Is there a place for retributional justice


#24

Actually, it DOES… “by/to death let him come to an end” — come to an end is a euphemism = to die. Have a look at the Greek of Ex 21:14, 15, 17 — argue with that! These were the ordinances given BY GOD to Moses.

WRONG again… there is NO definite article.

Clearly, you’re NOT reading with full understanding the context of Mounce… the imperative is understood by the likes of words like surely or must and indicative of an action/judgement to be meted in accord with said commandment. But if that’s not enough let’s just let Mounce speak for himself on this very verse and see IF he says what you’re saying…

Mt 15:4 MOUNCE For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever speaks evil of his father or mother must be put to death.’

…ooops no, I didn’t think so. :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

Again you are simply running away from dealing with your well-publicised prior position of saying Moses was WRONG and misrepresented Yahweh in declaring He said… “And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.” You are on record on this board numerous times as saying God said no such thing and that Moses was WRONG and misrepresented God.

And yet now come to Jesus DIRECTLY quoting Moses then apparently Jesus is not wrong but simply mistranslated… go figure?? The reason you have NEVER claimed Moses was mistranslated (if you were consistent and actually believed that) is BECAUSE you have believed the text as it simply reads, i.e., speaking of someone losing their life for the sin of cursing their father or mother — a penalty you have claimed (wrongly) God said no such thing about. Jesus directly quotes Moses who directly quotes God, period!

Anybody who has been around here for a while KNOWS (regardless of whether they agree with me or not) what you have maintained on this issue and KNOWS that what I’ve pointed out is 100% CORRECT… you are simply attempting to change horses because your interpretation has been found wanting.


#25


#26

I think the whole problem of retribution comes down to the whole problem of sin. Being created in the image of God, humans have both an unbreakable ontological goodness and free will to choose who they are. This is the paradox between choice and absolute goodness. So this problem gives us three ways of handling sin to either A) Sees sin as incompetence that needs to be treated with manipulative compassion, B) Sees sin as a crime that deserves harsh retribution or C) push sin out of the equation and focus elsewhere such as social justice.

As a political example, I have noticed that the authoritarian wings tend towards A or B, while the liberty centered wings tend towards C


#27

Thank you for your thoughts. I disbelieve that God punishes retributively. Rather ALL of God’s judgments are remedial.


#28

Paidion,

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that, “All of God’s judgments are remedial. He does not punish solely for retributive purposes, though He does use retribution as an aspect of remedial judgment.”

I don’t know I will ever be able to look my ex-wife in the eye again unless she is truly humbled by retributive justice. Isn’t it part of God’s plan that everyone be restored to right relationship with each other? I wouldn’t want to worship in the same church as my ex-wife unless she was truly repentant for her atrocious behavior. I don’t know how she could be deeply and honorably repentant of her wrongs to me unless she truly experienced at least a taste of the pain she caused me.

Joseph needed to dole out a little retribution to his brothers to bring about reconciliation in their relationships. But God can’t exactly make everyone, who has suffered evil at the hands of others, a leader of a nation. What if Joseph rotted away in jail for 30 years, then was reunited with his brothers upon release? I doubt relationships could have been truly restored very easily in that instance, without a great deal of retributive justice on the brothers.


#29

I think the point there was to test them since Joseph was still human who still had anger about having been sold into slavery.


#30

Actually, retribution and remediation are mutually exclusive, at least in the domain of intention. When a loving father corrects his son, he does it only out of concern for his son, that his son may learn to behave better. On the other hand retribution says, “You did X and so you deserve Y as punishment and I am going to give you Y!” Retribution is a legalistic way of doing things, and the person who wants to punish someone retributively does it because he believes that person “deserves” punishment, that is, he broke the rule, and breaking the rule has (man-made) consequences. The punisher who does so retributively does not have correction in mind, only “You’re going to get what you deserve.” It is true, in rare cases with some personality types, that a few people may change their behaviour as a result of retributive punishment, but loving correction is FAR more effective for that purpose.


#31

Paidon, what’s your view on:

Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them. (Prov.13:24)

Hebrews 12:7
Endure suffering as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?

Deuteronomy 8:5
So know in your heart that just as a man disciplines his son, so the LORD your God disciplines you.

Proverbs 3:12
for the LORD disciplines those He loves, as a father the son in whom he delights.

