human judges. King Jehoshaphat makes this
logic explicit when he instructs the judges of Judah: “Consider what you do, for you judge not
for man but for the Lord. He is with you in giving judgment. Now then, let the fear of
the Lord be upon you. Be careful what you do, for there is no injustice with the Lord our God, or
partiality or taking bribes.” (II Chronicles 19) God is just, so judges must be just. God is
impartial, so they should be impartial. God will not take a bribe, so neither should they.
B. Human Judges Lack God’s Knowledge and Power
While we want human judges to imitate God in certain respects, there are many ways in which
human judges differ from God. These differences affect the reliability of human judgments and
the capacity of human institutions to accomplish complete justice. Human judges lack God’s full
knowledge of past and future events. They often base their legal conclusions on factual findings
later found to be inaccurate. God also differs from human judges with respect to the power and
resources at his command. The limited power of human courts bounds the sorts of judgments
they can impose and, hence, the objectives they can pursue. For example, a biblical
understanding of our moral obligations—perfect love of God and neighbor—compels a
distinction between morality and law. Human justice necessarily falls short of divine justice both
in the range of obligations enforced and the accuracy of determinations concerning whether
those obligations have been violated.
C. Perfect Retribution and the Theory of Punishment
How should governments decide what punishments to inflict? Retributivists argue that offenders
should be given the punishments they deserve. They suggest that viewing punishment as a means
to an end, without reference to any notion of desert, could result in excessive punishments.
Consequentialists argue that punishment should produce desirable consequences, such as
deterrence or incapacitation or reformation. A consistent theory of retribution, they believe, calls
for the state to inflict suffering on the morally culpable, even when no social good results.
5
CAMPBELL R. MCCONNELL & WILLIAM HENRY POPE, ECONOMICS: PRINCIPLES, PROBLEMS, AND POLICIES 155 (4 th
Canadian ed. 1987).
6

Draft: February 2016
Discussions between retributivists and consequentialists often reference the talionic principle,
understood to embody a retributive theory of punishment. But while biblical justice is retributive,
it does not follow that Christians should side with retributivists over consequentialists in debates
about human law. Our examination of divine justice led to the conclusion that government can
only enforce a small subset of the obligations imposed by divine law. Human government
possesses limited capacity and resources, and must leave much wrongdoing unaddressed. In
deciding how to direct the coercive efforts of government, plenty of room exists for
consequentialist considerations, even if one believes in retribution as the ideal of justice.
D. The Unsatisfactory Results of Proportionality Review
The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted two provisions of the Constitution to require some
degree of proportionality between an offense and the resulting punishment, the Eighth
Amendment with respect to criminal sentencing and the Due Process Clause in connection with
punitive damages. The Court’s proportionality jurisprudence will always be problematic. We can
see the problem by comparing the Court’s attempts at proportionality analysis with the examples
of biblical justice discussed above. In the biblical accounts, the punishment was like the offense
in some clearly discernible way. Our system of justice, however, relies on monetary penalties
and imprisonment. These homogenized modes of punishment make it virtually impossible to
determine whether the magnitude of a penalty matches the gravity of the offense.
E. Divine Justice as a Motive for Mercy
Some retributivists consider mercy problematic, since clemency involves a departure from the
requirements of justice. Saint Augustine addressed this question in a fascinating letter responding
to an inquiry from a Roman judge. The provincial governor of Africa, Macedonius, asked why
the clergy interceded on behalf of condemned prisoners. He suggested that the church implicated
itself in criminal conduct by seeking to prevent just punishment.
In response, Augustine offered several arguments for clerical intercession and judicial clemency.
Of particular interest, Augustine contended a judge should extend mercy because the judge will
one day be judged: “[Y]ou need the mercy which you grant to others.” In this respect, he
suggested, the judge, the criminal and the intercessor all stand on common ground: “we
intercede, if not as criminals for criminals, at least as sinners for sinners, and, I think, with
sinners.”
Augustine’s letter to Macedonius suggests various limiting principles to cabin judicial clemency.
Intercession was apparently limited to offenders who acknowledged their crimes and promised a
change of behavior. He also recognized that for some offenders, mercy might do more harm than
good. Moreover, judicial severity serves important purposes, including deterrence: “There is
7

