Justice In The Social Order

By William Matheson

Chesley, Ontario.

OURS is a day of conflict. The times are out of joint. It is therefore a time when the idea of justice is much to the fore. But the reason for this is not any consciousness that justice prevails. It is not because the sanctity of justice is deeply appreciated. It is rather because of the consciousness, or at least the notion, that the reign of justice in human affairs is sadly wanting. When we say, the idea of justice, we are thinking of the fact that universally amongst mankind a principle is recognised which we call justice. The fact is, however, that the ideas of what is just and what is unjust in human relations are bafflingly multitudinous. Yet there is no factor in a man’s experience of the disagreeable and unpleasant which can embitter his soul more than his conviction that he is suffering unjustly. This seems to arise, partly at least, from the belief that the party responsible for the injustice must be conscious of it as surely as he is. Men seem to take this for granted intuitively.

When we go to the Scriptures for light on the matter we find this very fact of embitterment in the first recorded illustration of what constitutes injustice. Cain was a tiller of the soil but Abel was a keeper of sheep. Both alike presented each his offering before the Lord. Cain offered of the fruit of the ground which he tilled. Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. The Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. Manifestly Cain somehow was aware of apparent discrimination against him. We are told that he was very wroth and his countenance fell. The Lord read Cain’s thoughts. In his heart he was alleging respect of persons in the acceptance of Abel’s offering and the rejection of his own. The Lord pointed out to him the groundlessness of such an imagination, and showed him that the way of acceptance for him was as open to him as it was to Abel, and further that his accepting of that way would result still in the recognition of his primacy. Cain’s proud heart interpreted the dictate of justice, “no respect of persons”, under the bias of undue respect to his own person and will before the Lord. He hardened his heart in proud impenitence, and urged on by the bitterness conceived in his soul by the false conviction of his having suffered injustice, he murdered Abel who had not wronged him. The conception of injustice in this record springs from the notion of “respect of persons”. This reveals what seems to be the basic element in the scriptural conception of justice. Justice means “no respect of persons”.

In the Book of Job we find Job’s three friends endeavouring to vindicate God’s dealing with him in his sore affliction on the ground of the justice of God. Job could not tolerate their effort at penetrating the darksome mystery of his afflictions, for he was conscious of the falsity of some of their allegations. Yet it led him to a closer scrutiny of his own conduct. He was aware of the justness of God and recognised clearly that any injustice or unfairness on his part toward others would bring him under the severe condemnation of God. So in his review of his own behaviour he says, “If I did despise the cause of my manservant or of my maidservant, when they contended with me; what then shall I do when God riseth up? and when he visiteth, what shall I answer him? Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?” (Job 31:13–15). How far removed is the thought here from that which prevailed and prevails in other quarters where the master and the servant occupy different planes. Here all are recognised as on the same level before the One who did fashion us in the womb. This, of course, does not signify equality, for inequality prevails amongst men as it prevails amongst the blades of grass and amongst the leaves of a tree. The idea that is here implied as basic to fair dealing and justice in social relations is that of “no respect to persons”. Job must not despise the cause of his manservant or his maidservant. This principle issues as a corollary from creation: “Did not he that made me in the womb make him?”.

In Leviticus 19:15, we read “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour”. This is not a directive to a judge but counsel for the masses of the people in their social relations. It does find practical repetition in Deuteronomy 1:17, where Moses, in his parting historical review to Israel, refers definitely to his own charge to their judges, “Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s”. In like manner Jehoshaphat instructed the judges in his day, and based his counsel on the fact that “There is no iniquity with the Lord our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts” (II Chron. 19:7). Not only the official judges were exhorted to reflect the character of their God in the discharge of their official duties but the people likewise are urged to do the same in their every day social intercourse. Thus a fundamental characteristic of the moral glory of Jehovah our God is insisted upon in that he “regardeth not persons”. He is just.

This, however, is a peculiar expression. There is a paradox apparent in it. The thought is by no means the notion of disregard of, or indifference to, persons. There is no notion of despising or belittling the person of any one. It is the very reverse. It is as appears in Job’s reference to it. It matters not how lowly in the scale of society anyone may be, that person holds a place before God that yields him a right equally with any person occupying a higher place in that scale. The conventions of human society agreed upon merely by men have no bearing in the allocations of justice. No caste system can be allowed. The idea inculcated in “no respect of persons” is that of the indefeasible recognition of all persons as persons before God. To accept the person of one in the way of discriminating against another is to despise that other. It is this which makes “respect of persons” most offensive before God. To despise the person of any man is to offend not against that man so much as against God, for “in the image of God made he man”, whoever that man may be. This is illustrated in the law of capital punishment against murderers and, in reverse, in the rule regarding flagellation, “Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee” (Deut. 25:3). Even Paul, the hated outcast, five times suffered only “forty stripes save one” (II Cor. 11:24).

