The Hebrew Bible is replete with expressions of human conditions, including the remorseful call for justice by the afflicted. Recent Old Testament scholarship has paid attention to the value of ancient Israel’s lament. Walter Brueggemann observes the “costly loss of lament” in modern Christian life and gives a political rationale for restoring this language in our time. He argues that lament can help a modern Christian to redistribute power in his power relations with God, assert his political ego, and raise questions about social justice.
This paper will examine the so-called “social justice” rhetoric in the biblical genre of lament to investigate the validity of Brueggemann’s claim. Comparing ancient Israel’s lament with modern social justice language will reveal interesting parallels. Israel’s lament, according to Claus Westermann, involved three subjects: the one who experiences injustice (I/We), the upholder of justice (Thou/God), and the cause of injustice (They/the Enemy)—the same three subjects often observed in modern social justice claims. In addition, Israel’s lamenters were situated in the polytheistic culture of the ancient Near East, where different agents of power (the earthly kings and their patron deities) contended for allegiance from their subjects, in a similar way that modern Christians are situated within the pluralistic postmodern world where different sociopolitical systems and moral values compete for legitimacy and authority.
However, while biblical lament does share some similarities with modern social justice language, it exhibits crucial differences in the worldview underlying its structure. First, it did not intend to restore the power balance between the involved parties but presupposed a strong allegiance and a willing submission of the afflicted person to God, who is not just an upholder but the very creator of justice. Second, the lament was not an assertion of political ego for the afflicted person(s) but presumed his/their pre-existing solidarity with the broader worship community, that is, the nation of Israel. Lastly, biblical lament served as a voice calling for not just social justice but much more—namely, God’s righteousness to be implemented “on earth as it is in heaven”—when the ethical standard of God, which transcends that of the human system, was violated by the wicked enemy of God.
In conclusion, Brueggemann’s political rationale for restoring lament is only partially valid, as he exaggerates the lamenter’s individualistic and political motivation. Nevertheless, his contribution in linking Israel’s lament to modern social justice language is valuable, as such connection may serve as a bridge for our Christian apologetic engagement with those who seek justice. Furthermore, as this analysis has demonstrated, understanding the unique theological outlook underlying Israel’s lament can empower our message about God’s justice that is not only retributive but also restorative and redemptive.