In 1887 Lord Acton famously coined the phrase, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” His insightful observation raises an important question: how should power be exercised? An examination of kingship in the Bible is an excellent place to start in answering this challenging issue.
The purpose and function of Old Testament leaders and kings was to maintain “justice and righteousness” (Genesis 18:19 and 1 Kings 10:9). These words have been described as two of the ‘biggest’ words in the Old Testament and they appear together over and over again in what is known as a hendiadys (a single complex idea expressed through the use of two words). It is worth giving some careful thought to what they mean.
Righteousness or ‘Tsedeq(ah)’
Tsedeq(ah) means ‘straightness’ or conformity to a norm. It suggests ‘rightness’ – ‘that which ought to be’, ‘that which matches up to the standard’. By way of example, you may have been given an appraisal by your firm and marked out of ten for the way you deal with clients. The appraiser will have considered whether you match up to the standard required of you, whether you are what you ought to be, whether you should be given ten out of ten.
In the context of human relationships, ‘righteous action’ is action which is concerned with what is right or expected in the relationship. In the Old Testament, to be righteous was to live in a way which allowed you to respond correctly to the proper values of a relationship (whether spouse, judge, parent, leader, boss, etc.). In the above example of the appraisal, the values a Christian lawyer should be expected to live up to in his/her relationship with clients are honesty, fairness, appropriate charging, dedication etc. The ‘righteous’ lawyer conforms with these values. The requirements or values of any given relationship in the OT were informed by the covenant between God and His people. It is worth noting that in the OT, righteous living also promoted communal well-being and the peace of the community (shalom).
This concept is vividly illustrated in 1 Samuel 24 where David had the opportunity to take King Saul’s life, but he did not do so. Saul was hunting down David in order to kill him and David was hiding in a cave. Saul went into the same cave to relieve himself. David, without Saul noticing, cut off a corner of Saul’s robe but was conscience-stricken for having done this and said to his men: “the Lord forbid that I should do such a thing to my master, the Lord’s anointed, or lift my hand against him; for he is the anointed of the Lord.” It is apparent from these words what the relationship between the two was; Saul was David’s master and the Lord’s anointed one. The demands or values of the relationship required David to treat Saul as such. David recognised this and rebuked his men for suggesting that he should attack Saul. David’s actions were righteous; they conformed to the standard expected in that particular relationship and it is not difficult to see how they promoted the peace of the community. David came out of the cave and told Saul that he had had the opportunity to kill him but had not taken it. Saul recognised the righteousness of David’s actions and said: “You are more righteous than I…You have treated me well, but I have treated you badly.” Despite the fact that David was not guilty of wrongdoing or rebellion, Saul had hunted him down to kill him. His action was unrighteous as it did not conform to the values of the relationship. David had been loyal and therefore Saul should have treated him as such.
The Bible calls us to submit to authorities. Submission is not the same as blind obedience. Submission takes its shape from the proper boundaries of the relationship. An employer has the right to demand that their employees work diligently, but not that their employees cheat customers, evade taxes, abuse others or commit any other wrongs. When an employer is exercising their legitimate authority, submission will lead to obedience. When an employer is abusing or overstepping their authority, a Christian might refuse to comply, challenging their employer to act justly instead.
Justice or ‘Mishpat’
The verb ‘shaphat’ (from which the noun ‘mishpat’ is derived) is concerned with judicial activity or legal action. Such action may be taken as a lawgiver, judge, arbitrator or in executing a judgement. Its basic meaning is to treat people equitably. This is why God warns Israel to “have the same mishpat [law] for the foreigner and the native-born.” (Leviticus 24:22). Christopher Wright writes:
“In the widest sense, it means to ‘put things right’, to intervene in a situation that is wrong, oppressive or out of control and to ‘fix’ it”. This may include confronting wrongdoers, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, vindicating and delivering those who have been wronged.”1
Put together, the two words tsedeq(ah) and mishpat have a distinctive meaning. It has been said that the nearest English expression is possibly ‘social justice’, but this is perhaps insufficiently dynamic; the Hebrew nouns are, after all, actual things you do, not just concepts that you reflect on.
For instance, in employment, tsedeq(ah), or primary justice, would be a relationship where right standards between employer and employee are maintained—where mutual trust and confidence, fairness and equality, reasonable duties and responsibilities guide their actions and interactions. In that case, there’s little need for corrective measures because accepted employment standards prevent most conflicts from arising in the first place.
However, when this primary justice fails, mishpat, or rectifying justice, becomes necessary. If an employer unjustly dismisses an employee or an employee breaches their contract, action such as judicial mediation or judgment is needed to rectify the injustice, protect the affected party, and restore equity. In an ideal system where tsedeq(ah) is practiced, mishpat would rarely be needed, as proper relationships would prevent disputes and promote a harmonious workplace.
Abuse of power and the role of Christian lawyers
"Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court" Proverbs 22:22
"Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees" Isaiah 10:1
The financial inequality between rich and poor, lender and borrower creates an imbalance of power that is capable of being abused. The king was to mitigate this injustice, to be the defender of the rights of the weak and poor. David McIlroy writes:
“Central to Proverbs’ argument that judges must dispense justice impartially is the assertion that rich and poor alike have an equal right to expect it because ‘The Lord is the Maker of them all.’ Oppression or mockery of the poor is abominable, because it amounts to contempt for their divine Maker…The Bible is not so naïve as to be mono-causal in its approach to poverty. However, the biblical writers recognise that it is sometimes (perhaps often) the result of injustice and oppression by the haves of the have-nots. Proverbs 13:23 says, in words which could be a direct condemnation of contemporary Western food subsidies and tariff barriers, ‘A poor man’s field may produce abundant food, but injustice sweeps it away’.”2
In worldly terms a wealthy or powerful client may have a lot to offer. Christian lawyers and judges are called upon to be impartial and fair (Leviticus 19:15) and to guard against oppression by the powerful against the weak. We should heed the wisdom of the writers of Proverbs and give special attention to the poor by, for example, facilitating access to justice, perhaps by offering pro bono services.
However, the poor are not entitled to judgement in their favour simply because they are poor; this would not be justice but bias. Hence Leviticus 19:15 includes a warning not to show partiality to the poor as well as warning against favouritism to the great.
Keeping faith with those who have the least to offer in return is a true test of character and demonstration of loving-kindness.
1 Wright, Christopher. Old Testament Ethics for the People of God (Leicester: IVP, 2004), page 256.
2 Mcllroy, David. A Biblical View of Law and Justice (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004), page 84.