There are those who seek to belittle the Old Testament as a source of authoritative instruction on this question of the content of the idea of justice. They would impute to those who find anywhere in the Old Scripture a rich mine of pregnant thought and of divine indoctrination in this respect the fallacy of themselves first putting in the content which they profess to elicit. They allege that the ideas are first learned from the New Scripture or from some other source and then are thereafter conveniently discovered to have been implicit in the Old. As for the Decalogue, no light shines from it for them on the matter, and at best these commandments cover a very narrow range. And how glibly honoured names of Christ’s worthy witnesses of the past are brought in to confirm such wanton evacuation of the Old Scripture to make such efforts acceptable to those who, though wary, may yet be forgetful of our Lord’s premonition, “But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren” (Matt. 23:8). Now it is quite true that the words of Scripture do suffer such maltreatment at the hands of men at times. Do they not also suffer peculiarly in reverse from those who seek to water down their meaning at times almost to sheer inanity? Happy is the man whose reverence for Scripture “restrains him from first forcing into the content of its words what he is desirous of taking out. Happy is the man who comes to the word of Scripture honestly, humbly and wholeheartedly divesting himself of any preconceived theories of its origin and history and of the trammelling imaginations of limitations necessitated by some mundane philosophy which he had come to accept, and who therefore seeks insight into, and understanding of, its true content at the hand of the Spirit of Truth. For did not Jesus open the understandings of his disciples to understand these very Scriptures before commissioning them to be his witnesses? There is something very worthwhile for Christ’s witnesses in them apparently. Afterward they went everywhere preaching the word. But it was Christ and him crucified that they preached. They found the old word of Scripture pregnant indeed. They found in it spiritual indoctrination far beyond what the natural man can find in it, because the things of the Spirit are foolishness to him. So, if what we find in Moses and the Psalms and the Prophets coincides with what our Lord himself taught and with what his Apostles proclaimed, we’ll not consider ourselves responsible for first putting into the Old Scripture what we wish to take out.

Paul reminds those who are masters that “your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him” (Eph. 6:9). This is quite a levelling word and in its context is rather significant: almost as much so as Peter’s word to Cornelius, when the gulf between Jew and Gentile was bridged, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34). But it is in the Epistle of James that we find the basic character of this principle of justice set forth in its far-reaching authority. In James we read, “My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons” (2:1). Having pointed out the wrong of such conduct on their part when they honour the wealthy and show disrespect and discourtesy to the poor, he continues, “If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well; but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all” (James 2:8–10). James finds the under-girding principle of the ten commandments to be just this, “no respect of persons”, and that is the principle of justice. While James writes of the royal law according to the Scripture, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”, he goes on to illustrate what he means by keeping the whole law and yet offending in one point by citing explicitly the seventh and the sixth commandments of the Decalogue. He makes it clear that he is thinking of the ten commandments when he refers to “the whole law”. It is this law to which he manifestly refers when he says, “If ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors”. “Respect to persons” simply contradicts “thy neighbour as thyself”. The several commandments are thus declared by James to be a whole of such a nature that a breach at any point is a breach of all. This appears quite understandable when we see that each commandment is simply the application of one and the same principle to the varying spheres of relationship to God and of human social activity and interest.

