Informing the Future: Social Justice in the New Testament [Paperback]

Joseph A. Grassi (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: January 1, 2003

The roots of social justice run deep--right back to the Bible. Now, in Informing the Future, scripture scholar, writer and teacher Joseph Grassi takes readers back to the New Testament to explore the place of social justice--the just distribution of economic, social and cultural resources to all people--as envisioned and practiced in it. It is there, the author demonstrates, that we will find the inspiration that challenges us, sustains us and brings hope to our world today.

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

Joseph A. Grassi, who holds an S.S.L. degree from the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, is professor in the department of religious studies at Santa Clara University. He is the author of several books and scholarly articles.

Product Details

• Paperback: 288 pages
• Publisher: Paulist Press (January 1, 2003)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0809140926
• ISBN-13: 978-0809140923
• Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 6.2 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 15.8 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 2.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,077,911 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

1 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Is Social Justice Biblical?, January 24, 2011

By 

Denny "Denise L." (Chino, CA) - See all my reviews

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Informing the Future: Social Justice in the New Testament (Paperback)

I can only give this book 2 stars because I believe there are way too many Biblical references that are misinterpretations of the teachings of Jesus, Moses and the prophets. It seems to me that Grassi is trying to force scripture to fit his views of social justice rather than finding out what Scripture has to say about justice, righteousness and our responsibility to the poor and needy among us.

To start I'd like to quote the definition of Social Justice from page 1: "...the equal and just distribution of economic, social, and cultural resources to all people without discrimination of any kind." Also, on page 237 Grassi talks about just sharing of property, material goods and relationships.

To keep this short I will just list 4 misinterpretations of Scripture I found:

1. Page 151: Grassi quotes the Beatitudes in Matthew 5:3-11 this way:
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for justice for they will be filled."
The New American Standard Bible says it this way:
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness for they will be filled."

Justice and righteousness are two different words. I feel it is very important to correctly interpret words. If you have a Greek text or Greek Interlinear Bible look up the Greek word for righteousness in this passage and decide if justice or `equal' redistribution is what Jesus is saying. I think you'll find they are different. I went to Douglas's `The New Bible Dictionary' and justice refers to "that which is God's will...a moral standard by which God measures human conduct". And Righteousness is "right action...acts of well-doing..." based on the standard. Those are two different concepts. Justice is getting what I deserve based on my deeds or actions in view of the law. When I break the law I face a judge who administers justice. Righteousness is doing good or right actions. I don't know about you, but I don't "hunger and thirst for justice", because most often what I deserve is a guilty sentence. Doing the right thing or even living up to the 10 Commandments is difficult. What I do "hunger and thirst for is righteousness", or doing right deeds. I strives to do what is right, but when I fail I have a Savior in Jesus who took my punishment on the cross for my unrighteousness. But switching the word righteousness and replace it with justice, I believe, is a misinterpretation of this passage.

2. I believe when Grassi interprets the Lord's Prayer on pages 154-165 he does a lot of twisting of scripture to fit his view of social justice. I don't have time to discuss all the exegesis he does to this passage, but simply put: He believes the use of words like "our" father, and give "us" our daily bread means that Jesus was focused on community or society, and not individuals (p. 155). In other words, we together as a community pray for bread to share, we forgive all debts owed in our community, and pray God doesn't lead our community into temptation. - I can't believe Grassi actually believes this is a community or social justice prayer. We often pray it together, but it's really a personal prayer. The scripture states that the disciples, plural, ask Jesus to teach them to pray. So, Jesus taught them using the plural form of my, me and I. Prayer is personal even if it is prayed in a group. Then Grassi used the Jewish Year of Jubilee to try to prove his point of debt forgiveness. The problem is that Jubilee was only every 7 years, and it was done to keep the Promise Land within the original tribes of Israel. Really the Year of Jubilee shows the opposite of social justice, because to Israel individual property rights were very important. The community didn't own the land, individuals did. The community didn't forgive the debt, the current land owner did. Individual forgive not communities. Communities and nations are to enforce agreed laws and to protect the citizens. - What does `social justice' really mean anyway, and who will determine what is just? Is it `just' to have one person work long hard hours only to be told he must give half of his money to someone who doesn't want to work? Is it `just' for someone to feel entitled to one of your computers because you have two and they have none? I say, no! The word social means society, which mean the community decides who gets what, and how much, and I believe that is unbiblical. It's really Socialism. Please tell me one country where the socialistic form of government is working out well? Most of the European countries are going bankrupt. China enslaves its people. Socialism only works as long as there are wealthy people to take wealth from, or where the people have no rights. People aren't stupid, they won't work hard to succeed if half their labor goes to someone else, so the result for everyone will be poverty. The answer is not social justice or Socialism. The Bible tells us to work and provide for our own families. We all `reap what we sow' figuratively and literally. But the Bible does also says that each of us should give compassionately from our own resources to those in need so they can eventually help themselves and others (2 Cor. 9:7). God will hold each of us personally responsible for what we do, and we shouldn't trust our community or Social Justice to tell us how to use our wealth. This is still America with a Constitution that has no mention of social justice.


3. On page 147 Grassi relates the story from Matthew 19:16-26 about a rich man, I believe, incorrectly. The point it not that the rich young man must share equally all his possessions to obtain heaven, but that his money was more important than loving God, which meant he was breaking the 1st Commandment. If it were true, as this book infers, that gaining eternal life is obtained by equal distribution of wealth then Jesus would have told his rich friend, Lazarus to equally divide his riches, but that didn't happen. It would also mean that poor people could never get into heaven because they didn't have wealth to share, and it would also mean we can buy salvation. I think not! I believe Grassi has misinterpreted this passage also.

4. The circumstances in Acts 4:32-37, found on page 99, where the early Christian shared their possessions is a unique situation. Those first followers of Christ, who believed that Jesus was the Messiah, were ostracized from their families and their Jewish community. For this new movement to survive they had to join together into a close community. But no where did Jesus tell his disciples to live in communes with everyone sharing equally. Jesus told them to "go into all the world and preach the gospel". Jesus also told parables like the one found in Matthew 25 regarding talents. This parable tells us that God, or the Master, gave 1 talent to one man, 5 to another and 10 to another. Now, right off the bat that doesn't sound like social justice or equality to me, but that's what God did. God expected the men to use the talents they received, and to multiple them. But what is worse is that on the day of judgment, or accountability, God took the 1 talent away from the 1st man and gave it to the one who had been given 10 talents. According to `social justice' this is wrong, and God was not being just. God was supposed to take the talents from the man who had more and equally divide them with the man who only had only 1. But that is not what God did. I don't believe God would agree with Grassi's view of Social Justice. Wealth is the product of someone's hard work or ingenuity, which the Master will reward one day. We will all be judged one day on how we used our talents and wealth to further His Kingdom, but equal redistribution of wealth I don't believe is scriptural.

More Biblical observations why Social Justice is not Biblical:

* The 10th Commandment says not to covet our neighbor's house, wife, servants, animals or anything that belongs to him? If God intended for everyone to equally share all wealth then why this commandment? Why not make a commandment to equally share all wealth?

* God never told Abraham, King David or King Solomon to share all their wealth equally with the people.

* The 10 Virgins in Matt. 25:1-13 did not share their oil with each other.

* In heaven rewards will not be equal. Each person is accountable for themselves, and will be rewarded accordingly.
Ezek 18 & Rev.22:12


Beware of truth intermingled with error. I understand the compassion behind Social Justice, but it is misguided. For me there are too many Biblical errors within this book for me to recommend it.