Justice could be defined as getting exactly what we deserve for our actions, in both directions – our good being rewarded and our evil judged and punished.
If this definition of justice is accepted, at least as it relates on a personal scale, how do we live with the injustice that bombards our personal lives?
We are quite sensitive to the injustice that we experience on a near daily basis, but how committed are we to treating others with the justice they deserve? This propensity to mistreat one another is a direct outcome of the Fall, when sin entered and the knowledge of good and evil overcame humanity (Genesis 3). The irony of our situation ever since is that I have a strong longing for justice from you coupled with an inability, it seems, to provide justice to you. As a result, we are locked in this vicious circle of condemnation, and we wonder if there is hope for justice at all.
But what is the goal of justice anyway? Merely asserting right? Punishing wrong? To what end?
If justice were an end in itself, where would we be? Our lives would be a constant yo-yo between acknowledgement of good, and greater (and more often) condemnations of evil. What kind of a life would that be?
In fact, if justice were ever truly delivered to us, it would ruin us all, as “all have sinned” (Romans 3:23). Thankfully, justice is not the rule of life, and we do see this confirmed in Genesis 3. Had justice been the end in itself, the judgement for the sin of breaking faith in God would have been eternal separation from the Creator, a complete break in the relationship between God and humanity. This would have left us hopeless and distant, but this was not the outcome of God’s dealings with guilty humanity. Instead, we see God dealing with His creature in a manner that restored the relationship without compromising justice. Therefore, justice is to be seen as part of a greater purpose.
Justice by itself does not leave us in a good position. In fact, we are universally condemned, not only before God, but amongst each other. So bald justice isn’t the goal, but a component of the process of restoring wronged relationships as modelled by God in Genesis 3.
James writes that, in our context as lawbreakers worthy of the judgement that comes with it, mercy is the mitigating factor (James 2:13). The central claim of Christianity is that the cross death of the Lord Jesus has enabled God to uniquely administer justice and mercy in a way that ensures that God can be just and justify (declare clear of guilt) the sinner who believes in Jesus (Romans 3:25). Those of us who have believed in Jesus thus rightfully claim the forgiveness of our sins.
So, the restoration of a relationship requires the satisfaction of justice and an offer of mercy. This is not an easy outcome to obtain.
In the healing of the paralyzed man in Mark 2, Jesus acknowledges the difficulty when he poses a question referring to the ease with which sins are forgiven. Unqualified mercy calls forth justice, while pure justice screams for mercy. Biblical forgiveness is the means of satisfying this tension between justice and mercy.
The goal of forgiveness is reconciliation. Injustice prevents the repair of relationships while unqualified mercy merely bandages over the wound for later hurt and heartache. The satisfaction of justice and the application of mercy have been seen in our examples of God’s dealings with humanity in Genesis 3 and ultimately at the cross. In both instances He upholds the demands of justice yet provides a suitable sacrifice.
Tim Keller, in his book “Forgive”, utilizes the parable in Matthew 18:21-35, to demonstrate the four elements that are required in order to obtain biblical forgiveness:
- The first element is truth. The king calls his servants for a settling of accounts. The evidence is naked and open. There is honesty with regards to the debt.
- The second element is justice. The king calls for payment and imprisonment until the debt is paid.
- The third element is mercy. The servant seeks pity in his inability to pay the debt.
- The fourth element is forgiveness. The servant is released, set free of his obligation.
In this parable, was justice thwarted? After all, the debt was never paid. No, justice wasn’t thwarted, the king assumed responsibility for the debt, so justice was satisfied. Mercy was extended, and the servant left reconciled with his king.
Keller calls this the costly grace model of forgiveness. The wronged assumes the debt to satisfy justice and extend mercy to the guilty. The implication of the parable is that all who have come to God for the forgiveness of sins have come in the same way. There is a clear understanding of the truth of the great debt of sin that we owe. The judgement for it is clear, so we cast ourselves on God for His mercy and we receive forgiveness since God has taken the liability for our sins and laid it on Christ at the cross.