The first three of the ten commandments express the divine application of the principle of justice to man’s activities to Godward exclusively. This is the sphere of religion. The fourth commandment inculcates the worship of our Creator God but leads us out from his worship as exclusively formal religion and into the social sphere by blending with the idea of worshipful rest the fundamental practical commandment for the social order which requires man’s exercise of himself in working for his living. From the beginning man was made to work. The fall of man by sin entailed toilsomeness and sorrow so that “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread”. It is not out of place here to stress this two-edged character of the Sabbath commandment. It exhibits the unity of the order of life religiously and morally. This word requires much more than worshipful rest every seventh day. It demands quite as explicitly the earning of our living by labour on the other six days of the week. The blending of these two elements of worshipful rest and of working for our living in the one commandment places both alike on the highest plane. Can higher honour be paid to labour? This is surely a matter of pregnant significance for the solution of the labour problems which are rife in the social order to-day. Working for our living is a primary duty according to the divine order of justice, and this requirement is in flat and irreconcilable conflict with a too-commonly accepted slogan, “The world owes us a living”. True religion is bound up inescapably with any adequate solution of the labour problem. It reminds the master here of the one Master of all, even Christ, and that there is no respect of persons with him, while it inspires the servant to obedient service for the Lord’s sake. It insists on the master’s interest in providing an adequate and fully-rounded living for his servant as for himself and on the servant’s vital interest in the profitable productivity of his master’s business that both may mutually be blessed.

When we pass this nexus to the commandments which deal exclusively with the social order, we find that the first of these deals with the obligation due by us to those through whom, under God, we have our being, father and mother. This is fundamental in the social order. The second deals with the obligation due by us personally with respect to God’s gift of life. The third deals with the obligation due by us with respect to the power of procreation or sex relations. The fourth deals with the obligation due by us with respect to the economic conditions of living. The fifth deals with the obligation due by us with respect to the sphere of reputation. The sixth then deals with the source of unjust action in the motive of covetousness, which is idolatry, the worship and service of the creature rather than of the Creator. Thus the tenth commandment completes the circle by bringing us back to the first commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”, which is practically identical with the word of Jesus, “Ye cannot serve God and mammon”. The ten commandments in the spiritual sphere may then properly be likened to the seven basic colours in the physical sphere, under which are comprehended all possible hues and tints. For notwithstanding their striking distinctiveness they all blend and unite to afford us the pure white of light. Parabolically, this illustrates how the ten commandments, pregnantly comprehending the whole round of life, blend and unite into one spiritual whole, yielding us our true religion and our ethics. The expression of the principle of justice as the principle of order results in the world of spirits in absolute unconditional subserviency to the living God, and in the social sphere in “thy neighbour as thyself”. And the motive power for the fulfillment of this law is love. And thus in the social order the principle of order is justice and the bond of unity is love.

When a lawyer asked Jesus 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”. And to this he added the penetrating and significant comment, “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matt. 22:35–40). Let us not doubt that if we are led by the Spirit of truth into the meaning of Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets, we’ll find the divine order of things and learn that the basic principle of that order is justice. If we will have it otherwise expressed we may say that the foundation principle of all right action is truth as David implied when he repented of his transgression and confessed, “Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts” (Psalm 51:6). What better definition of truth can we get than that truth is justice to facts, the same principle applied in the sphere of facts which, in the sphere of persons, is expressed, “thy neighbour as thyself”? And thus may we understand the word of Jesus to Pilate, when, speaking of his kingdom, he said, “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice” (John 18:37).

From him, then, let us seek to learn the bearing and true application of the principle of justice in the social order. This he has made plain in the illustration of the good Samaritan, as he has come to be known. Jesus apparently had been placing heavy stress on the greatness of their privilege who heard him teaching and saw him sealing his teaching as of God. “And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 10:25). The critical character of this episode is clearly indicated by the language of its narration. It was a momentous occasion. Jesus asked in reply a very definite and pointed question: “What is written in the law? how readest thou?”. Definitely the investigation concerned the interpretation of the law. Jesus first referred him to the Old Scripture, “what is written”. The lawyer clearly understood this first question. In masterly fashion, he gave a comprehensive summary in Scripture language of what is written, reminiscent indeed of the answer of Jesus to that other lawyer who had asked which is the great commandment in the law. For 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”. Jesus said to him, “Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live” (Luke 10:27, 28). So far the lawyer had read the law rightly. But he proceeded to focus attention on the minor element of his own comprehensive answer by asking Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?”. This lawyer seems to have followed a carefully prepared line of approach on the question. Jesus granted him his way and answered his intriguing question by a graphic and most comprehensive illustration. He told the story of a certain man who was following the well-known road from Jerusalem on his way to Jericho when bandits assaulted him. They stripped him even to his clothing, and wounded him, leaving him half-dead. A certain priest came down that way but on seeing him passed by on the other side. Then a Levite came that way, came and looked on him, but passed by on the other side also. Both these persons apparently belonged to this locality. They both surely knew the law. Perhaps both excused themselves as having urgent business, perhaps an appointment to keep, or feared to get themselves entangled in the crime in any way, or considered the danger of their being set upon by the bandits themselves if they tried to help the victim. Yet they ignored the law. For a human life was at stake and before that consideration other responsibilities must fade into comparative insignificance. Against this dark background of failure a bright scene shines. For “a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, and went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee” (Luke 10:33–35). This Samaritan was apparently on an important errand but, whatever his business was, it had to wait on the more important business which God, in his providence, had thrust in this wise upon him.

