Introduction
Law that is not rooted in a lasting moral foundation becomes a tool of arbitrary power. This article analyzes this threat, drawing upon the biblical concept of law as an absolute standard. It reveals how historical totalitarian systems and contemporary legal relativism expose the weakness of law devoid of transcendent reference. Readers will discover why a return to the idea of "law above law" is not merely a theological postulate, but a prerequisite for preserving justice in a democracy.
Biblical Law: The Foundation of Order and Justice
From a biblical perspective, law plays a multifaceted role. It serves as a code for the community, an expression of God's will, and a pedagogical tool (paidagogos) intended to make humanity aware of its imperfection and need for grace. Its nature is absolute and integral. Breaking one commandment violates the entire structure, which stands in contrast to the relativization of norms. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus deepened this perspective by shifting the emphasis from actions to intentions, making the law even more demanding.
The foundation of this order is the Decalogue – an immutable moral standard. Its norms, such as "You shall not murder," are unequivocal and non-negotiable. From this perspective, human-made law can be changed, but only if it does not violate superior, divine principles. Divine law is therefore not a restriction, but a guarantee of stability.
Legal Relativism: The Path to Arbitrariness and Oppression
Legal relativism, the view that norms are merely variable conventions, inevitably leads to tyranny. When law loses its reference to truth, it becomes a tool in the hands of the powerful, as demonstrated by the totalitarian systems of the Third Reich and the USSR. This crisis was exposed by the Nuremberg Trials. To judge crimes committed in accordance with the letter of German law, judges had to appeal to a "law above law," unmasking the limitations of legal positivism.
The theory of natural law, when detached from transcendence, also proves weak – its general formulas turned out to be too imprecise to prevent atrocities. Formal concepts by H.L.A. Hart (the rule of recognition) and Hans Kelsen (Grundnorm) also proved insufficient. They justify the legality of a system but are morally blind and do not allow for distinguishing justice from oppression.
Higher Law: An Essential Foundation for the Legal System
The answer to this crisis is the concept of "higher law" – a transcendent point of reference that stands above positive law. The need for such a foundation is supported by social sciences. Psychology and sociology demonstrate that without an external standard, morality becomes a product of socialization, and law a reflection of the dominant group's will. Contemporary theorists, such as Ronald Dworkin, introduce moral principles into law, distinguishing them from rigid rules. Robert Alexy views them as norms requiring balancing, which, however, in situations of conflict, still necessitates an ultimate compass.
For the durability of democracy, an appeal to transcendence is crucial. It protects society from the dictate of a temporary majority and ensures that law serves justice. As Martin Luther King argued, "An unjust law is no law at all," which confirms that human norms must constantly be confronted with a higher moral standard.
Conclusion
In a world of relativism, where moral boundaries blur, will we dare to look towards a transcendent compass? Or are we doomed to drift in a sea of arbitrary interpretations, where justice becomes merely a temporary game of interests? The answer to this question determines whether law will remain a guarantee of freedom or become a tool of oppression. Without "law above law," the entire edifice of justice loses its foundation.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF