God’s Justice

These are laws of justice, and because justice, or righteousness is the expression of God’s being and His laws, these laws must take priority over us, over all judges, and over all human considerations.

The first law, in verse 1, can be paraphrased to say, “Do not spread false reports, whether deliberately or through idle talk.” The second half says, “Do not aid the wicked by being a false witness.” Thus, in justice in every day speaking and in courtroom testimonies are both forbidden. Many of the laws of Exodus 22 are very specific applications of Exodus 20:16. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” The words, “put not thine hand with the wicked,” or “do not join or shake hands with the wicked,” has reference to the very ancient custom which goes back as far as we know, of shaking hands on a deal. In many cultures, in many countries, it was the way to conclude a legally binding agreement, whether written or verbal, to shakes hands. Well, to join with the wicked, to be an unrighteous person, to shake hands with him, to agree with him on a course of evil is literally, in the Hebrew, a witness in charge of violence, because a false testimony in court does violence to justice. All testimony must be partial to justice, not to men.

The second law warns against, well, not only warns but forbids following a multitude to do evil. In other words, we are not to be socially determined in our actions. We live in a time which stands among all the errors of history as one of the key ages in which men are socially determined. Men are governed by what other people say or think, so that there are styles that govern our appearance and fashions also that govern every aspect of our lives. When a culture departs from God it becomes socially determined, so that the crowd begins to determine what we are. Now, the crowd may be an elite crowd, it may be a popular crowd, but it is still a determination by man. This is why the study of the mob began to be so important among sociologists in the last years of the last century. It was now a determining force in civilization. Sociologists are more discrete now, they do not use the term “mob.” They speak of being outer directed or other directed, and they use a lot of certain locutions, all to get around the fact that the whims, the fashions, the trends, the fads of the mobs govern modern man.

The second law, verse 2, says “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment.” Again, this speaks against socially determined in our actions. The second half of the verse is rendered in the Berkeley version as “Nor when witnessing in a lawsuit, lean toward the majority to thwart justice.” There are many paraphrases of this and all convey the basic notion. In the first verse, all false testimony and false witness is prescribed.

Now, that type of false witness is cited which very specifically follows the majority or the prevailing opinion. The implication is that to follow the majority is to defy justice. Now consider how important that is, because in the modern world, majority is determined justice. Majorities make law, so that the majority has replaced God as the lawmaker. Whether it’s the majority or the minority that makes the law, it is wrong. The implication here is that to follow the majority is to defy justice. Since most people prefer to conform to the governing ideas, this law declares that all such conformity, either active or passive, is evil and it is under God’s judgment. Truth and justice are not determined by majorities nor minorities, but by God. Just as monarchies and dictatorships have imposed one man’s will, whatever the justice of the case, so democracies often impose their majority will over truth and justice.

James McGregor commented on this verse, and I quote, “It means do not go with the stream in wrongdoing. Decline here, means turn aside from the straight path. To turn aside justice.” The law applies to all concerned; to the judge, and to the witness.

The third law, “Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause.” This forbids favoritism to the poor because he is poor. A charitable view of the poor cannot be used to set aside justice. All people are equally prone to sin, and the court, whether it be the judge or the witness, must be governed by justice. Now the favoritism here, of course, has a broader scope. The poor are taken as an example of the perversion of justice, and it can be therefore, used to say, since these are case laws, “Do not countenance a black man because he is black, or a white man because he is white, or any other group racial or social in society, because of their membership in that group.” The person must stand in terms of what he or she has done, and the justice of the case. But that is lacking in our time. People insist on mixing personal feelings, racial feelings, charitable feelings with court proceedings and supplanting justice with such ideas.

In the 1930’s, I heard a missionary describe an episode in old China. A neighboring missionary kept two cows, for his family and other missionaries, to provide milk for them. His son who, as I recall, about five, was playing with a Chinese boy of the same age. At one point, they tosses small people at a Chinese neighbor’s sickly and dying cow, and that night the cow died. The missionary and his son were immediately placed on trial for killing the cow. Of course, the other Chinese boy was not, and the verdict was that one of his two cows had to be given to replace the neighbor’s dead cow. The missionary was, understandably, outraged, and he protested the decision. The court and the villagers were, in turn, shocked by his protest. Of course, his son did not kill the cow, was their response. But he had two cows and his neighbor now had none. Justice, the missionary learned in time, did not exist there because many extraneous concerns governed the courts. I’ve never forgotten that episode and it has reminded me more than once why China went communist, because the presupposition of its courts, and other instances like this were many the missionary told me. All witness to one thing. Not justice, but sharing governed legal procedure. Partiality to the poor, or to the underdog, or to the downtrodden might seem noble, but it results in injustice.

Sentimentalism can be as evil as tyranny in its consequences. We cannot assume that the poor or the rich are necessarily right. Sin is no respecter of persons. In Leviticus 19:15 we are told, “Ye shall do no unrighteousness or injustice in judgment. Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor nor honor the person of the mighty, but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor.” Compassion has its place in society, but not as a substitute for justice. Compassion is a personal act. It calls for a personal act of charity and help. Justice requires the application of God’s law.

The fourth law governs our personal conduct. “If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again.” If we see an enemy’s ox or ass going astray, we are to return it to its owner. It is taken for granted that if you see your friend’s animal going astray, you will take action. The law says that such actions cannot be governed by our personal feelings. For community to exist, we must be helpful one to another in spite of our personal animosities. For a modern application of this law, in my days on the farm, it sometimes happened that a man’s irrigation water broke out of the ditches to go where it was not wanted. If the man were not there, if he were somewhere else, perhaps at another twenty acres he had rented, it was expected that his neighbor who spotted this immediately repaired the breach. Not to do so was regarded as bad. The enemy mentioned in this law may have meant one who is currently engaged in a lawsuit against you. The behavior required is simply this: We cannot govern our lives by our hates. We must be governed by God’s law.

