The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Cruel And Unusual Punishment

Theology Biblical Theology
#21

Yes. I agree with that. But herein lays the mystery… why was it necessary? To speculate, I think it is for the education of our spirit, not our body. It is necessary that our body experiences extreme disciplines so that our spirit may be educated. It is the fine balance between our spirit and flesh. Because they are uncooperative, either the spirit or the flesh must suffer. We are somewhat ignorant of how the spirit suffers, but we are overly sensitive of how the flesh suffers. In order to make us whole, we either voluntarily submit to a baptism of fire, or else we reluctantly submit to the corrective fire (not a literal fire in either case). This process can only be avoided if we live a perfect life of cooperation of spirit, soul and flesh. So in effect, it is our own doing which causes this imbalance. Like eating too many sweets will bring about tooth decay. God’s will is that we avoid this, but if we refuse to listen, are harder lesson is learnt (the dentist). This is only a very basic example, and it is speculative, but I do think the goal is to restore balance - not to exact vengeance. The language God uses is anthropocentric.

Steve

#22

Cindy :slight_smile: that’s a parable that really gets me thinking by focussing the issues about justice sharply. My answers on a postcard are -

In ancient Israel the little girl would have had the gleanings of the wheat to satisfy her hunger anyway. So there is no reason for her to be hungry and not be allowed to break off a head of corn (if she was to harvest a bundle without asking that would be a different matter – but she commits no crime here). Jesus and his disciples break off heads of corn n the Sabbath when hungry. Their’ ‘crime’ is Sabbath breaking rather than stealing. Jesus replies that the Sabbath was made for man rather than man for the Sabbath - in other words the Sabbath rest is there for people’s benefit rather than to oppress them.

Sometimes the legality of stealing from the famer has been framed dubious – for example when common land shave been enclosed depriving people of their means to feed themselves so that rich landholders and farmers could appropriate these. In circumstances such as these draconian laws have been enacted simply to oppress the poor. A law which forbade the plucking of a head of corn would probably be made by an oppressive legislature.

The Torah code is actually very lenient regarding crimes of theft - requiring only compensation for these.

A king’s greatness is dependent on the way he administers justice and mercy for the good of all. In Israel the King represents the people and the land. It’s only in later forms of monarchy that the bond of the king with the people becomes remote and abstract. Sin is not only an offence against god it si an offence against our neighbour –it is something that breaks the bond of community.

Justice is not all about punishment. It’s about sharing the good gifts of the earth properly and restoring those who have fallen away from community. A great King is great because of his love and his service and his moderation in use of punishment.

The King in this parable does not need to punish the girl at all. In torturing the little girl – who has not committed an offence that effects any person and should have been provided for anyway – he is a tyrant; and in killing her he is a worse tyrant.

This isn’t a picture of our God.

#23

Exactly, Dick – and precisely my point. :wink:

#24

I thought so :laughing: That’s a good parable to get people thinking with - and if I hadn’t had known my girl I’d have been left wondering how to read it with it being open. Nobody else picked it up so I thought I must. Yes the King is horrible and probably is very much how a lot of Christians view God. It’s a really, really disturbing parable :laughing:

love you Cindy

Dick :slight_smile:

#25

Sobornorst,

I already answered Cindy in my OP. Here it is again with additional comments:

Some (like Jonathan Edwards) have said that the correct punishment for a crime is proportional to the status of the wronged individual and that the Bible teaches that all sins are against God (which they are). But this principle isn’t entirely correct. It’s not just to punish a person more severely because of the status of the one he has sinned against.

Part of what determines the severity of the punishment isn’t the status of the person one offends but the type of being one offends (after all, a crime against a human merits worse punishment than the same crime against a dog and a crime against a dog merits worse punishment than the same crime against an ant). All sins are against God who is a different type of being altogether. What is it that makes God unique? His glory.

I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols. - Isaiah 42:8

God alone is intrinsically glorious. He is uniquely glorious. In an intrinsically sense only God is glorious. No one and nothing else is glorious. This is to be distinguished from His extrinsic glory. This He shares with the creation and His creatures.