Draft: February 2016
good . . . in your severity which works to secure our tranquility, and there is good in our
intercession which works to restrain your severity.”
8

Page 108 of 132

Advocacy Foundation Publishers
Page 109 of 132

Advocacy Foundation Publishers
The e-Advocate Quarterly
Page 110 of 132

Issue Title Quarterly
Vol. I 2015 The Fundamentals
I
The ComeUnity ReEngineering
Project Initiative
Q-1 2015
II The Adolescent Law Group Q-2 2015
III
Landmark Cases in US
Juvenile Justice (PA)
Q-3 2015
IV The First Amendment Project Q-4 2015
Vol. II 2016 Strategic Development
V The Fourth Amendment Project Q-1 2016
VI
Landmark Cases in US
Juvenile Justice (NJ)
Q-2 2016
VII Youth Court Q-3 2016
VIII
The Economic Consequences of Legal
Decision-Making
Q-4 2016
Vol. III 2017 Sustainability
IX The Sixth Amendment Project Q-1 2017
X
The Theological Foundations of
US Law & Government
Q-2 2017
XI The Eighth Amendment Project Q-3 2017
XII
The EB-5 Investor
Immigration Project*
Q-4 2017
Vol. IV 2018 Collaboration
XIII Strategic Planning Q-1 2018
XIV
The Juvenile Justice
Legislative Reform Initiative
Q-2 2018
XV The Advocacy Foundation Coalition Q-3 2018
Page 111 of 132

XVI
for Drug-Free Communities
Landmark Cases in US
Juvenile Justice (GA)
Q-4 2018
Page 112 of 132

Issue Title Quarterly
Vol. V 2019 Organizational Development
XVII The Board of Directors Q-1 2019
XVIII The Inner Circle Q-2 2019
XIX Staff & Management Q-3 2019
XX Succession Planning Q-4 2019
XXI The Budget* Bonus #1
XXII Data-Driven Resource Allocation* Bonus #2
Vol. VI 2020 Missions
XXIII Critical Thinking Q-1 2020
XXIV
The Advocacy Foundation
Endowments Initiative Project
Q-2 2020
XXV International Labor Relations Q-3 2020
XXVI Immigration Q-4 2020
Vol. VII 2021 Community Engagement
XXVII
The 21 st Century Charter Schools
Initiative
Q-1 2021
XXVIII The All-Sports Ministry @ ... Q-2 2021
XXIX Lobbying for Nonprofits Q-3 2021
XXX
XXXI
Advocacy Foundation Missions -
Domestic
Advocacy Foundation Missions -
International
Q-4 2021
Bonus
Page 113 of 132

Vol. VIII
2022 ComeUnity ReEngineering
XXXII
The Creative & Fine Arts Ministry
@ The Foundation
Q-1 2022
XXXIII The Advisory Council & Committees Q-2 2022
XXXIV
The Theological Origins
of Contemporary Judicial Process
Q-3 2022
XXXV The Second Chance Ministry @ ... Q-4 2022
Vol. IX 2023 Legal Reformation
XXXVI The Fifth Amendment Project Q-1 2023
XXXVII The Judicial Re-Engineering Initiative Q-2 2023
XXXVIII
The Inner-Cities Strategic
Revitalization Initiative
Q-3 2023
XXXVIX Habeas Corpus Q-4 2023
Vol. X 2024 ComeUnity Development
XXXVX
The Inner-City Strategic
Revitalization Plan
Q-1 2024
XXXVXI The Mentoring Initiative Q-2 2024
XXXVXII The Violence Prevention Framework Q-3 2024
XXXVXIII The Fatherhood Initiative Q-4 2024
Vol. XI 2025 Public Interest
XXXVXIV Public Interest Law Q-1 2025
L (50) Spiritual Resource Development Q-2 2025
Page 114 of 132

