The entire point of the entire narrative of Israel is social justice. The story starts with the words “no more bricks”. It continues to the idea of the first document of workers rights (“Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy”) and it finishes with the hope for  the end of Roman Imperialism.

Like Daniel below I can appreciate the power and relevance of the appeal for justice - and I don’t dispute for one minute that this must be lived out in the church. But it still seems to me that at each point you have trimmed the narrative in a significant and misleading way - and my guess is that you are well aware of that.

i) I presume ‘no more bricks’ is a reference to the Babel story - and to be honest I’m not sure what you’re getting at. But I don’t see how the story can be construed as being about social justice. There is no suggestion of exploitation; the people agree to work together to build the tower; and their reason is to resist the creational mandate to spread abroad across the face of the earth and instead to make a name for themselves. The tower is a symbol of their defiance of God, not of social injustice and exploitation of the labour force.

ii) The Sabbath has social implications, as does legislation deriving from the Sabbath principle, but in the first place it is a ‘Sabbath to the Lord’, it is a means of acknowledging the role of YHWH in the creation of Israel and the maintenance of the rhythms of its existence.

iii) I agree that the biblical narrative of Israel ends (sort of) with the hope for the end of Roman Imperialism, but the central issue here is not the injustice of Rome but its defiance of the Lord and his anointed, its idolatry, its blasphemous presumption in exalting Caesar to the position of divinity above YHWH (cf. Crossan). Social injustice is a consequence of this fundamental religious stance (cf. Paul’s argument in Romans 1:28: ‘since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done’). The celebration of judgment against Rome in Revelation 19:1-3 highlights not the restoration of social justice but the victory of the God of Israel and the avenging of the blood of the martyrs.

That’s why I said earlier that the theme of the ‘kingdom of God’ is not primarily about social justice, it is about sovereignty, it is about who reigns over God’s people. The answer of the New Testament is that it is not the corrupt and godless leaders of Israel, it is not Pilate or Caesar, it is not satan, who will determine the hope and destiny of Israel, but the suffering servant, the Son of man against whom the beast makes war, the lamb who was slain, who is exalted to the right hand of the Father and given the name above all these other names, the name of Lord.

I think that this argument about sovereignty over the people of God lies at the heart of the New Testament, but it is not the final resting place of the biblical narrative. It is rather the means by which the story of an authentic humanity is recovered. Here, to my mind, is where the issue of social justice comes into play. My general problem with much modern evangelical (and indeed much emerging) theology is that in its eagerness to emulate the New Testament church it has set up camp at the wrong point in the narrative.

I think that the post-eschatological church (the post-Roman imperialism church, if you like) finds itself back in the story of how the creator God brings into existence and sustains an alternative to the rebellious creation - a creational microcosm that models in its community life the right relationships (to the living, creator God, to others, and to the earth) that should have flowed from the original blessing of humanity in Genesis 1:28. The existence of that microcosm ought in principle to constitute a prophetic challenge and invitation to the macrocosm - but social justice, as an aspect of relationships between humans, is only one part of the whole picture of creation renewed around the presence of the living God.