The fifth law is related to this. “If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.” An enemy’s donkey or some other animal is having problems. Its load slips off its back, or because it is improperly loaded, the animal can’t get up. To reload him quickly requires the work of two men. The commandment is, “Thou shalt surely help.” Involved here is the fact of returning good for evil, and kindness to an animal. Also, such an act can have a restorative function.

Then, the sixth law. “Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause.” It calls for justice over a feeling of charity. Now some, like Kasuto, a brilliant Hebrew scholar, have held that the word translated as “poor” should have been a related word from the same stem meaning “opponent” or “adversary.” However, this is not the likely meaning. The enemy has been covered in the preceding laws. In the third law, favoritism to the poor is forbidden. Here, a perversion of justice to deny the poor a fair trial is forbidden. In either case, the fact of justice is not in mind. Rather, the status of the person is considered and that is condemned.

The seventh law tells us that God will not justify or quit anyone who perverts justice. James Moffatt paraphrased this verse in these words,” Avoid false charges, never have innocent and guiltless men put to death nor quit bad men.” This is, as I said, a paraphrase but the idea is clear. The court cannot act in terms of a social agenda, but rather in terms of the facts of the case, and this is today, as always, an important point. When it suits them, people want the court to act in terms of a social agenda, and this is what our supreme court has done over and over again, and not just since the Warren court, although it has been more flagrant under Warren’s influence.

One of the most famous cases in history came to be known as the Dred Scott case. The decision demanded was in terms of a social agenda. Both the North and the South looked for such a conclusion to the case. Whatever the facts of the case from our perspective, the decision was closer to the law than to a social agenda. The fact that the law was bad did not eliminate the fact that congress made the law and congress should have unmade it. The Dred Scott decision led to the Civil War, and it was an instance where everyone wanted the court to settle it and no one was going to be content with the decision that it went one way or the other.

The eighth law, “And thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous,” forbids bribery. A bribe blinds the wise and perverts the decision of the court of justice we are told. There is a similar statement in Deuteronomy 16:19, “Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.” There is a very interesting aspect to this law which is generally unknown. In ancient Israel, judges were not paid by the state, they were not paid by the civil authorities, but out of the funds of the sanctuary, the tabernacle or the temple later on. The administration of justice was seen as a religious task, not a political one, and as a result, it was financed by the temple, apparently by the use of tithes and gifts. Justice and salvation were closely linked as God’s holy purpose for men and society, and hence, bribery was comparable to a corruption of the temple.

Consider what a revolution that would be, if the state did not control the courts, and what a revolution it has been that the courts are controlled by the state. As far back as the fifties, ninety percent of the cases heard by the U.S. Supreme Court were cases appealed by some agency of the federal government, or the states, or the cities. It’s a civil court, it works to further the causes of civil government. The secularization of justice has placed it under men’s authority and has made law and justice things determined by men, by majorities, by minorities, by races, or by classes. All this has worked to destroy justice. As against this, God’s law sets forth truth and ultimate justice. Let us pray.

Our Father, thou hast made us for thyself, and thou hast ordained that all institutions, governments, courts, and peoples serve thee and thee alone. Make us instruments of thy kingdom and grant that we may bring all things into captivity to Jesus Christ, our Lord. In His name we pray, amen. Are there any questions now about our lesson? Yes?

[Audience] Verse 7, I don’t know if it has anything to do with capital punishment, but one of the great fears that many people have with regard to capital punishment is that innocent people will be put to death. What the, is there some guarantee in that last phrase there that God will prevent, that God himself will prevent the injustice?

[Rushdoony] What was that last part?

[Audience] The last phrase in verse 7 seems to be almost a guarantee that God, by divine intervening would prevent a miscarriage of justice in a capital punishment case.

[Rushdoony] No, I don’t think that’s quite valid. What it does mean that, not immediately but ultimately, He will deal with the unjust. But, if you have a corrupt court, it is going to justify the wicked and slay the innocent. This is done regularly behind the Iron Curtain. But what it does tell us is that God says the court of law is His, and we are not to see it as our province, to fulfill our social agenda or our political purposes. Our courts are so politicized that we have forgotten that justice is to be separate, that it is to be God-ordained and God-administered. Any other questions or comments? Yes?

[Audience] The eighth verse taken literally is one of the best descriptions of the corruptions of our lawmakers in congress that I’ve ever seen.

[Rushdoony] Yes. Yes.

[Audience] The political action committees that donate money to their reelection campaigns.

[Rushdoony] I just recently, in fact Friday finished reading a collection of Will Rogers’ columns, and I was amazed how things written in the twenties and early thirties are as relevant now as they were then, only more so, because so much of what he had to say was about Congress, poking fun at Congress, calling attention to the fact that none of them were interested in any justice or concerned with evil until they were out of office, and then they were full of righteous indignation. But the minute they got into office, he said, both parties were experts at feeding at the trough and filling their pockets. He also said something I had forgotten. We often hear that Will Rogers said, “All I know is what I read in the papers,” which is true, he did make that statement. But they never call attention to the fact that he also said, “All I know is what I don’t read in the papers.” Any other questions or comments? Well, if not, let us conclude with prayer.

Our Lord and our God, we give thanks unto thee that thou art on the throne, that thou hast summoned us to be thy people and commissioned us to serve thee, and has given us such great promises in Jesus Christ. Grant that, day by day, we move in the sure and certain confidence of thy grace, mercy, peace, and government. And now go in peace. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost bless you and keep you, guide and protect you this day and always. Amen

End of tape.