09/24/2026
What we do on Sunday mornings.
Sunday service, 10am.
“Blessed are those hungering and thirsting for righteousness, because they will be filled.” -Jesus, in his Sermon on the Mount.
In the beatitudes it’s as if Jesus is setting context for the rest of his teaching; as if to say, here is where we’re starting. And he begins with the states of being poor in spirit, and mourning, and being meek.
Hungering for righteousness might be the response to these states. We see the suffering and poverty, tragedy and grief, we see injustice, and it makes us long for a better world.
But what exactly is righteousness? What does it look like, act like, how do we do it? Once again I’ll start with our textbook. Let’s see what Matthew says.
The word Matthew uses here is 'dikaiosene', and it can be translated as righteousness or justice.
What is it to be righteous? Since Jesus is the one who purportedly said these words, does that mean righteousness is about following his teachings or believing in him? Is righteousness about right doctrine? Does that imply then that those who are not Christian, or don’t at least have some kind of belief in God, can’t be righteous? Can Pagan people be righteous, or can atheists? Righteousness on the surface may seem to be about following the rules or obeying the law. But laws and rules are made by humans, who usually have some agenda or bias; in fact, laws can be very unjust sometimes.
And you’ll notice that the word is also connected to Justice. And this is true in the Hebrew as well. The word righteousness in Hebrew is 'tsedekah', and it is very often paired with the word 'mishpat' which means justice. Whether you want to remember the words or not, the thing to keep in mind is that it’s as if the Bible writers understood these two qualities as being inextricably linked.
The best way to say it might be to say that righteousness is about making all things right again, which would root it in justice, since all things being right would include a just world.
Another way I think you could say it is that justice = balance, and righteousness = flourishing.
There are two kinds of justice.
One is called retributive justice, which is where someone who has done wrong or done harm must pay for their crime. It’s a kind of basic balance trying to be found, where the person pays in equal measure for what they did.
This is eye for eye justice, and it has its place. Back in the days when the Israelites made this part of their law, it was to make sure there was no over-reach, that a person only paid in proportion for what they did, and it was fair, because it meant wealth or privilege could not protect you from the consequences of your crime. This is what our judicial system is mostly modeled on. It’s also the most familiar. And there is a certain morality built in, where innocent people have a chance to prove their innocence, and the victim gets some kind of restitution. These are natural responses.
And I’d say this is the way we mostly see justice. It’s intuitive, and we do this all the time. Even in our relationships, we want to feel that things are fair, and if someone wrongs us, we want recompense or an apology at least.
But there is another way, and that is restorative justice.
This is about more than just the criminal and the victim; it’s about how the community is impacted. This kind of justice is focused on a more systemic approach. Why did the person commit a crime, and what can be done to prevent that? And it allows for all the parties affected to be heard. This might not sit well with us initially, it might seem unfair, because we do have that natural tendency towards retribution, but there’s a reason why we might want this to happen.
What happens to one person in a community affects everyone. So while punishing a criminal might make sense, what will be the ultimate result? Will it bring peace? Will that restore the community?
Restorative justice focuses on repairing the harm. Something is lost in the community when crime or trauma happens, and there needs to be an ongoing effort to repair for both sides, for the life of the community to be able to move forward.
There are two different goals within these two forms of justice. Retributive justice is a more two-dimensional, good guy-bad guy dichotomy. You impacted me, and I need to deal with you, I need to punish you so I can be better. It is focused on the need of the individual, and in its healthy form may be a starting point: someone is brought before an official judicial system to be held accountable. But in an unhealthy form, it comes at the expense of what we call “collateral damage;” innocent bystanders that fall victim to the situation. It’s what happens in war, most obviously. So that with retributive justice, the goal may be a calling to account, but more suffering is often perpetuated in that process.
Restorative justice recognizes that we are all interconnected, so we need to figure this out. Humans are deeply social; even the place we live is embedded in us. What you do affects me, what I do affects you. This kind of justice sees restoration and peace as the goal. That despite whatever circumstances happen, we have to keep moving towards restoration. This is the wider vision.
And this isn’t just about crime, it comes up in our lives every day. In our relationships conflict arises, hurts are inflicted, intentionally or not, and we have to ask, what is our goal? To get even, or to repair what went wrong?
Because often retributive justice doesn’t repair anything. It may stop the wrong, but it doesn’t redeem. It is its own end point. And it can devolve into a cycle of vengeance. This is what is called the myth of redemptive violence, that somehow we can use force or punishment to right what is wrong.
With restorative justice, the focus is more on: this happened, how do we work to make sure this doesn’t happen again? The interests of all are interests of the one, and so it becomes about what steps a community can take to make sure this doesn’t happen again, that the deeper cause behind the crime or disruption are dealt with. Can healing be found in the midst of terrible circumstances?
Now, this brings up a question: Does it mean that those who do awful things shouldn’t face consequences? What about the victim? Biblical scholar Amy-Jill Levine says, “Justice without mercy is intolerable, but so is mercy without justice.” The victim of a crime should not have to shoulder the responsibility to make things right.
To allow an invasive species to spread unchecked undoes the balance of an ecosystem, so yes, there are checks and boundaries that must be imposed. Evil cannot be allowed to run rampant. And as long as human are humans, we will always struggle with that balance, because we are not God, we can’t restore the world on our own. Our judicial systems can be no better than the humans that create them, but it’s what we have to work with. And it has its place. It is sometimes necessary.
But it inevitably leads to a defensive posture. The question retributive justice asks is, what do we do to protect ourselves?
And as Christians, our question ought to be, what can we do to bring healing?
How do we look like Jesus in this?
Can we imagine a world where terrible things don’t happen? Can we imagine a world where the circumstances that create injustice and suffering don’t occur? And if so, can we hunger and thirst for that, see it so clearly until it’s an urge so strong we must do what we can to make it so?
And then, as an act of faith, with Jesus as the model, can we hold to the ideal of righteousness, as a state of all things in balance and flourishing, in themselves and in their community. And can we do our part to make that happen?
Because Jesus didn’t say righteousness was about following the right rules, or believing the right things. It’s about how we live together, and help to heal each other. It starts with wanting it so much it’s like hunger pangs.
And the tag end of this is, “for they will be filled.” But how should we understand that? Righteousness will be accomplished and then we’ll be satisfied? Maybe someday. But maybe it’s the process of wanting and working for righteousness that fills us. This isn’t just about victims and criminals. It’s about every way we live that can bring in that moment balance and flourishing. In our families, the way we eat, or buy things, the way we work, the way we care for ourselves even. The smallest things you do all have a moral dimension, because no decision you make can be made in isolation. Your own health, your own motivations, your own process impacts all of us, and the world as well.
Did I not say that being a Christian is hard? Because it is. I’m not saying salvation is hard, that you have to work for God’s approval. God’s love is built into your DNA, you not only don’t have to work for it, you can’t escape it.
But that is not what being a Christian is about. We’re not here to get a reward, we’re not here because following Jesus makes your live easier.
We carry the name Christian. We took that name because we are people who hunger and thirst for righteousness. It matters to us. It is who we are.
Turns out this is just another one of Jesus’ paradoxical teachings. To hunger for righteousness is to be filled with righteousness. Righteous people want justice, because they aren’t content with just their own needs or preferences being met, they desire these things for all the world, and they do not stop until the world is filled as well, and the kingdom of heaven is also upon Earth.