It may truly be said that the only bond between the Samaritan and his stricken neighbour was as attenuated as it well could be. There appears no more than the bond of a common humanity, and that with some very adverse conditions further to lessen its force. They two were separated by bitter differences of creed and of race, and apparently these were emphasised by differences of politics, of language and of social status. Furthermore they seem to have been complete strangers to one another whose dwellings had hitherto been far apart. Manifestly the lesson is plain that our neighbour is any fellowman who may in any way come into the pathway of our life, anyone of whom we must say, “Did not one fashion us in the womb?”.

But Jesus was here interpreting the law of “thy neighbour as thyself”. He was not, explicitly not, expounding the activity of charity or of grace. He was simply setting forth an illustration of love fulfilling the law. The question may be asked, Did not the Samaritan exceed in his conduct what the law required of him? Now we know that Jesus did not intend to confound the lawyer or to confuse him as to how he should read the law. He simply set before him an illustration of what the law required of the Samaritan. He was required to recognize the half-dead victim by the roadside who had come so unexpectedly into his life as his neighbour according to the term, “thy neighbour as thyself”. To this neighbour, a man hitherto unknown, he was required to render whatever aid and comfort he himself would have another render to himself had he been in that victim’s place. This he did and, in doing it, he illustrated the simple requirement of justice according, not to evangelical ideals newly made known by Jesus, but according to the ancient scriptural rule, “thy neighbour as thyself”. There have been those who claim that the law did not require of the Samaritan to go farther than to place this neighbour in the care of the innkeeper, whose business it was to care for wayfarers. But that would be a strange course to take. The innkeeper had become the Samaritan’s neighbour too, and it would surely be less than just of the Samaritan to unload his self-acknowledged responsibility upon this neighbour. To do so would plainly not be a case of “thy neighbour as thyself”. We have no right to read this illustration of the Samaritan as teaching the doctrine of grace. This is to sidestep our Lord’s carefully guarded illustration of the simple requirement of justice, for the half-dead victim had no responsibility whatsoever for his own sad plight. Every detail indicates our Lord’s intention to interpret for us the plain dictate of, “thy neighbour as thyself”, or “no respect of persons”. Had the Samaritan done less than he did, he would have manifested a love or respect for himself greater than for his neighbour. According to this commandment we are to love ourselves. But we are not to love ourselves more than we love our neighbours, otherwise we become guilty of “respect of persons”, and so deal unjustly. And that this is the mind of our Lord respecting the true content of the Old Scripture is manifest from his words, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets” (Matt. 7:12).

There are those who prefer to interpret this illustration of the good Samaritan for the glorification of love. Certainly the motive of love was active in his heart. Love is the fulfilling of the law. It is well to bear in mind, however, that it is a vain and most mischievous thing to set forth love as in any possible respect a rival of justice, for our admiration. Thus Paul describes love, that it “rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth” (I Cor. 13:6). They twain, love and justice, are one in the eternal being of God, just as affection and thought are one in human experience, one, not in any sense of identity, but one in the sense that the one is complementary to the other to make a whole, an experience. For God is love and God is light. Light is always associated with knowledge of the truth in Scripture teaching. Truth is identified with reality, justice to facts, things as they are. When Jesus warned, “Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness” (Luke 11:35) he manifestly referred to the danger of leaning unto our own understanding rather than trusting in the Lord with all our heart (Prov. 3:5). For he assures us that, “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself” (John 7:17). This is to reach the rock bottom of truth and to have one’s dwelling in light.

