The biblical tradition insists that God is a God of "justice and righteousness," that is, of distributive justice and restorative righteousness. Think, for example, of this divine claim:
"I am the Lord; I act with steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth, for in these things I delight, says the Lord" (Jeremiah 9:24). Furthermore, rulers are expected to participate in that same divine character. "Thus says then Lord: act with justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor anyone who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the alien, the orphan, and the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place" (Jeremiah 22:3). The most serious and far-reaching misunderstanding of that biblical tradition is to interpret divine justice as retributive rather than distributive, as if it meant a proper punishment for some rather than a fair share for all.
So here is the question. How did that ancient tradition ever arrive at such an absolutely counter-intuitive understanding of God? That biblical vision came from a small people regularly oppressed by great empires -- Egyptians or Mesopotamians, and Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, or Romans. Faith may have invoked divine justice but experience repeatedly contradicted it. From where, then, did that expectation of a world ruled by a fair and equitable distribution of its resources come?
That biblical vision of a world-for-all did not come from our modern ideas of democratic power or our contemporary claims about human or civil rights. It did not come from liberalism, socialism, or communism. In recognizing its challenge we are not retrojecting any of that modernity back onto antiquity. A world-for-all came, if one needs an -ism, from Godism. That means, of course, that the biblical tradition does not proclaim "social justice" but "divine justice" -- which is something like social justice on steroids. But, still, the question presses. How did they decide that Godism involved distributive justice and restorative righteousness in a world that -- then and now -- experientially denies that proposition?
The biblical tradition got that vision of God from the most obvious source imaginable, from growing up in a decent home and a well-run household. Most children either experienced that normalcy positively or recognized its absence negatively. The Bible simply took that expectation of a decent household and applied it to God as the Householder of the World-House. Given their world's patriarchal prejudices they spoke of God "as Father" but God "as Householder" is what that title meant.
Think, for a moment, about the first-century world of Jesus and especially of that prayer which begins with, "Our Father in Heaven." There is an especially striking irony when God-as-Householder is called God-as-Father by Jesus. Demographers of the Roman world agree that, owing to the late marriage-age of males, one third of young people would have been fatherless by the age of fifteen -- across all strata of society. Women married around 12 or 13, men married around twice that age, general life expectancy was under 30 years, so that a father as actual householder must have been mostly theory rather than practice and nostalgia rather than reality. In other words, in a first-century household across the Roman world, hear "father," think "mother," but understand "householder." And, as on earth, so also in heaven.
If, in that first-century world, you entered a small family farm and its courtyard house, how would you judge the householder? Are the fields well administered, the livestock well provisioned, the family members well-fed, well-clothed, well-sheltered?? Does a sick child get special care? Does a pregnant mother get special concern? Does everyone get a fair share? Does everyone get enough? You would judge the householder not by the criterion of egalitarianism but of enoughism. That is how -- then as now -- you would assess the householder of any home. Is there a fair distribution of goods and resources, of duties and obligations?
But what if some of the children were starving and others were over-fed? What if some received food while others did not? What would you think of that householder -- then or now? That is the mega-model or mega-metaphor underneath the biblical tradition's understanding of its God. That is why the biblical God can demand of the powers-that-be, the rulers of this world, that they,
Give justice to the weak and the orphan;
maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute. (Psalm 82:3)
You can see from those parallel verses that "justice" is "the right" of the dispossessed. Distributive justice is not gift, charity, or handout in a world that belongs to us but the simple right of all in a world that belongs to God.
From that same Psalm 82 comes this most searing claim in the entire biblical tradition. It is a warning we should write on our hearts and on our consciences, on our domestic programs and on our foreign policies. "All the foundations of the earth are shaken," says 82:5, by injustice in distribution of the world's resources. A distribution that denies to some a fair share of the world shakes the very foundations of the earth. "Lord," said Shakespeare's Puck, "what fools these mortals be."
Jamal Dajani: Tunisia: Social Justice or Social Media?
Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Social Justice — The San Francisco Foundation
Catholic Charities' Office for Social Justice
Glenn Beck vs. 'Social Justice': Christians Rage Back at Nazism ...
JDC
The bible today is about spiritual matters, thinking or beliefs, it is not to encroach on the authoity of the civil government that makes community rules we all are bound to.
Mentioning servants, many poor folks may have wanted to join a wealthy prosperous household like a corporation pyramid.
John, this article was fine, I have not pursued any other topics from you.
Once the rose colored glasses are removed however, one finds that the Bible was and is used to justify slavery, bigotry, racial inequality.. laws against interracial marriage, homosexuality in general and gay marriage in particular, etc. I grew up with 'blue-laws' in the 50's/60's for example, and walked through stores that had sections roped off to deny the purchase of certain items on Sunday because it was the ~Christian sabbath~. Such arrogance. The only thing I've seen the Bible used for is intolerance and the denial of freedom to others.
"They came with a Bible and their religion- stole our land, crushed our spirit... and now tell us we should be thankful to the 'Lord' for being saved." [Chief Pontiac] Native American Chieftain
If your a rich christian then you will get more liberties afforded to you by the law and justice will always protect you. If you are a poor homeless atheist then good luck getting any kind of liberty or justice.
