(1) Ood's justice in His relations with m.en. — He shows favour to the righteous. He could not withhold His approval (if that in tliem which is the object of complacency and delight in Himself. This does not mean that they have a claim on God for a happy earthly lot, and exemption from earthly troubles. This doctrine of recompense was the prevalent one during the early and non- reflective stage of Israel's religious progress ; but it did not bear the strain put on it by the national calamities. In the teaching of Christ it is re- pudiated : Mt 5« 13=8- -jn^ Lk 16== 18'-», Jn 9^- » ; and in Ro 8'8-3' and He 12" an explanation of the suf- ferings of the righteous is given which goes far to their seeming variance with the justice
of God. They are part of His fatherly discipline
'lildren are prepared fo ' ' heavenly inheritance (2 Co 4'*^ ", He 5*). Eve
by which His children are
for their
here they liave their great reward in the favour and friendship of God (Mt S'""'', 1 P 2'»- =» S'^-'").
(2) God's justice in relation to sin. — God is just, and will therefore punish sin. This is one of the Christian certainties (Gal 6'). Difi'erent views.
916
JUSTICE
JUSTICE
however, have been held as to the nature of the punishment and its object. Some think (and this is Ritsclil's opinion) that the true punishment of sin consists m the sense of guilt and alienation from God which a persuasion of the Divine dis- pleasure awakens ; and that the outward evils which are regarded as punishments are really due to natural causes that liave no relation to human guilt (Ritschl, Justification and Reconciliation, 47 ff. , 257 ft'. ). Now, the sense of God's displeasure must always be a most important part of punish- ment, and might almost stand for tne whole of it, if we could suppose the sinner as responsive to it as he ought to be, as, e.g., a saint made perfect in holiness would be. To such a saint the sense of alienation from God would be harder to bear than the most untoward outward calamity. But sin increasingly blunts the sinner's susceptibility to suffering from this source ; and if no effective provision has been made to bring God's displeasure home to him, he would at last work out his term of punishment. There may be no link of causa- tion between oui- sin and most of the outward evils of life. Maet«rlinck may be right in saying that nature knows nothing of justice ; but in that case we should have to believe with him that neither can nature be regarded as the creation of a Being in whom ethical attributes are supreme (Maeterlinck, Buried Temple, Essay on the ' Mys- tery of Justice ').
God's justice in relation to sin is at once retrib- utive, educative, and protective. It is retributive because it punishes sin simply as sin ; it is edu- cative or reformatory because the punishment is also intended for the moral improvement of the transgressor; it is protective because by the pun- islmient others are restrained fiom wTong-doing, and are themselves guarded against the evils which would result from the prevalence of unpunished sin. That the Scripture view of God's justice implies retribution may be shown from many passages : Mt 16-'' 24. 25, Lk 12«-*, Ro 2«- >« 6^, 2 Co 5'^ Col 3=», 2 Th P, He 2= 10-''. One could scarcely gather from these passages that God's sole aim in punishment is the reformation of the offender. Yet this is the popular view with many modern theologians. As a protest against the once preva- lent opinion that God, in punishing, desires merely to exact vengeance without any regard to the sinner's repentance, it has its justification. But, like other reactionary views, it carries us too far in the opposite direction. The whole drift of Biblical teaching is that God punishes sinners be- cause they deserve it. Punishment is the reaction of His holy nature against wTong-doing, and with- out it the moral order of the world could not be maintained. If sin did not arouse His displeasure. He would not be holy ; and if He did not manifest His displeasure objectively by punishment, men could not know that He is holy. But it is said that God is love, and that what love infiicts is chastise- ment, not punishment in the retributive sense. Holy love, however, cannot accomplish its end unless the sinner is brought to feel that he deserves punishment. How could punishment benefit him if, while undergoing it, he Delieved that it had not been merited ? Retribution does tend to the offender's improvement, and this is part of God's purpose in it ; but its reformatory influence never takes effect until the sinner acknowledges its justice. His improvement begins only when he is brought into this state of mind and feeling. If, indeed, God's sole aim were refonnation, it would follow that, if regards carried with them the same benefits as punishments, as in many ca.ses they do, then the offender wduld desiirve "them, and this because of his sin. In like manner it would be very difficult to persuade people that it is right
that they should be protected from the spread of violence by the punishment of those to whom punishment was not justly due.