The basic meaning of the Hebrew word for glory kabod is heavy in weight. - Holman Bible Dictionary

This is why God’s punishments can seem so severe. Yet we know that they are just and not abusive because they fit the crime. I’m not saying that sin is infinite disvalue. I’m saying they carry more weight because they are against God. Clearly some sins are worse than others.

#26

Good post Micheal. I agree. God is not just any one. And sinning against the Holy Spirit has greater severity… will anyone doubt this?

The analogy given of the girl and the king reminds me of Robin Hood. England sure has had its share of tyrant kings. Almost all laws, though, are tyrannical because of the lack of wisdom, compassion and justice by those who preside. For instance, in almost all countries poor people are discriminated against by a tyrannical system of injustice. If a rich person receives a fine of $5000 for driving without a licence and skidding on the road and running over a letter-box, than the rich person will say - ‘so what! I am rich, what do I care?’ If the same accident occurred to a poor person, the poor person feels the pain and grief exponentially compared to the rich person. The poor person may loose his life, whereas a rich person would not even notice. These laws are discriminatory for this reason. They affect one class in society with far more severity than they do another class.

These laws are part of a bigger picture to teach us all spiritual values. How we react is part of our training, whether severe or not. God has a greater objective which is often overlooked by those who look for fault in God. They also are tested, however. Everyone is involved in the school - it’s just that most are completely unaware.

Steve

#27

HI Michael - well that’s a Calvinist view of God and why God punishes with severity. It’s not my view of God - and I don’t think it’s the view of God in OT law. It is focusing on one transcendent attribute of God to the exclusion of others - like loving kindness and being slow to anger and even repenting of anger. And it’s making God’s justice an abstraction.

Here’s an extreme example of who infinite offence has been construed -

Another concept that I don’t think is there in the OT is original sin in the Calvinist sense. According to Calvin we all come into the world as rebels against God and as creatures of God’s wrath. There are two laws in the OT that carry the death penalty regarding parents - one is striking a parent the other is persistent disobedience. All of the evidence suggest that these concern adults who beat up or discard their ageing parents to starve in a culture with a subsistence economy. Calvin interpreted these laws to mean real little children committing infinite offence through self will; so he had a ten year old girl beheaded for striking her parents and persistently naughty children taken to the scaffold and only pardoned after the hangman’s noose was round their necks. I think this was a false move - and it was based on the idea of infinite wrath against self willed rebels.

There are Christians who see God’s justice in these terms. Its not the teaching of all Christian traditions - its not found among the Orthodox for example or mainstream Anglicans or Quakers. I think God is strict in handing us over to the consequences of our sins - but is always seeking to restore us to wholeness. The ides of sin as infinite offence and of crime as infinite offence if taken seriously means that we are unable to make distinctions between different levels of seriousness in sins and crimes - or make any real distinction between sin and crime.

Bless you (that’s the best I can make of it in my muddle)

Dick

#28

Sobornorst,

I think you have a misconception of what I believe about God. Two of the many things Christ was doing at the cross was forgiving my sins and removing God’s penal wrath from my vision. God’s wrath has been forever lifted off of my vision so that I can love the spiritual beauty of Christ. This beauty is first and foremost the humble love of Christ. As I adore the humble love of Christ I become more and more like it. As Christ humbled Himself under the mighty hand of God I desire to do likewise. I no longer have to worry about God’s penal wrath. My faith is in Christ and the Father’s sovereign control and holiness. I trust that He will work all my circumstances together for my good. As a result anxiety and frustrations are lifted. I want to follow the example of Christ and love with a humble love. For it pleases me to help others, it glorifies God when I help others and God is pleased when glorified. And it ultimately brings joy to others when they are helped and loved. This isn’t to say God never disciplines me though. He has a disciplinary wrath for His children. As it tells us in Hebrews He chastises and scourges those He loves. Just as He did Christ. Christ learned obedience through what He suffered - Hebrews 5:8

#29

What else is it that makes God unique? His love. His unending and never-failing love.

