Dan Winiarski

Eric, thank you for providing a deep Scriptural context to this discussion.
 

I have used this example to explain the difference between a good and bad definition of justice.  Imagine that you go on a sky-diving trip.  At 20,000 feet, you decide that the laws of physics don't apply to you, and you jump out without a parachute.  Naturally, you plummet to your death.  Has justice been done?  Using the bad definitions of justice such as "Achieving shalom" or "Restoring creation to God's intended purpose" or "Making things right," you would have to say that a grave INJUSTICE has been done.  You're dead!  Your wife is now a widow.  Your children will grow up without their father.  Your friends have lost a loved one.  Nothing good came of you falling to your death.  Certainly nothing was "made right" or "restored" to the way God originally wanted it.  There is no shalom.  Just the opposite.

But...using a good definition of justice (one where we actually attempt to impart a useful meaning to the word), we would say that justice HAS been done.  You got what you deserve.  The laws of nature and of nature's God dictate that if a 180 pound human jumps out of a plane at 20,000 feet without a parachute, that person is going to die.  Choice = consequence.  Behavior = result.  That is justice.

By the way, the person using a bad definition of justice would probably say there was a systemic injustice present, and would call for greater regulation of the sky-diving industry.

But are those things woven intimately together because they are the same thing? Can we use "mercy", "justice", and "righteousness" interchangeably? Are we egalitarian linguists now?

Or is it true that each of these have  distinct meanings,  even if they are complementary of one another?

Eric is correct. To tie it to the example, the police officer would pay the penalty of the driving violation himself, on behalf of the guilty motorist. Thus fulfilling the just requirements of the law, and extending MERCY that the motorist does not DESERVE.

So we can plainly see that "justice" and "mercy" are two distinct things. Justice being something we deserve; mercy being something we do not deserve.

"...that means that even our best understandings of justice, let alone our application of the same in our affairs will always have the twist of self-serving."

All the more reason our denominational employees should use caution when declaring that they KNOW that climate change is happening, and that it is an issue of "justice," and that they furthermore KNOW the correct course of action to take, eh?

Or that they KNOW that a thousand page tax & budget bill is also an "injustice," because they KNOW it will have a detrimental effect on the poor?

Not only are they using the wrong definition of "justice," they are claiming certainty where they clearly cannot have it.

Eric, thanks for your well-reasoned input.

I admit my fingers paused for long time after describing "wisdom" as "common sense."  I was going for brevity and ease of understanding, and probably lost accuracy in the process.

I like your suggestion of "the essence of the knowledge and character of God."