The notion that love can ever supersede justice or that eventually justice may be sublimated into love arises from the failure to recognise that they are disparate elements in our experience. Love belongs to the affective aspect of our experience whereas justice belongs to the perceptive. The one is wholly subjective and is the reaction of the person toward the object presented to him. Justice is distinctively objective and presents itself to the mind as factual and necessary. So long as human experience retains this two-fold characteristic of the objective and the subjective, or the emotional reaction to this objective, so long must justice and love remain distinct though united. We cannot know the one without the other, and only when thought can be transmuted into affection can love reign without justice. And that is never so far as our present experience indicates. Love, the love of God, is the motive power of eternal life, and justice is the principle of the law which that love fulfils, and against which that love can never exert pressure to break forth from its limiting dictate. The affection which urges to injustice to persons or to facts for any cause whatsoever is something other than the love of God. But when Jesus said to the lawyer, “This do, and thou shalt live” (Luke 10:28) he was stating a simple fact. Only a soul already possessed of eternal life could love the Lord his God with all his heart, with all his soul, with all his strength, and with all his mind, and his neighbour as himself. For this love of God is the very power of life eternal and out of it issues the power to “love my neighbour as myself”. Jesus said in his intercessory prayer, “This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3). This knowledge of God implies love of God.

There is persistent determination on the part of many to exalt love into a primacy over justice. The practical effect of this is gravely mischievous and tragically disastrous. It provides the basis for the absolute reign of sheer expediency. And so in modern thought the ideal in government has very largely come to mean not the establishment and the maintenance of justice but “the greatest good of the greatest number”. The corroding effect and power of this scheme in government reaches its zenith of exhibition in totalitarianism, under which social order no individual rights, as defined by justice, remain. Love (and who can define it except in terms of the object for which the affection is entertained?) is the moving power in all activity. To insist that love then is the supreme factor in all proper activity comes to mean that “might is right”. But when the motive power of action is defined as the love that. “rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth”, and that is inevitably the love of God, then we are holding securely by the grand fact that “right is might”.

A certain colour for this claim for the primacy of love is found in the famous passage in I Corinthians 13 which concludes, “And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity”. We must not overlook that the Apostle is here comparing three things which all belong to the same sphere, the sphere of the subjective. Faith as here used signifies the exercise of the soul Godward, not the substance of what is believed, but the action of laying hold upon the object of faith. In the same way hope is here used of the subjective exercise of the soul, just as love inevitably is. Now he declares and justifies the primacy of love amongst these three. But there is nowhere to be found in the language of Scripture any suggestion of the primacy of love over justice or truth. Truth and justice are to be equated in this reference, and it is in the face of Christ’s word, “Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice”, to make claim for the primacy of love. Who are they “that are of the truth” but those who love it because they love God? So love and truth occupy alike the same divine and eternal plane.

It is not ours to detract from the praise of love, nor to try to narrow the sphere in which love operates. It is ours to attempt such an analysis of the character and activity of love as may serve to place the function of justice in a clearer light. Love is a force or power. It is indeed the power of spiritual life. It is the mightiest force of all. Justice is, strictly speaking, not a force at all. It is a principle. We often use language which seems to imply that there is mightiness in justice. That is misleading language. For example, a sense of justice has moved men to deeds of courage, of daring and of power. It is not the power of justice that is thus exhibited. It is the power of love, love for, or devotion to, justice, or to those to be protected from injustice. And truly behind all suggestion that there is force or power in justice lies the conception that justice is divine and so divine power is behind it. But love is a power yet not a principle. Love is a force and does not define or determine its own way any more than any other force or power does. When we would define a force we seek to exhibit the law which its activity follows. Justice defines the limits within which love can have free play. Within the limits of justice love has utmost freedom of activity. So the divine word describes love in the restrictive terms of justice, love “rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth”. There can be no “law of love” then which transcends the reign of justice. Justice must reign forever in the social order wherein there ever shall be free agents in fellowship, for, wherever mine and thine and his are intertwining, justice is the principle of order, and love can and shall have free-play and manifest itself as the bond of unity.

This principle, “thy neighbour as thyself”, abides unchangeable everywhere and under all conditions. It is true that in the mêlée of life it is often exceedingly difficult to deal impartially, that is, to give to each his due as against rivals. But the difficulty arises from our sinful frailty of which an outstanding characteristic is our excessive love of self. If only our eye were single then our whole body would be full of light and we could readily discern the lines of equity which now are blurred and often badly tangled to our vision. It matters not, however, how tangled the threads may appear in the web of life that we must weave, nor how manifold the claims that press upon us, the pathway to be followed is determined by this ancient word, “thy neighbour as thyself”. Whatsoever deviation from that pathway takes place is wrong. And as a noted English author, and a professed agnostic at that, had one of his characters say, “Though right and wrong may be near neighbours, yet the line that separates them is of an awful sacredness”, so it is. For the line that separates them is the line defined by the principle of justice.