Proverbs 19:18
Discipline your son, for in that there is hope; do not be party to his death.

Proverbs 22:15
Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him.

Proverbs 23:13
Do not withhold discipline from a child; although you strike him with a rod, he will not die.

Proverbs 23:14
Strike him with a rod, and you will deliver his soul from Sheol.

Proverbs 29:15
A rod of correction imparts wisdom, but a child left to himself disgraces his mother.

Proverbs 29:17
Discipline your son, and he will give you rest; he will bring delight to your soul.

Hebrews 12:6-8 For whom the Lord loves he chastens, and whips every son whom he receives…


#32

That’s a good clarification, and I don’t disagree with it based on your definitions. But it seems that your definition of retribution includes a certain unhelpful attitude of the punisher. I don’t think the attitude of the punisher is included in a normal definition of retribution.

An internet definition of retribution: “punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for a wrong or criminal act.”

Paul quoted “‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord.” in Romans 12:19-20.

I believe that in God’s eventual eternal purposes, He desires for Hitler to be able to worship with Holocaust Jews. But for Hitler to be accepted into loving fellowship with those Jews, it would seem that he would need to be able to fully sympathize with the pain he inflicted on them. He would need to make a heartfelt apology to each person he mercilessly wronged. How would he be able to do so, unless he endured vengeance from the Lord that was comparable in strength to his crimes?

A fully effective apology comes from the perspective, “I understand what your pain felt like, and I regret ever causing it.”

What is God’s plan in Matt 25:31-46 (sheep and the goats)? I would say that remediation of the goats is His true plan; but to remediate, He will enforce retributive punishment. The goats will need to experience the pain felt by those who they turned a blind eye to in this life. That is, if they are ever to be in good fellowship with those whose plight they ignored, they will need to be able to fully sympathize with their pain.


#33

I agree. But the “test” was considering whether Joseph’s brothers had truly repented and felt sorrow for their crime against him. The pain Joseph felt from that crime had already been mitigated by Joseph’s rise to power in Egypt.

In addition to the “test,” another intent of Joseph’s actions was to reestablish a heartfelt dialogue with his brothers. He needed to be honest with them about his feelings regarding the pain they had inflicted on him. If we consider a case where Joseph wasn’t elevated to 2nd in command over Egypt (if he instead rotted in jail for decades), Joseph’s feelings towards his brothers would have included so much pain that I doubt he would have been able to reestablish good relations with them by a few harsh words, a relatively short jail sentence, and a prank.


#34

“Discipline” is not tantamount to “retributive punishment.” (even though discipline may involve suffering for the one who is disciplined). Rather, “discipline” is a means of correction. Indeed, the very word “discipline” and the word “disciple” are closely related; the latter means “learner.”

The Oxford Dictionary defines “retribution” as “punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for a wrong or criminal act.” The Cambridge English Dictionary defines it as “deserved and severe punishment.” The MacMillan Dictionary defines it as “punishment that someone deserves because they have done something very bad.” So the word “discipline” has a meaning which is quite different from “retribution.”

Actually, the Greek word which is translated as “discipline” is “παιδεια” (paideia), a word that refers to the total education and training of children. Indeed, “παιδιον” (paidion) initially meant “trained little child” but later seemed to have been used to denote any child. Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a paidion shall not enter it.” (Luke 18:17). It was on the basis of this verse that years ago, I chose “Paidion” as my forum name.

So a good father who “disciplines” his children is one who educates and trains his children. It may be necessary to use means at times that his children find unpleasant, or even “painful.” But the good father uses that means from the motivation of love, wanting to see his children make good choices rather than evil ones. The father is not employing retribution—making his children “pay” for what they did. It is not, “You broke the rules, and now you must suffer the penalty.” A good father doesn’t punish his children “because they deserve it.” Nor is he wreaking vengeance upon his children when he punishes them. That’s why a good father’s punishment of his children is NOT retribution.


#35

Don Said:
“Discipline” is not tantamount to “retributive punishment.” (even though discipline may involve suffering for the one who is disciplined). Rather, “discipline” is a means of correction. Indeed, the very word “discipline” and the word “disciple” are closely related; the latter means “learner.”