The Constitution destroyed the authority of the bible and people realized that they no longer needed this backward and ancient biblical authority that didn't bother to stay relevant.
Yet again, god keeps getting moved further back into his dark cold hole. And as science advances, god fades.
Unfortunately, it has been my experience that many people who practice Christianity focus on the bit where there is only one path to God. Too often the assumption is that if you are not on that path you do not deserve to be treated fairly.
they wouldnt be on the wrong path if they hadnt rejected god. They obviously deserve to be on the path to hell, if they worship satan!
so the story goes
In other words, how to beat your slaves.
Oh, I see. So you get to use historical context when it's convenient for you, while using literal interpretation elsewhere when it suits your purposes?
The bible is just a prop to promote the legitimacy of whoever is in charge at the time.
This is how rulers justify atrocities to their people; divine character.
Slavery...it's there as bold as anything else. They can't get rid of it and they can't accept it...What can they do? They do the only thing they can do,,,they ignore it, just like they ignore these posts. They must because they have NO argument or explanation that would satisfy ANYONE.
God is not a respecter of persons, and we are all equal in His eyes. But there is a hierarchy in terms of headship; God being over man, man over woman, etc. And God isn't a respecter of your opinion on that relationship.
Jesus came to give all people a way--and the only way--to ever-lasting life. Your opinion on the matter changes nothing but your ultimate destination. Which is your choice, of course.
"Archbishop Gregory Aymond acknowledged the records will also draw renewed attention to the uncomfortable fact that in colonial New Orleans the church and its religious orders were often slave-holders."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/02/archdiocese-posts-trove-o_n_817716.html
I think someone needs to explain the meaning of the word equality to the author.
JDC
First: I have utmost respect for you and your scholarship. I have read most of your writings and your insights have greatly influenced my thinking. Thank you for that.
Not only is the US failing in "egalitariÂanism" and "enoughismÂ." , it is going backwards. Secular humanists and atheists can follow these principles without recourse to biblical teaching. Yet we all fail! There is a sore lack of any sense of morality which can be based on our common shared responsibilities to others. The liberal and moderate christians, jews and muhammadans must share some of the responsibility. In their zeal to promote the notion that every one is due their opinion on religious thinking, they create the unassailable truism that even the most outrageous point of view is somehow valid. Religionists and secular humanists and atheists, all, must step forward and challenge the views and opinions of the extremist fundamentalists. Each in their own ways. Your exegesis of these verses is but the beginning. All holy scriptures were written in a time and place which must perforce reflect that zeitgeist, we must all resist strict literalism in the search for truth.
Best wishes
Otherwise, it is SHAMEFUL for a woman to speak in the church. A MAN is the image and glory of God, but a woman is only the glory of Man, and if a woman doesn't cover her head, she should have all her hair shaved off for it is SHAMEFUL for her to go uncovered.
Real equal there..... god. I'll take the Goddess instead, thank you very much. I don't like your "God" very much - as apparently he doesn't like me.
I tend to use the words justice-compassion and justice-oppression to demonstrate the difference, divine and distributive don't seem right with me.
I wanted to mention the Holy Spirit, what they called Wisdom in the OT. It does an invisible work of changing peoples hearts, from oppression to compassion.
Proverbs 1:2-4 "for attaining Wisdom...doing what is right and just and fair...giving knowledge and discrection to the young"
Proverbs 2:9-11 "Then you will understand what is right and just and fair-every good path. For Wisdom will enter your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul. Discretion will protect you, and understanding will guard you."
Rulers can participate in the divine nature, if God acts upon them, not by ones own might or power. Nebuchadnezzar had to go through the suffering of first being oppressive, and then at some point in his life, God acted in cutting down his pride (hardened heart) then in time giving him a heart of compassion. (Daniel chapter 4 and 5:18-22 Deuteronomy 30:1-10 Jeremiah 31:31-34)
God is not interested in religious servces or worship, but in obeying the voice, wisdom or Holy Spirit that now guides a transformed, compassionate, heart. (Psalm 95:8-11 Hebrews 3:7-19 Proverbs 21:3 Isaiah 29:13-21 Micah 6:6-8)
You mentioned Jeremiah 22:3, but I thought verses 15 to 17 were a better quote.
If it's been of interest read all of Isaiah 58.
Did you know that "Wisdom" in the hebrew and in the greek translation was feminine.
THere are indications , albeit minor, that there was a view of the deity as feminine, no doubt a hold over from the local religions.
Talk -- or scream -- among yourselves.
The bible has a lot of symbolism woven in, I think of as spiritual twists. The "feminine" is one. The spirit does not have gender form (Luke 20:34-38) but refered to in a metaphorical sense in the feminine. (John 3:5-8 Proverbs 1:20,21)
The Holy Spirit is also called Wisdom, and in the feminine acts as a wife (John 3:29 Isaiah 54) so there is much, too numerous in the limited space here to go into all the things like birth, marriage, adultry, prostitution of our spirit that resides inside the human flesh and blood body. (1 Corinthians 15:50)
Thanks for your point, if anyone would like to discuss it I am open, its a lot doctrinal and quote research work.
Chicago- Make Me Smile:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzViV6PUOSM