Divine Justice, within the depth-psychology and related philosophical corpus, emerges not as a settled doctrine but as a site of profound tension between the demand for cosmic moral order and the intractable evidence of its apparent absence. The range of positions is remarkable in its breadth. In Archaic Greek thought, from Homer and Hesiod through the Presocratics, divine justice functions as both cosmological principle and moral guarantor: Zeus rewards the just and punishes the unjust, nature herself honours right conduct, and Anaximander transposes the juridical model into a cosmic process of balanced reckoning among opposites. Heraclitus radicalises this by identifying justice with strife itself — the equilibrium of contending forces. Burkert identifies what he calls a ‘quasi-amoral justice of Zeus’, neither predictable nor accountable, yet always ultimately in the right — a formulation that anticipates Jung’s devastating confrontation with Yahweh in ‘Answer to Job’, where the deity’s arbitrary savagery ruptures any naive equation of divine power with moral rectitude. This Jungian intervention is perhaps the most psychologically consequential: Job’s faith in divine justice survives the recognition that God ‘does not care a button for any moral opinion.’ The Stoic-Platonic tradition, mediated through Hadot’s reading of Marcus Aurelius, posits divine justice as the rational distribution of being according to worth — an impersonal cosmic equity. Christian sources, especially John of Damascus and the Philokalia, reframe the problem eschatologically, relocating justice’s fulfilment to final judgment. Tarot commentary (Nichols, Jodorowsky, Place) treats the figure of Justice as an archetypal image of inner evaluation, wisdom, and feeling-judgment.