The Oxford Dictionary defines “retribution” as “punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for a wrong or criminal act.” The Cambridge English Dictionary defines it as “deserved and severe punishment.” The MacMillan Dictionary defines it as “punishment that someone deserves because they have done something very bad.” So the word “discipline” has a meaning which is quite different from “retribution.”

Actually, the Greek word which is translated as “discipline” is “παιδεια” (paideia), a word that refers to the total education and training of children. Indeed, “παιδιον” (paidion) initially meant “trained little child” but later seemed to have been used to denote any child. Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a paidion shall not enter it.” (Luke 18:17). It was on the basis of this verse that years ago, I chose “Paidion” as my forum name.

So a good father who “disciplines” his children is one who educates and trains his children. It may be necessary to use means at times that his children find unpleasant, or even “painful.” But the good father uses that means from the motivation of love, wanting to see his children make good choices rather than evil ones. The father is not employing retribution—making his children “pay” for what they did. It is not, “You broke the rules, and now you must suffer the penalty.” A good father doesn’t punish his children “because they deserve it.” Nor is he wreaking vengeance upon his children when he punishes them. That’s why a good father’s punishment of his children is NOT retribution.

I am somewhat given to say that this is a bunch of STUFF.

Retribution, and what God did to the Israelites, was totally not only prophesied by the OT prophets, but by Jesus who was the last and total OT prophet.


#36

Did Jesus execute retribution to the woman caught in adultery? Or was it the Jews who caught her in the act, who were ready to do it?


#37

I imagine being struck with a “rod” would be painful, though the Scriptures say when a father (Father) does so it will not kill his child.

In Hebrews 10:26-31 New Testament “punishment” is compared to, but worse than, that under Moses’ law, which as a capital punishment requiring death was usually by stoning. The word for “punishment” is timoria http://biblehub.com/greek/5098.htm . Verse 30 says the Lord will “repay”, i.e. give the offender just “pay back”.

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will repay, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you (2 Thess. 1:6)


#38

Definition of retribution
1 : recompense, reward
2 : the dispensing or receiving of reward or punishment especially in the hereafter
3 : something given or exacted in recompense; especially : punishment

According to Webster’s definition of retribution as a “recompense, reward” & the following verses is “retribution” Scriptural?

Isaiah 40:10
Behold, the Lord GOD comes with might, and His arm establishes His rule. His reward is with Him, and His recompense accompanies Him.

Isaiah 62:11
Behold, the LORD has proclaimed to the ends of the earth, “Say to Daughter Zion: See, your Savior comes! Look, His reward is with Him, and His recompense goes before Him.”

Job 34:11
For according to a man’s deeds, He repays him; according to a man’s ways, He brings consequences.

Jeremiah 17:10
I, the LORD, search the heart; I test the mind to reward a man according to his way, by what his deeds deserve.

Revelation 2:23
Then I will strike her children dead, and all the churches will know that I am the One who searches minds and hearts, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.

Revelation 14:10
he too will drink the wine of God’s anger, poured undiluted into the cup of His wrath. And he will be tormented in fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb.

Revelation 22:12
"Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to each person according to what he has done.

Revelation 22:18
I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.

Matthew 16:27
For the Son of Man will come in His Father’s glory with His angels, and then He will repay each one according to what he has done.

Colossians 3:25
Whoever does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism.

Luke 9:26
If anyone is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.


#39

Paidion said:
maintenanceman:

Retribution, and what God did to the Israelites, was totally not only prophesied by the OT prophets, but by Jesus who was the last and total OT prophet.

Don said;
Did Jesus execute retribution to the woman caught in adultery? Or was it the Jews who caught her in the act, who were ready to do it?

Now I say: Jesus did miracles to show who he was and what he was speaking of was real. He had their best interest at heart.

Don not sure of your thought… It is obvious to all that Jesus was turning the tide, in other words the old was going out and the new was coming in, but Christ himself told the Jews there and then what was going to happen if they did not ‘BELIVE’ and heed His warnings, but as I and others have said, it has nothing to do with us here today.


#40

In that case we can simply ignore His words as inapplicable. Is that what you are saying?


#41

Yes for us… No for them… Christ came for them not us.

Peace


#42

That good ol’ boy from Tarsus thought a bit differently I do believe.
Peace


#43

Look backwards.

Peace.