In the social order we begin with the twain who are, by divine institution, one flesh. Man was not made to be an isolationist. At the very outset of human history man’s incompetency to live alone is most strikingly proclaimed. Woman was provided as an help suited to him, and so the real unit in human society is not the individual but the married couple. It is a matter of observation that the entrance of the great schism through man’s injustice to God reflected itself straightway in man’s injustice to woman. Man sought to sidestep his own personal responsibility by casting the blame on his wife. And so schism entered the social order. This schism is the appalling effect of injustice and from it the social order on this earth has suffered ever since.

There is no more delicate, no more penetratingly essential, no more truly vitalizing bond in human society or the social order than the bond of matrimony. The troth that is mutually pledged in marriage is to be regarded as underlying the entire fabric of the social order. Upon the keeping of it with loyalty and fidelity hangs not only the happiness of the contracting parties themselves and of their immediate families but also the well-being in measure of the whole social order of which they form a part. It is in the powers of procreation mutually entrusted and pledged one to another in the matrimonial bond that the unity of twain in one flesh resides. A breach of faithfulness at this point is the alone ground for divorce action in the order of divine justice. Whatever other breaches or separations may occur, they can not furnish ground for divorce action. To allow any other pleas for divorce than adultery is to place one’s own will in command and means excessive love of self as over against the social order, as well as over against God. In the effort to apply the principle of justice through statute law in the social order it is a matter of primary importance that the ordinance of marriage should be maintained on this high level of sanctity.

When, however, we face the problem of law in the social order on earth we must ever bear in mind that the term “law” in this connection is distinctively other than the term “law” as used when we say that justice is the law that love fulfils. In this latter case we deal with that ideal condition where from within his inmost being, and without coercion of any kind, a man, because he has truth in his inward part, does justly, loves mercy, and walks humbly with his God (Micah 6:8). No law is needed on the statute books for such a person. The law is in his heart. The contrast between these different conceptions of law finds clear expression in Jeremiah 31:31–33 (quoted in Hebrews 8:8–10), “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers.. .. But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts.. . .” So the Apostle writes, “But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient” (I Tim. 1:8, 9). Under this condition where the spirit of disobedience is prevailing, the approach to a perfect application of the principle of justice in the social order is very difficult and can never be complete. Such written law cannot cover every case, circumstance and condition individually with the result that it often fails to apply with perfect fitness. This is because it has to run in what is termed “blanket” form. Yet wherever men enjoy the freedom that prevails where the establishment and maintenance of justice is recognised as the function of government or of the state, there is bound to be an alertness against “respect of persons” in the framing as well as in the administration of law. Under the representative system in legislatures a growing approximation toward law that represents a common effort to stem the activities of the lawless and disobedient, while yet guarding zealously against infringement upon the free activity of the righteous, should be the aim in view. This brings into stress the sine qua non of a people thoroughly grounded in the understanding of justice and imbued with its spirit, as, reaching this ideal, it is described in the passage above referred to, “And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord” (Jer. 31:34).

Under the scriptural or Christian scheme of the social order the supreme end in view is to prepare men for that kingdom whereinto there shall enter nothing “that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie” (Rev. 21:27). This kingdom, which is not of this age, is a kingdom of free agents, each and every one of whom contributes his part in that social order in perfect harmony and unison with all others, not under any external pressure or coercive influence, but in utmost freedom and free-play of functioning. This is the kingdom of light where love, the power of life, re-unites the membership of humanity, by deliverance from its present schismatic plight, in endless unity in Christ Jesus, as the ingrafted branches become one in the vine, all alike sharing its nurturing life. But in order to this preparation, men must have under their individual power and responsibility the means of life, that they may learn to use them with due regard to their own interest and to the interest of others from the narrowest circles to the broadest outlines of humanity’s social order.

