Abomination
As God instructs Israel in how they would live, he often spoke to them of things which “ought not to be done”. However, sometimes he would inform them of something particularly abominable to him that they absolutely were to understand he would not tolerate.
This post will be reviewing one such case found in the book of Proverbs. This book is wisdom literature and usually is describing the way the world is rather than prescribing how it should necessarily be. However, this particular piece of wisdom is an observation about how God views injustice.
He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous
Proverbs 17:15
are both alike an abomination to the Lord.
Justifying the Wicked
Justification of the wicked should not be confused with the idea of simply assuming one’s innocence until there is sufficient proof of their guilt. This is talking about those who attempt to validate objectively wicked actions.
For instance, it is not wrong for a defense attorney to make the case that evidence his client was in the mall when a theft occurred is not sufficient to prove that his client was the thief. It would be, however, wrong to make the case that his client did steal it but only because he was too poor to afford it due to an unfair economic environment. Theft is theft. If he did it, he did it.
To justify the wicked is to know they are doing wrong and seek excuses as to why it’s understandable that they are doing it anyway. Unfortunately, this is all too common in our culture today. Whether it is claiming that the social environment “made them do it” or if it is trying to explain how a person doing wrong is okay because it is “natural” for some people, there are those who justify the wicked publicly every day.
Condemning the Righteous
In the other ditch, we have those who condemn the righteous.
First, it should be noted, this verse isn’t talking about someone who is perfect. Many in church culture today like to point out that nobody is without sin as if that means everyone is “wicked” and there is nobody who is in any sense “righteous” in any context. This view often is defended on the grounds of Romans 3:9-18.
However, the context of that section is explaining how there was not a person on the whole Earth who is justified under the law (specifically how the Jews, who had received the law, were still no more righteous than the Gentiles). We see only a few verses later that the righteousness of God has been manifest through faith (verse 21). To apply the idea that there is no human who could be understood as being “righteous”, as the word is often used in scripture, is to destroy the meaning of many texts.
David wasn’t talking about a hypothetical situation when he spoke of how much better the company of the righteous was than the company of the wicked. He wasn’t saying “we’re all wicked, but wouldn’t it be nice to hang out with someone who wasn’t?” Instead, he was saying that it is better to keep good company and it was possible to do so!
Similarly, this isn’t a verse exclusively about those who condemned Jesus, because he was the only one who was innocent in every way. Instead, it is talking about people who attempt to make a case of guilt against a person who is not actually guilty.
The sham trial of Jesus is certainly the most egregious example of this injustice! However, this verse applies to things which are happening every day as well. It’s not even only cases where a person bears false witness and therefore convinces a judge and jury seeking justice to rule against him wrongly either. It also includes corrupt judges or juries who desire a guilty ruling for reasons other than justice as well.
Whether it is bribes, blackmail, political motivations, or hatred of the accused, a person condemns a righteous person any time they seek to convict him for reasons other than his guilt.
Careful Deliberation
It is important to note that the verse says “are both alike an abomination to the Lord”. One is not worse than the other in God’s eyes. This completely destroys the excuse that we only do one to avoid the other.
If we claim we’re only going easy on those who are guilty because we don’t want to risk possibly being “too harsh”, we are just as guilty as if we had wrongly condemned them. If we say that we are only coming down hard on someone who seems innocent because we don’t want to be seen as “playing favorites”, we are no better off than someone who would have excused him had he been guilty.
Because either extreme is an abomination to God, we must be careful to discover the truth of every situation and make our judgements based upon the evidence of guilt rather than upon the demands of our cultural moment.
Justice is a weighty matter, requiring diligence. To slacken to either side is to risk severe judgement from God. To do so in the name of “justice” is a very great evil.
1 thought on “Narrow Justice”