When I was two-years-old, I stomped on my grandmother’s toe. There was no reason why – just irrational toddler maleficence, I suppose. In my mind, there is no human higher in goodness or glory than my dear grandma, but I had deliberately chosen to hurt her anyway. I still feel guilty about this – this seemingly small wrongdoing I committed eighteen years ago. But how often do I act in the same manner toward God?

Although I acted with deliberate hatred toward my grandma, her love exceeded the need to punish. She did not rush out of the house, vowing me forevermore unworthy of her love. Nope – She returned that next Tuesday, as always, and we continued our afternoons together as usual – despite her badly bruised toe.

Surely God, who’s goodness infinitely exceeds that of my dear grandma, would not treat His children differently? This leads me to conclude that the harsh Old Testament laws were not according to the Lord’s true being, but rather in deference to our debased nature.

#30

Hebrews 12:6-11

For whom the Lord loveth, he chastiseth; and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

Persevere under discipline. God dealeth with you as with his sons; for what son is there, whom the father doth not correct?

But if you be without chastisement, whereof all are made partakers, then are you bastards, and not sons.

Moreover we have had fathers of our flesh, for instructors, and we reverenced them: shall we not much more obey the Father of spirits, and live?

And they indeed for a few days, according to their own pleasure, instructed us: but he, for our profit, that we might receive his sanctification.

Now all chastisement for the present indeed seemeth not to bring with it joy, but sorrow: but afterwards it will yield, to them that are exercised by it, the most peaceable fruit of justice.

The Greek work for scourge here is mastigoō and it means whip, flay, scourge. Here’s is how the word is used in the NT:

"We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over … to be mocked and flogged (mastigoō) and crucified.” Mt 20:18-19

“Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged (mastigoō)” (Jn 19:1)

It was also common practice in the synagogue:

Jesus says to the Pharisees “Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog (mastigoō) in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.” Mt 23:34

#31

Hear hear, Dave. God is not a hypocrite. He is not going to hold up a standard of love and mercifulness for us, and then fail to uphold it himself.

#32

I think you’ve got something here, Steve. This mystery of the necessity of suffering is precisely that, a mystery. Personally I think it must always be so to us, while we are constrained within our earthly bodies and minds. But it must be necessary - for our omnipotent, loving God would surely not permit it were it not.

Cheers

Johnny

#33

Yes, that is a good parable, Cinders, sorry I didn’t pick up on it - but fortunately Dick isn’t so inattentive as I :slight_smile: .

Far too many Christians have far too ‘high’ a view of God and his glory. They think they are honouring him by it, but they aren’t. Here’s what the great GMac has to say on this subject:

Amen

#34

Oh yes. and Cole, you still haven’t shown us your evidence for claiming that Ananias was “punished by God” with death.

#35

Michael - I’m sorry I didn’t mean to offend you. In don’t personally hold to the PSA view of atonement - but you are right in locating the idea of infinite offence with this theology. It was first formulated clearly by Anslem in Cur Deus Homo in term of sins being infinite offence against God’s honour as if God were an absolute Norman King (and Anslem’s Norman overlord had rather an oppressive and cruel record as a Kings of England and, unlike his Saxon predecessors, had no interest in the notion that a King is somehow bound to his people; and the oppression by Norman Kings in England lead to the limitation foo their power in Magna Carter which, for one thing, forbids torture). And Calvin latter gave PSA theology classic formulation - but this time the offence was more abstract still - an offence against an abstract law of state). I don’t believe PSA was the doctrine of the early Church Fathers for example - so we’ll have to disagree on this. I do understand there are a variety of ways of thinking about and imagining PSA theology - some which are not oppressive, so I don’t wish to make this grounds for falling out.

User avatar

Exactly the mastigoo was the tool of earthly oppression and cruelty by Caesar and the religions of Caesar (in the broadest sense). God in Christ reveals God as begin very different from Caesar - so God’s scourging are not on a par with Caesar. There is an ironic perspective in this. Yes God brings trials and tribulations to those he loves - but the pains of these ‘scourging’ are the pains that comes from loving more and serving more IMHO.