It is by learning to live in the social order here according to the dictate of justice and moved by love that men are being prepared here to live hereafter in perfect harmony. In the Pentecostal days a number of believers, in the ecstacy of their new-found freedom in Christ, actually pooled all their possessions to live together as having all things in common. Extravagant conclusions have been derived from this experiment as to the character and economic polity of the kingdom which Christ came to establish. We have here only to observe the sober way in which Peter pointed out to Ananias that the recognition of private property rights continued as the basic principle in the Christian community. The process of learning how to use, and not to abuse, our earthly property in our dealings and relations with our fellows depends on the recognition of this principle. It is really essential to the enjoyment of our free agency in the social order. Every effort to deprive men of private property rights, whether in eating or in drinking, in family relations or in finance, under any pretext whatsoever, is in conflict with this simple dictate of justice. In I Timothy 4:1–6; 6:6–10, Paul deals sharply with such tendencies and sets forth the true Christian view on the question. The use of money involves no impropriety nor injustice. Yet, owing to the love of money in the hearts of men, the cries of those who have been and are oppressed by cruel capitalistic harpies have truly filled the very heavens with the gloom and sadness of economic woes. This has led to the most extravagant denunciations of and opprobrious imputations against money down the centuries. But these vicious evils arise, not from the use of money, but from its abuse or unjust use. The key to this problem lies in the will of man. The root of the trouble is not touched by doing away with the use of money. The love of money is a root of all evil, and from it spring these evils. But love is a matter of the person, of the heart. A change in the economic system leaves the heart of man unchanged. In the order of justice it belongs to the glory of man that he should have dominion over things and that things should not have dominion over him. James uses scathing language about those who defraud their servants and heap up treasure to rust. The master who defrauds his servants of their just return for services rendered, and the servant who defrauds his master of a just measure of service, both are guilty of making unjust use of money. Of ancient time Job recognised the cause of his man-servant to be sacred, and Paul instructed slaves to serve their earthly masters as being themselves Christ’s free men. Thus the use of one man’s service by another is placed on the proper plane, the plane of equity. It is well indeed for employers of labour to bear in mind that more has to be taken into account in arriving at equity in dealing with servants than the strict equation of so much pay for so much work. Where humanity receives due recognition, the necessity of a livelihood for the employee enters into the consideration. The bearing of the statements in our Lord’s parable of the workers in the vineyard on this question is too readily overlooked or sidestepped. Jesus puts into the employer’s lips the words, “Whatsoever is right (just) I will give you”, when he addresses the labourers who had gone idle owing to want of employment during much of the day. Then at the close of the day he orders his steward to give them all a penny. Is there not here a lesson as to the responsibility of the social order or the state with respect to the unemployed who are willing to work? It is a grievous evil and a festering sore in the social order where men who are willing to work for their living, but cannot find employment, are shown no consideration by the state. The fact of the matter is that justice, “thy neighbour as thyself”, penetrates more deeply and requires greater consideration for our fellows than our selfish natures are capable of envisaging. Of course, this is also a two-edged sword, for it penetrates just as piercingly into the question of the consideration owed by the servant to his master, and of the common responsibility to earn our living for ourselves and for our dependents by our labour. All who have a keen sense of personal responsibility regularly display a persistent determination to find ways and means for earning their living.

But one reason why we readily overlook the profound and sweeping character of the requirement of justice in social relations is that we too readily yield our minds to custom and use as they prevail amongst us. This influence gives a decided bias in the direction of the toleration of definitely covetous inclinations. In so far as law is concerned, it can never translate the principle of justice into effective operation beyond the outward manifestation in the deeds of men. All that just legislation can do is to condemn the openly unjust deed and even that only after a general method, and to exercise restraint upon evil-doers. When, in Romans 13:4, it is said of the ruler that he “beareth not the sword in vain”, it is added, “for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil”. But there remains a wide range of activity between the actual doing of evil and the doing of full justice. An employer may be punctual and exact in paying such wages as he has agreed to pay, and yet be very far from treating his workman in accordance with, “thy neighbour as thyself”. His zeal for profit for himself may sadly outstrip his concern for his neighbour’s well-being. No doubt as the light of the true facts concerning the bearing of justice on human relations shines more clearly into the minds of the people and their legislators, the scope of this range will continue to be narrowed. The greatness of the progress in this direction in the English-speaking world during the past two hundred years is one of the most remarkable developments in human history. And the definite principle directing this development is justice, scriptural justice at that, but merely opening from bud toward full-blown flower.