This is also an example of how we should interact with our fellow humans with respect to the wrongs that we do to each other. Jesus taught his followers in the so-called Lord’s Prayer that we are to forgive others their debts since we have had our debts forgiven (Matthew 6:12-15). This contrasts with society’s attempts to deal with justice and mercy. Keller helpfully outlines the three main ways society approaches the problem.
1. Cheap grace. There is really no attempt at justice in this nonconditional-forgiveness model. The goal is purely to therapeutically liberate the victim from their anger. This is an unqualified mercy model.
2. Little grace. Called the transactional-forgiveness model, where mercy is extended according to the degree the wrongdoer merits it. This is basically a penance-driven model where the wronged person holds the wrongdoer in slavery until the wronged person decides that enough punishment/good works have been exacted, and then lets the wrongdoer go free.
3. No grace. This is the pure justice (no-forgiveness) model. No mercy is contemplated. This is modern cancel culture. No desire for reconciliation is considered.
All of these societal models are self-focused and found wanting. They provide no hope of restored relationship. The question could be asked – do I really want justice or do I just want justice for me? And if this is the case, what happens when I do the wrong? And the standard I hold for others is turned on me?
In contrast, the costly grace model of forgiveness rings true, and holds out hope for restoration of relationship. But why do we hesitate to implement it? We hesitate because we don’t read to the end of the story (Matthew 18:21-35). We are afraid that if we extend forgiveness it won’t be valued, and as a result, justice will not be served. We assume that the moment we express forgiveness, justice no longer applies.
But what is the end of the story? The “forgiven” servant did not forgive the debts owed to him. His actions demonstrated that he didn’t appreciate the forgiveness he had received. This injustice caused his fellow servants to tell the king. When the king found out, what did he do? He rescinded the forgiveness, the mercy, and he reinstated justice by putting the servant where he was going to put him in the first place (perhaps in a worse place).
What we learn is that the degree of reconciliation as a result of forgiveness is in the hands of the one forgiven. The forgiven’s response to the forgiver’s absorption of the cost of justice and extension of mercy determines the degree of reconciliation. Therefore, there is no need to hold back our forgiveness for fear that justice will not be served. If our forgiveness is shunned or ignored, justice can and will still be applied.
Some may be concerned that Jesus is teaching in this parable that an unforgiving spirit in a believer would result in the rescinding of their salvation. This implication would mean that our salvation is dependent on our attitude of forgiveness towards others and not on the justice-satisfying sacrifice of Christ on the cross (cp. Romans 3:24). Salvation is obtained by faith in the Lord Jesus – the forgiveness of sins is received as a gift from a merciful God. That being said, an unforgiving attitude towards our fellow human belies a lack of appreciation of the forgiveness of sins we received when we put our trust in the Saviour.
An inability to forgive the wrongs done to us may well be an indication that we have never received the forgiveness of sins in the first place (cp. Matthew 6:15). Therefore, Jesus did not teach this parable to cause His believing followers to conscientiously study to forgive all wrongs done to them in order to maintain their salvation status. Rather, He was emphasizing the kind of character that becomes a forgiven sinner, while assuring those forgiving that they need not worry about the outcome of their expression of forgiveness. The king (God) will ensure that ultimately justice is served.
We all recognize the difficulty in expressing forgiveness, even though we all enjoy receiving it. In reality, we know that justice cannot be fully served in this life. Many sins against our fellow man can never be atoned for justly on earth. This is a powerful apologetic for God. The justice that the evils of the Holocaust and countless other abuses cry out for can only be satisfied by the great Judge of the universe in eternity. And early on in history Abraham had it right when he recognized that the Judge of all the earth would do what is just (Genesis 18:25).
We are incapable of ensuring justice, let alone measuring it out. This is why God declares several times in the Bible that “Vengeance belongs to me; I will repay”(Romans 12:19). With this in view, we need to live lives that are governed by biblical forgiveness, recognizing that the enforcement of justice will ultimately occur at the hand of a just God (Isaiah 45:21). These opportunities to express forgiveness God’s way when we are wronged bear witness to the reality of being a recipient of God’s forgiveness, and express faith in a coming day when ultimate justice will accurately be measured out.