LI
Nonprofit Confidentiality
In The Age of Big Data
Q-3 2025
LII Interpreting The Facts Q-4 2025
Vol. XII 2026 Poverty In America
LIII
American Poverty
In The New Millennium
Q-1 2026
LIV Outcome-Based Thinking Q-2 2026
LV Transformational Social Leadership Q-3 2026
LVI The Cycle of Poverty Q-4 2026
Vol. XIII 2027 Raising Awareness
LVII ReEngineering Juvenile Justice Q-1 2027
LVIII Corporations Q-2 2027
LVIX The Prison Industrial Complex Q-3 2027
LX Restoration of Rights Q-4 2027
Vol. XIV 2028 Culturally Relevant Programming
LXI Community Culture Q-1 2028
LXII Corporate Culture Q-2 2028
LXIII Strategic Cultural Planning Q-3 2028
LXIV
The Cross-Sector/ Coordinated
Service Approach to Delinquency
Prevention
Q-4 2028
Page 115 of 132

Vol. XV 2029 Inner-Cities Revitalization
LXIV
LXV
LXVI
Part I – Strategic Housing
Revitalization
(The Twenty Percent Profit Margin)
Part II – Jobs Training, Educational
Redevelopment
and Economic Empowerment
Part III - Financial Literacy
and Sustainability
Q-1 2029
Q-2 2029
Q-3 2029
LXVII Part IV – Solutions for Homelessness Q-4 2029
LXVIII
The Strategic Home Mortgage
Initiative
Bonus
Vol. XVI 2030 Sustainability
LXVIII Social Program Sustainability Q-1 2030
LXIX
The Advocacy Foundation
Endowments Initiative
Q-2 2030
LXX Capital Gains Q-3 2030
LXXI Sustainability Investments Q-4 2030
Vol. XVII 2031 The Justice Series
LXXII Distributive Justice Q-1 2031
LXXIII Retributive Justice Q-2 2031
LXXIV Procedural Justice Q-3 2031
LXXV (75) Restorative Justice Q-4 2031
LXXVI Unjust Legal Reasoning Bonus
Page 116 of 132

Vol. XVIII 2032 Public Policy
LXXVII Public Interest Law Q-1 2032
LXXVIII Reforming Public Policy Q-2 2032
LXXVIX ... Q-3 2032
LXXVX ... Q-4 2032
Page 117 of 132

The e-Advocate Monthly Review
2018
Transformational Problem Solving January 2018
The Advocacy Foundation February 2018
Opioid Initiative
Native-American Youth March 2018
In the Juvenile Justice System
Barriers to Reducing Confinement April 2018
Latino and Hispanic Youth May 2018
In the Juvenile Justice System
Social Entrepreneurship June 2018
The Economic Consequences of
Homelessness in America S.Ed – June 2018
African-American Youth July 2018
In the Juvenile Justice System
Gang Deconstruction August 2018
Social Impact Investing September 2018
Opportunity Youth: October 2018
Disenfranchised Young People
The Economic Impact of Social November 2018
of Social Programs Development
Gun Control December 2018
2019
The U.S. Stock Market January 2019
Prison-Based Gerrymandering February 2019
Literacy-Based Prison Construction March 2019
Children of Incarcerated Parents April 2019
Page 118 of 132

African-American Youth in The May 2019
Juvenile Justice System
Racial Profiling June 2019
Mass Collaboration July 2019
Concentrated Poverty August 2019
De-Industrialization September 2019
Overcoming Dyslexia October 2019
Overcoming Attention Deficit November 2019
The Gift of Adversity December 2019
2020
The Gift of Hypersensitivity January 2020
The Gift of Introspection February 2020
The Gift of Introversion March 2020
The Gift of Spirituality April 2020
The Gift of Transformation May 2020
Property Acquisition
for Sustainability June 2020
Investing for Organizational
Sustainability July 2020
Biblical Law & Justice TLFA August 2020
Gentrification AF September 2020
…
Page 119 of 132

The e-Advocate Quarterly
Special Editions
Crowdfunding Winter-Spring 2017
Social Media for Nonprofits October 2017
Mass Media for Nonprofits November 2017
The Opioid Crisis in America: January 2018
Issues in Pain Management
The Opioid Crisis in America: February 2018
The Drug Culture in the U.S.
The Opioid Crisis in America: March 2018
Drug Abuse Among Veterans
The Opioid Crisis in America: April 2018
Drug Abuse Among America’s
Teens
The Opioid Crisis in America: May 2018
Alcoholism
The Economic Consequences of June 2018
Homelessness in The US
The Economic Consequences of July 2018
Opioid Addiction in America
Page 120 of 132