When it is written that the ruler “beareth not the sword in vain”, his authority to exercise physical force to restrain evil-doers is clearly intended. Therefore he is to be feared by evil-doers. It is also indicated that in resisting evil-doers his authority extends to the power over life itself. In other words, governments have power from God to resist evil-doers to the death. This is the authority that is exercised by a police force for the maintenance of law within the domain of the authority which appointed them. This is the authority by which governments maintain armies, air forces and navies. It is specifically an authority limited to the necessity for maintaining justice within and without any government’s domain. No government can have any right from God to exercise this authority in the cause of evil or injustice. When one nation or group of nations invades the precincts of another’s right it is only just and proper for the latter to oppose such invasion to the death. Indeed it would mean failure to exercise authority aright, were the latter to allow justice to be trampled under foot by an evil-doer. The possession of authority entails responsibility for the due exercise of that authority. Without the maintenance of justice society cannot enjoy order or peace. In so far as injustice prevails peace is imperilled. Thus justice is basic to peace. Therefore peace, however precious and eagerly to be sought after, is, after all, a condition only secondary to justice. The authority of the ruler or government extends to the persons of all subjects so that compulsory service for the defence of justice is within its scope, although amongst a freedom-loving people it may be exercised only as a last resort. This is particularly so because under all blanket laws instances of undue hardship and injustice are bound to arise. Yet justice requires that all subjects alike recognize their personal responsibility when the well-being of all alike is imperilled. Yet it must ever be safeguarded that the state exists for man, not man for the state, as under totalitarian concepts. The ruler is a minister of God for the good of the subject or citizen (Rom. 13:4).

The exercise of this extreme form of governmental authority under stress of necessity leads, however, to the uncovering of conditions which may confront the government with unexpected problems. If the necessity of the nation calls for the physically fit to face the perils and the sacrifices of war when others physically unfit are to be excused, does not a problem respecting the nation’s responsibility for the physical fitness and health of her citizens arise? A little problem respecting the education of the citizenry arises. And again parents who have sweated and toiled and worried in the bringing up of their sons find the state laying claim upon their services just when they are of age to work and, it may be, to give some return of comfort, if not of finance, to them. The necessity of the whole nation calls for the benefit and protection of their sacrifice and service. Can it be maintained in equity that there is nothing owing by the nation in the way of helping to prepare future citizens for the discharge of the responsibilities of citizenship? The development of a crisis in which the state is obliged to exercise its utmost reach of authority surely helps to bring to the foreground certain realities of the mutuality of responsibility, according to justice, as between citizens and the state, which otherwise are likely to remain neglected. But once they are brought into the focus of attention, it is the duty of the state to endeavour a remedy of discovered injustices and some specific method of consideration for the children on whom the future well-being of the state so largely depends.

We have touched only the fringes of the application of the principle of justice in the social order. The field here is wide and the problems complex. Yet the difficulty is not so much to be met in the way of sensing the path of duty as defined by the scriptural rule, “thy neighbour as thyself”. Our difficulty lies rather in the actual doing of what that rule requires. Respect for our own persons bars the way to ready response in action. Yet only in doing is there vital reception of knowledge in this sphere. What is owed by one man to another really defines what one nation owes to another. Therefore only as individual citizens in a nation come to recognize and to practise the principle of justice, and its leaven permeates the masses, can a nation rise to the high plane of just international outlook and practice. Until all nations rise to this, no settled peace seems to lie in prospect. Nor ought we to deem this too much to expect in view of the stupendous difficulties in the way. Let us humbly reckon that as we hope, in face of difficulties quite as great in our personal sphere, to overcome by the grace of the Lord, so by that same grace shall the social order of humanity also overcome in due time.

But man was not made to find his joy and rest in the mere contemplation of noble philosophical and ethical ideals and principles. That way in itself is barren of salvation for man and for human society. Man was made to find his joy and rest in personal communion and fellowship, and that supremely with the living God. So Jesus said, “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” (John 12:31, 32). In Christ and him crucified are exhibited the majestic inviolability of justice and the overpowering mastery of love. For, as the prophet of old proclaimed it, so in him has it been fulfilled for all to see, “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6). By honest faith in this Redeemer alone is the principle of justice and the power of love generated in the hearts of men by the Spirit of truth. Then each and every one who has thus come to Christ to drink the water of life becomes in turn a fountain of living water to all around, until, let us despair not of it, the kingdom of this world becomes the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ. Then shall justice be the principle of order and love the bond of unity in the social order; and so shall we, according to his promise, behold “new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness” (II Peter 3:13).