When Scripture says “justice,” what does it mean? The answer this study works toward is that biblical justice is right relationship measured by God’s own character: being right with God and doing what is right toward others, in private and in public. That standard is not set by what produces the most benefit or by any one political theory. The lesson “What is Justice?” in the Jude 3 Project curriculum Courageous Conversations builds its definition from three biblical words, and this guide does the same. You will read those words in their passages before comparing them with the definitions the culture offers.
You can work through this alone in about an hour with a Bible and a pen, or with a group over one longer session or two shorter ones. If you lead a group, give people time with the texts themselves. The comparison with other definitions only works after the group has actually seen what the passages say.
Begin with the definition you already carry
Before reading anything, write one sentence that answers this: what is justice? Then name one person, living or dead, whose life you think shows it. The curriculum opens its group session this way. It works because most of us use the word constantly and have rarely said what we mean by it.
Keep your sentence. You will come back to it at the end. In a group, collect the definitions without debating them yet. Notice which ones focus on outcomes, such as people getting what they need. Notice which ones focus on fairness of process, which ones focus on punishment, and which ones mention God at all.
Three words, one family of meaning
The Courageous Conversations lesson states the starting point plainly: “The Bible has three words for justice: tsedeq, mishpat, and dikaios.” Two of these are Hebrew and one is Greek. The lesson’s key observation is that they describe both a quality and an action. In its words, “justice is both a verb and an adjective.” Justice is something a person is, and it is something a person does.
English readers of the King James Version often miss this, because the KJV rarely translates these words as “justice.” The Hebrew tsedeq and its close relative tsedaqah are usually rendered “righteousness.” The Hebrew mishpat is often rendered “judgment,” meaning a right ruling or a right order of things, not only a sentence handed down in court. So when you read “righteousness” and “judgment” side by side in the KJV, you are often reading the Bible’s two main Hebrew words for justice.
Read Amos 5:24 with that in mind: “But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.” Look at the surrounding chapter. Amos is speaking to Israel, which kept its festivals and offerings while mistreating the poor and corrupting its courts (Amos 5:11-12, 21-23). The prophet does not ask for more worship. He asks for mishpat and tsedaqah to flow like water that does not dry up. In context, the verse condemns religion that keeps its rituals and ignores how people are treated.
Now read Micah 6:8: “He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” The phrase “to do justly” is literally “to do mishpat.” Justice here is something performed. It also sits between mercy and humility before God, not apart from them. Notice that the question in the previous verse is about offerings: thousands of rams, rivers of oil. Micah’s answer moves the reader from what can be brought to God to how one lives before him and among others.
The Greek word dikaios means “just” or “righteous,” and it belongs to a word family that also gives us “righteousness” and “justify.” The curriculum notes that the apostolic writings often use “righteous” and “justice” interchangeably. Romans 3:26 shows why that matters: “To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” In Greek, “just” and “justifier” come from the same root. Paul’s point is that God remains just when he declares sinners right through faith. The cross is not God setting justice aside. It is God’s justice and God’s mercy meeting.
One caution about word study. A word’s meaning comes from how it is used in its sentence and passage, not from its root or from every meaning it can carry. Mishpat in a courtroom scene and mishpat in a prophet’s plea for the widow overlap, but they are not identical. Let the passage set the meaning.
Observation prompt
Look up Isaiah 1:17 in the KJV: “Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.” Circle every verb. Then underline the people each verb is aimed at. What kind of justice is “judgment” here: a punishment, a ruling, a protection, or something else? What in the verse tells you?
Where the standard comes from
The lesson draws its central contrast in one sentence: “biblical justice is rooted in the character of God and his Word, not secular theories, philosophies, or societal utility.” This is a claim about the source of the standard. It is not a claim that every secular insight is worthless. The same paragraph says secular understandings do offer Christians some benefit, and then adds that “the Bible is the ultimate authority over our conclusions about justice.”
Scripture grounds justice in who God is. Isaiah 30:18 calls the LORD “a God of judgment,” and the same verse says he waits “that he may be gracious unto you.” Justice and grace appear in one sentence about one God. The curriculum follows this thread through the whole biblical story. Creation began good (Genesis 1:31). Humans were made to reflect God’s rule as his image bearers (Genesis 1:26-28). Sin corrupted human life and society. God gave Israel righteous standards for life with him, with neighbors, and in society. The prophets confronted Israel’s failure, often on behalf of the poor, the widow, and the stranger. Jesus came as the Righteous One (Acts 22:14).
Read that outline as the curriculum’s summary of the larger story, not as a claim made by any single verse. It does explain why the biblical words keep joining personal righteousness to social order. If justice reflects God’s character, it cannot belong only to private life or only to public life.
A test case: justice that refuses favorites
Leviticus 19:15 is one of the most useful verses for comparing biblical justice with other definitions: “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.”