The e-Advocate Journal
of Theological Jurisprudence
Vol. I - 2017
The Theological Origins of Contemporary Judicial Process
Scriptural Application to The Model Criminal Code
Scriptural Application for Tort Reform
Scriptural Application to Juvenile Justice Reformation
Vol. II - 2018
Scriptural Application for The Canons of Ethics
Scriptural Application to Contracts Reform
& The Uniform Commercial Code
Scriptural Application to The Law of Property
Scriptural Application to The Law of Evidence
Page 121 of 132

Legal Missions International
Page 122 of 132

Issue Title Quarterly
Vol. I 2015
I
II
God’s Will and The 21 st Century
Democratic Process
The Community
Engagement Strategy
Q-1 2015
Q-2 2015
III Foreign Policy Q-3 2015
IV
Public Interest Law
in The New Millennium
Q-4 2015
Vol. II 2016
V Ethiopia Q-1 2016
VI Zimbabwe Q-2 2016
VII Jamaica Q-3 2016
VIII Brazil Q-4 2016
Vol. III 2017
IX India Q-1 2017
X Suriname Q-2 2017
XI The Caribbean Q-3 2017
XII United States/ Estados Unidos Q-4 2017
Vol. IV 2018
XIII Cuba Q-1 2018
XIV Guinea Q-2 2018
XV Indonesia Q-3 2018
XVI Sri Lanka Q-4 2018
Page 123 of 132

Vol. V 2019
XVII Russia Q-1 2019
XVIII Australia Q-2 2019
XIV South Korea Q-3 2019
XV Puerto Rico Q-4 2019
Issue Title Quarterly
Vol. VI 2020
XVI Trinidad & Tobago Q-1 2020
XVII Egypt Q-2 2020
XVIII Sierra Leone Q-3 2020
XIX South Africa Q-4 2020
XX Israel Bonus
Vol. VII 2021
XXI Haiti Q-1 2021
XXII Peru Q-2 2021
XXIII Costa Rica Q-3 2021
XXIV China Q-4 2021
XXV Japan Bonus
Vol VIII 2022
XXVI Chile Q-1 2022
Page 124 of 132

The e-Advocate Juvenile Justice Report
______
Vol. I – Juvenile Delinquency in The US
Vol. II. – The Prison Industrial Complex
Vol. III – Restorative/ Transformative Justice
Vol. IV – The Sixth Amendment Right to The Effective Assistance of Counsel
Vol. V – The Theological Foundations of Juvenile Justice
Vol. VI – Collaborating to Eradicate Juvenile Delinquency
Page 125 of 132

The e-Advocate Newsletter
Genesis of The Problem
Family Structure
Societal Influences
Evidence-Based Programming
Strengthening Assets v. Eliminating Deficits
2012 - Juvenile Delinquency in The US
Introduction/Ideology/Key Values
Philosophy/Application & Practice
Expungement & Pardons
Pardons & Clemency
Examples/Best Practices
2013 - Restorative Justice in The US
2014 - The Prison Industrial Complex
25% of the World's Inmates Are In the US
The Economics of Prison Enterprise
The Federal Bureau of Prisons
The After-Effects of Incarceration/Individual/Societal
The Fourth Amendment Project
The Sixth Amendment Project
The Eighth Amendment Project
The Adolescent Law Group
2015 - US Constitutional Issues In The New Millennium
Page 126 of 132

2018 - The Theological Law Firm Academy
The Theological Foundations of US Law & Government
The Economic Consequences of Legal Decision-Making
The Juvenile Justice Legislative Reform Initiative
The EB-5 International Investors Initiative
2017 - Organizational Development
The Board of Directors
The Inner Circle
Staff & Management
Succession Planning
Bonus #1 The Budget
Bonus #2 Data-Driven Resource Allocation
2018 - Sustainability
The Data-Driven Resource Allocation Process
The Quality Assurance Initiative
The Advocacy Foundation Endowments Initiative
The Community Engagement Strategy
2019 - Collaboration
Critical Thinking for Transformative Justice
International Labor Relations
Immigration
God's Will & The 21st Century Democratic Process
The Community Engagement Strategy
The 21st Century Charter Schools Initiative
2020 - Community Engagement
Page 127 of 132