As for gathering sticks on the Sabbath – the first example you cited above and a law which covers all work done on the Sabbath – this is the law that the Pharisees would have used to put Jesus to death for picking corn on the Sabbath. Jesus’ retort to them is not a docetic one– ‘I am God I make the rules, I can break the rules’. Rather in his humanity he tells then that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. The Sabbath is there as a liberation from the slavery of work. It is there because the Jews were slaves in the Land of Egypt and worked to death there. It is not there to oppress people - and the spirit of this laws does not forbid doing good on the Sabbath or attending to hunger (only those who see God as an oppressive infinite being who is placed over and against human beings would see it this way and demand that Jesus be lynched)

As for Ananias and Saphirra . Well the text doesn’t; say explicitly that God struck them dead. It’s funny that God should chose to strike them dead – he doesn’t’ strike dead the congregation in Corinth when they turn orgiastic when misunderstanding their freedom in Christ for example.
I wonder what is behind this text. Well the OT laws that carries the death penalty most related to their case is the one forbidding taking of booty for oneself when engaging in the cherem massacres of pagan populations (because these were dedicated to God). This already makes the story in Acts problematic. There is a big difference however, - Ananias and Saphirra lie in withholding money from the common purse. But is this story to be taken literally – perhaps it is a symbolic story about excommunication or it speaks about the spiritual state of those who refuse to share and hold back.

Also it raises the question about whether Luke is always accurate in Acts. We know for example from Paul’s letters – the primary sources – that the Council of Jerusalem which Luke portrays as a dignified and brotherly affair did not run quite as smoothly as he suggests. Paul opposed/rebuked Simon Peter to his face at this Council –and that’s very strong stuff.

I note also that Peter in Acts when telling about the death of Judas – and this is Peter who betrayed his master three times – is portrayed as being far less gracious to Judas than Matthew is. The early church was still made up of human beings – spirit filled but still faulty.

I’ve no idea what happened to Ananias and Saphirra but Erasmus helpfully pointed out against the more violent theologians of his age that the judgement upon them here in unclear and says nothing about their eternal lot.

#36

Hebrews 12:18-24

New International Version (NIV)

The Mountain of Fear and the Mountain of Joy

18 You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; 19 to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, 20 because they could not bear what was commanded: “If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned to death.”[a] 21 The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, “I am trembling with fear.”**

22 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.**

#37

My grandma would discipline me, but she did not revel in doing so. I believe God is the same. His love is unending, and His punishment is refining. Therefore, I am inclined to believe that His scourging is never a literal whipping from a cruel master, but much more correcting and constructive.

Now, when I stomped on my grandma’s toe, I’m sure I got a hefty paddling from my mom. But I don’t remember it. However, my grandma’s expression of sadness when I deliberately hurt her remained in my young mind, and I felt loads more guilt from that than from my mom’s swift punishment.

So perhaps God often “scourges” His children in a similar manner.

When considering Old Testament punishments, I also think of how Jesus redefined and purified the ancient law. For example, He says, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning" (Matthew 19:8). Similarly, I believe, God’s pure will is not found in harsh punishments and grisly deaths for His children. However, in dealing with a rather barbaric ancient culture (which was still more humane than most ancient civilizations), He allowed strict punishments.

As Christ says, "“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17). How does he fulfill the old law? By wrapping it up in His comprehensive decree to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength” (Mark 12:30). Mind you, the consequences of disobeying this Great Commandment is still death – but it a gradual and far worse spiritual deadening.

That’s all I got.:slight_smile: (And my toe-stomping days are over, just to clarify. :laughing: )

Kate

#38

Kate,

I agree. I just found this in Vine’s on the word’s meaning:

: μαστιγόω
(Strong’s #3146 — Verb — mastigoo — mas-tig-o’-o )

akin to mastix is used (a) as mentioned under No. 1; (b) of Jewish “scourgings,” Matthew 10:17 ; 23:34 ; © metaphorically, in Hebrews 12:6 , of the “chastening” by the Lord administered in love to His spiritual sons.