Whose Justice? Whose Jesus?
- 14 minutes ago
- 6 min read
Ecce homo by Antonio Ciseri 2
By Dave Doveton,
Anglican Mainstream
February 16, 2026
In my previous article[i] on the use of language to advance an argument or a cause, I discussed the use of what are termed ‘empty’ or ‘floating’ signifiers. This term is used to define words that do not have clear meanings or words that can have different meanings in different contexts and for different audiences[vii]. Empty signifiers are useful tools to rally support for a specific cause or course of action. Because they hold different meanings for different people, they can be used to build a consensus but also marginalize dissenters. I noted that one common ‘floating’ signifier is the word ‘justice’.
In a recent article[ii], the Revd Robert Thompson argues for the total acceptance of same sex relationships, and same sex civil marriages – in effect, a new doctrine of marriage. In his conclusion he states,
‘The issue before the Church today is clear: it is whether we are willing to allow mercy, dignity, and life to be the criteria by which our doctrine and practice are shaped or whether we will continue to defend inherited forms even when they wound the very people in whom the fruits of the Spirit are already evident.
That is not a question about sexuality alone. It is a question about what kind of Church we are becoming and whether we truly believe that Christ is alive enough to lead us somewhere we have not yet fully understood.
Will we follow Jesus on the Sabbath? Will we with Christ embody God’s justice?’
Martin Davie has already published two critical responses[iii] to his article, concentrating mainly on Thompson’s argument that Genesis 1–2 does not establish marriage as a fixed creational institution, and that Jesus radically reinterpreted the Sabbath. I wish to examine the use of the idea of ‘Christ as the embodiment of God’s justice’.
Firstly, the term ‘justice’ is bandied about in current debates about all manner of issues. In many instances it is used as a subtle means of emotional blackmail, a play on people’s sense of guilt or just a blunt instrument to silence opposition.
The most common meaning of Justice in contemporary discourse could be expressed by the maxim “to render to each what is their due”, expressed in antiquity by the Roman writer Ulpian. Joseph Boot[iv] notes that the contemporary understanding, loosely termed ‘social justice’, is a type of distributive justice which the state controls concerning the distribution of benefits and obligations in a society. However, in modern western societies it has evolved into a doctrine of entitlements where supposedly people have rights to land, education, health services, marriage, employment, etc. where people can claim victimhood if they believe what they are entitled to has been denied them. They then resort to mechanisms such as court action, or the political process to demand changes in the law to accord them what they desire. Thus, the campaign for ‘same sex marriage’ was mounted until it was legalised in both the USA and the UK, and many other countries. This is termed ‘justice’ – portrayed as a type of restorative justice, but in effect, no more than the voice of a loud majority who use the democratic processes and institutions in western democracies.
The Biblical idea of justice has a different basis and a different meaning. The Hebrew term for justice in the Old Testament is mispat which means the rule of God’s law. Indeed, justice is inseparable from law in the bible – and divine law alone defines what justice is. There are indeed different applications of justice in the Mosaic law – including economic justice (the marketplace), remedial justice (civil and criminal law), and distributive justice (distribution of benefits and obligations in society). However, they must all conform to the standard that God sets.
In the Old Testament, justice is related to righteousness, often mentioned together, because justice is an aspect of the righteousness of God. Thus, Ezekiel describes a righteous man as someone who does what is just in God’s eyes, defined as living in conformity to God’s Torah. In Ezekiel 18:5-9,25-32, he lists specific transgressions of the Mosaic law according to the plain sense meaning. Thus justice, righteousness, and the law of God are inextricably linked. In this passage Ezekiel sets out God’s case against his people who have claimed God is not just because they believe that their generation is being held responsible for the sins of the previous one. He closes the case against the people by setting out the Lord’s verdict concerning his people, and a call to repentance, “Cast away from you all the transgressions you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit”[v]. Thus, justice and righteousness are an issue not only of outward behaviour, but of the heart.
This is the issue that Jesus picks up and echoes in his conflict with the religious leaders – he not only emphasises the relevance of Mosaic law for his disciples[vi] but tightens the application of the law to thoughts and intentions of the heart[vii].