Extras
The Nonprofit Advisors Group Newsletters
The 501(c)(3) Acquisition Process
The Board of Directors
The Gladiator Mentality
Strategic Planning
Fundraising
501(c)(3) Reinstatements
The Collaborative US/ International Newsletters
How You Think Is Everything
The Reciprocal Nature of Business Relationships
Accelerate Your Professional Development
The Competitive Nature of Grant Writing
Assessing The Risks
Page 128 of 132

Page 129 of 132

About The Author
John C (Jack) Johnson III
Founder & CEO
Jack was educated at Temple University, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Rutgers
Law School, in Camden, New Jersey. In 1999, he moved to Atlanta, Georgia to pursue
greater opportunities to provide Advocacy and Preventive Programmatic services for atrisk/
at-promise young persons, their families, and Justice Professionals embedded in the
Juvenile Justice process in order to help facilitate its transcendence into the 21 st Century.
There, along with a small group of community and faith-based professionals, “The Advocacy Foundation, Inc." was conceived
and developed over roughly a thirteen year period, originally chartered as a Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Educational
Support Services organization consisting of Mentoring, Tutoring, Counseling, Character Development, Community Change
Management, Practitioner Re-Education & Training, and a host of related components.
The Foundation’s Overarching Mission is “To help Individuals, Organizations, & Communities Achieve Their Full Potential”, by
implementing a wide array of evidence-based proactive multi-disciplinary "Restorative & Transformative Justice" programs &
projects currently throughout the northeast, southeast, and western international-waters regions, providing prevention and support
services to at-risk/ at-promise youth, to young adults, to their families, and to Social Service, Justice and Mental
Health professionals” everywhere. The Foundation has since relocated its headquarters to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and been
expanded to include a three-tier mission.
In addition to his work with the Foundation, Jack also served as an Adjunct Professor of Law & Business at National-Louis
University of Atlanta (where he taught Political Science, Business & Legal Ethics, Labor & Employment Relations, and Critical
Thinking courses to undergraduate and graduate level students). Jack has also served as Board President for a host of wellestablished
and up & coming nonprofit organizations throughout the region, including “Visions Unlimited Community
Development Systems, Inc.”, a multi-million dollar, award-winning, Violence Prevention and Gang Intervention Social Service
organization in Atlanta, as well as Vice-Chair of the Georgia/ Metropolitan Atlanta Violence Prevention Partnership, a state-wide
300 organizational member, violence prevention group led by the Morehouse School of Medicine, Emory University and The
Original, Atlanta-Based, Martin Luther King Center.
Attorney Johnson’s prior accomplishments include a wide-array of Professional Legal practice areas, including Private Firm,
Corporate and Government postings, just about all of which yielded significant professional awards & accolades, the history and
chronology of which are available for review online. Throughout his career, Jack has served a wide variety of for-profit
corporations, law firms, and nonprofit organizations as Board Chairman, Secretary, Associate, and General Counsel since 1990.
www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org
Clayton County Youth Services Partnership, Inc. – Chair; Georgia Violence Prevention Partnership, Inc – Vice Chair; Fayette
County NAACP - Legal Redress Committee Chairman; Clayton County Fatherhood Initiative Partnership – Principal
Investigator; Morehouse School of Medicine School of Community Health Feasibility Study - Steering Committee; Atlanta
Violence Prevention Capacity Building Project – Project Partner; Clayton County Minister’s Conference, President 2006-2007;
Liberty In Life Ministries, Inc. – Board Secretary; Young Adults Talk, Inc. – Board of Directors; ROYAL, Inc - Board of
Directors; Temple University Alumni Association; Rutgers Law School Alumni Association; Sertoma International; Our
Common Welfare Board of Directors – President)2003-2005; River’s Edge Elementary School PTA (Co-President); Summerhill
Community Ministries; Outstanding Young Men of America; Employee of the Year; Academic All-American - Basketball;
Church Trustee.
Page 130 of 132

www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org
Page 131 of 132

Page 132 of 132