Both Hebrew words appear here. “Judgment” is mishpat, and “righteousness” is tsedeq. “Respect the person” is older English for showing favoritism. The verse forbids bending a ruling toward the powerful, which readers expect. It also forbids bending a ruling toward the poor. Other passages command special care for the vulnerable, as Isaiah 1:17 just showed. But in the act of judging, this verse holds that the scales do not move for anyone’s status. The curriculum’s prayer on this verse puts the reason simply: “justice is not partial because the author of justice is not partial.”
Now set this beside the first secular definition the lesson describes. Utilitarianism judges an action just when it produces the most happiness or benefit for the greatest number. The lesson’s example is eminent domain, in which a government takes private property to produce something for society as a whole. A utilitarian approach can justify a result because it benefits the many. Leviticus 19:15 asks a different question: was the neighbor in front of you judged rightly? The two questions sometimes give the same answer, but they start from different places.
Exercise: two scales
Take one real decision you have seen up close: a school discipline policy, a workplace layoff, a housing decision in your city. Draw two columns. In the first, describe how the decision would be judged by the greatest good for the greatest number. In the second, describe how it would be judged by Leviticus 19:15 and Isaiah 1:17 together. Where do the columns agree? Where do they part? If you are in a group, assign half the group to each column, then switch.
Why the definition has to come first
The second secular approach the lesson names is social justice. Here the curriculum is careful. It describes social justice as a broad concept with many definitions, and its glossary says the term “should be clearly defined before being used by Christians.” It also notes that for some people, social justice simply means justice in society, which the Bible speaks about passionately.
Jude 3 teaches that biblical justice is the standard every use of the term is measured against. Where “social justice” rests on that foundation, Jude 3 affirms it, and it affirms both individual sin and systemic, structural sin. The practical step is the one the lesson gives: find out what a person means by the phrase before agreeing or disagreeing, then measure that meaning against Scripture.
The curriculum’s history section shows why the definition matters so much. It describes pro-slavery Christians who claimed the Bible supported slavery, including the Baptist preacher Richard Fuller. It also describes Black abolitionists and preachers, among them Henry Highland Garnet and Daniel Payne, who read the Exodus story as evidence that God’s will included physical freedom along with spiritual freedom. Both groups cited Scripture. They did not differ on whether the Bible mattered. They differed on what its justice required, and which reading accounted for the text and the character of God. The lesson traces that conviction through Jim Crow and the civil rights era, where it names Fannie Lou Hamer and Martin Luther King Jr. Throughout, the curriculum presents justice as an outcome of conversion, not a substitute for it.
The hardest question the words raise
If God is just, why has he allowed so much injustice? The lesson reports being asked a version of this by students who could not see how to trust a God who allowed American slavery. It names three answers it considers misuses: treating injustice as outside the gospel, denying that biblical justice touches social structures, and appealing to God’s providence to explain injustice away.
Its own answer is restrained. It admits that “injustice and God’s providence exist in a tension we cannot fully explain.” Then it holds to what James 1:13 plainly says, that God tempts no one with evil, and concludes that God does not cause or delight in injustice. Christians hold different views on exactly how God’s sovereignty relates to human choices, and this guide does not settle that question. The point the lesson presses is narrower: God’s sovereignty is never a reason to accept injustice. If justice comes from God’s character, then calling a wrong God’s will misuses the doctrine.
For a group, this is the place to slow down. Some people carry this question personally, not academically. Let it be asked honestly, and do not rush anyone to a resolution.
Discussion questions
- The KJV often renders mishpat as “judgment” and tsedeq as “righteousness.” How does knowing that change the way you read Amos 5:24 or Isaiah 1:17?
- Leviticus 19:15 forbids favoring the poor in judgment, while Isaiah 1:17 commands pleading for the widow. How do these two verses fit together? What would be lost if you kept only one?
- Romans 3:26 says God is both “just” and the one who justifies. What does that verse suggest about how justice and mercy relate in God’s character?
- Think of a time you heard “justice” used in a way that left you unsure what the speaker meant. What questions would have clarified it?
- Pro-slavery preachers and abolitionist preachers both appealed to the Bible. What does that history teach about the danger of borrowing a definition before reading the text closely?
- What is the difference between justice and revenge, and which of the passages in this study helps you see it?
- The lesson says, “Our righteousness must be put into practice in the public space.” What would being just look like in a role you already hold, before you take on any new one?
Return to your first sentence
Take out the definition you wrote at the start. Rewrite it using only what you found in the passages: Amos 5, Micah 6:8, Isaiah 1:17, Leviticus 19:15, and Romans 3:26. Keep the new version to two sentences. Then compare the two versions and ask what you added, what you removed, and which passage made the difference.
The curriculum’s weekly challenge offers a concrete next step: find one way to take part in pursuing justice in your job or community this week. It adds that this kind of justice “does not rely on government intervention.” Choose something small enough to actually do. Measure it against the passages in this study, not against the definition you started with.