Thompson argues that with Jesus,
“Law is not abolished, but fulfilled, and fulfilment in biblical terms does not mean repetition, but faithful interpretation ordered towards life.”
I believe a more helpful meaning in the context of Jesus’ ministry is that the law has been brought to a full and perfect expression. This can never mean it has been evacuated of its original, clear, and plain sense meaning. One simply cannot reinterpret the sexual prohibitions in the law to convey the exact opposite meaning.
Interpretation in the New Testament is never away from specificity to generality. Both Jesus and Paul treat the Commandments in effect, as categories which they elucidate and expand on at the specific level, providing fuller and deeper understanding of what these more general categories mean. In doing so, they were referencing the apodictic laws in the correct manner. As Von Rad observes, the Decalogue and other apodictic laws “owe their existence to the endeavour to outline Jahweh’s whole will for men in the shortest possible form.”[viii] Thus, for Jesus, ‘adultery’ is a term which covers all sexually prohibited behaviours – even thoughts and motives. Similarly, in 1 Timothy 1:8-10, Paul reinterprets the 5th to the 9th commandments, expands on their meaning and notes that ‘adultery’ covers other activities – namely ‘sexual immorality’ and ‘homosexuality’. Both would have also known that these laws are categorical, non-negotiable and lack situational exceptions.
Jesus declares to his opponents in John’s gospel, “I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgement is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”[ix] That is, his decisions are just because he obeys his Father. What constitutes just actions are those in accordance with God’s revealed will and that for Jesus was the Hebrew scripture.
In many Western nations such as Britain or the USA where legal systems rest on a Judeo-Christian moral base, new laws and changes to existing laws are enacted based on democratic decision making (i.e. the will of a majority). Thus, they are no longer necessarily made based on adherence to the Old Testament moral law. In some cases, decisions are in effect made based on the subjective feelings and desires of a subgroup in the culture which has succeeded in capturing the media and other institutions of that culture to support its agenda. This was true of gay marriage and would be true of the proposed Assisted Dying Bill.
Now in similar manner, the Church of England Canon law on Marriage is cast as ‘unjust’ by an appeal to subjective feelings and desires. This is the basic thrust of Thompson’s argument which calls for acceptance of same-sex civil marriage.
Anglican divine Richard Hooker stated unequivocally that human authority in the sphere of law was totally subject to the moral law of scripture. “Laws human are of force so far forth as they are agreeable to the law of God.”[x]Biblical law must always inform issues of justice, and the 39 Articles of Religion asserts this principle, “… it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.”[xi]
Christ definitely does not embody a law based on democratic human decisions which is in total opposition to God’s holy law. The people’s voice cannot take the place of God’s voice. After all, the people’s voice all too quickly turns into a baying for blood – as in, “Crucify him”[xii].
Christ as the second Adam[xiii] points us back to the Creator’s original intention for human beings, as described in Genesis. His purpose for human sexuality – to bond a man and a woman in lifelong marriage so that children may be brought up in the knowledge and fear of the Lord[xiv]. Certainly, without knowing the purpose of humanity, we cannot know what justice is.
[i] https://anglicanmainstream.org/editorial/narratives-of-manipulation-words-in-the-service-of-power/
[iv] Dr Joseph Boot, The Mission of God: A Manifesto of Hope for Society, WILBERFORCE, 2016, p201.
[v] Ezekiel 18:31.
[vi] Matthew 5:17,18.
[vii] Matthew 5:28.
[viii] Gerhad von Rad , Old Testament Theology volume 1, SCMThu, 1975, p191.
[ix] John 5:30.
[x] See also, “For whereas God hath left sundry kinds of laws unto men, and by all those laws the actions of men are in some sort directed; they hold that only one law, the Scripture must be the rule to direct in all things…” Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity , Dent, LONDON, 1907, p234.
[xi] Article 20.
[xii] John 19 :15.
[xiii] Romans Ch. 5.
[xiv] Deuteronomy 4:10; 31:12,13.
(Image : “Ecce Homo” painting by Antonio Ciseri, Public Domain)