Not all punishment is for the good of the person...

dirtboy · March 9, 2018, 1:59am

Part of the UR argument rests on God being love and all of his punishment as being “corrective”. Now the bible doesn’t explicitly say that all punishment/wrath is corrective but many have argued that since God is love, even his vengeance would have love as part of its motive. I read this verse this morning in Amos 9:4:

God is against them “not for good” “for evil”. Although I don’t know what the answer is, I’m not yet convinced that God restores everyone. The Bible definitely leaves wiggle room so that those who argue in favor of annihilation have some ammo. I think that ECT is the weakest position because there is so much definitive scriptures that basically say that God is not one to punish forever. There are powerful verses for UR that discuss the restoration of “all things”. Any thoughts on this verse?

Michael_Thompson · March 9, 2018, 1:59am

Maybe, in that context, harm or evil, was meant for them, to serve his purposes at that time, but in the big picture, it will end up working for their good?

Melchizedek · March 9, 2018, 1:59am

Being put to the sword is a temporal punishment. The kind of punishment that must ultimately be restorative can look temporally like destruction. Even Paul talks about one being handed over to satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit can be restored later.

Sherman · March 9, 2018, 1:59am

The evil He speaks of is evil, harm, bad things that happen to the people. I don’t think these verses are speaking of God doing this because of evil in his heart. Of course, scripture also affirms that both good and evil come from the Lord. It was an evil spirit from the Lord that afflicted Saul. God is ultimately the one culpable for the fall of man for it was God that did not put a fence around the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It was God that allowed Satan to decieve Eve. In fact, I believe that man sinning was part of God’s plan. I see God being in control of things much more than we realize.

I too though, IF I only looked at the passages on the punishment of sin, would believe in annihilationism. Punishment being for our ultimate good is somewhat alluded to in scripture concerning the punishment of sin, but it’s certainly not a focus. As one would expect in punishment language, the positive side of such is rarely mentioned. With my own children, when warning them of punishment rarely do I mention that the reason I’m disciplining them for their own good. I also have the tendency to speak of punishment in harsher terms than what I actually end up doing. Also, in the middle of punishing my child I’ll often lighten up and not give the full punishment, especially if I see their attitudes have changed.

It is the UR passages that inspire me to have faith in Jesus for the salvation of others, all. And because of this I lean towards understanding the punishment passages from a redemptive perspective, though some, even most, certainly do not imply redemption specifically. Punishment language is meant to be scary.

dirtboy · March 9, 2018, 1:59am

But that is my point…Paul explicitly says that the harsh thing to be done has an ultimate purpose that is good, whereas this verse says that it is “for evil and not good”. It doesn’t say that there is an ultimate purpose beyond the “evil” that is good.

Cindy_Skillman · March 9, 2018, 1:59am

True, however even though it doesn’t say this right here in this passage, later (chronologically) we find that God’s punishment of His people WAS given in order to restore them. Amos (contrary to the late position of the book in the OT) prophesied prior to the career of Isaiah, so he was talking about the same judgment Isaiah spoke of, which was ultimately the exile to Babylon. There were a lot of false prophets at the time, telling everyone that God was pleased with them and prophesying nothing but good things for the rosiest of futures. God is contradicting this, saying, “No – I am NOT planning good things for you, but evil things.” It was a warning, but the people, liking what they heard from the false prophets a lot better, chose to listen to them instead of to Amos (or later, Isaiah, Ezekiel, or Jeremiah).

Later, even through the ultimate weeping prophet, Jeremiah, God says:

And He says many other loving, restorative things to them. Ultimately, Paul tells us:

Some like to qualify this statement by Paul to include only those alive in modern-day Israel at the time of Jesus’ return, but that never made any sense to me. This is one of those verses that you sort of put on the shelf because they don’t agree with your current theology, you know? Now it makes perfect sense to me. It just simply means exactly what it says! Imagine that! (Well, I was surprised, anyway.)

So yes, God did intend evil for Israel at the time Amos spoke, but it was a short-term (relatively) evil, whose goal was to reconcile Israel to Himself. I hope this helps to clarify.

Blessings, Cindy

dirtboy · March 9, 2018, 1:59am

Cindy Skillman:

Dirtboy wrote: It doesn’t say that there is an ultimate purpose beyond the “evil” that is good.

True, however even though it doesn’t say this right here in this passage, later (chronologically) we find that God’s punishment of His people WAS given in order to restore them. Amos (contrary to the late position of the book in the OT) prophesied prior to the career of Isaiah, so he was talking about the same judgment Isaiah spoke of, which was ultimately the exile to Babylon. There were a lot of false prophets at the time, telling everyone that God was pleased with them and prophesying nothing but good things for the rosiest of futures. God is contradicting this, saying, “No – I am NOT planning good things for you, but evil things.” It was a warning, but the people, liking what they heard from the false prophets a lot better, chose to listen to them instead of to Amos (or later, Isaiah, Ezekiel, or Jeremiah).

Later, even through the ultimate weeping prophet, Jeremiah, God says:

The LORD’s anger will not turn back until He has completely fulfilled the purposes of His heart. In time to come you will understand it clearly. (Jeremiah 23:20 HCSB)

and later still:

"I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never turn away from doing good to them, and I will put fear of Me in their hearts so they will never again turn away from Me. (Jeremiah 32:40 HCSB)

And He says many other loving, restorative things to them. Ultimately, Paul tells us:

And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written: The Liberator will come from Zion; He will turn away godlessness from Jacob. (Romans 11:26 HCSB)

Some like to qualify this statement by Paul to include only those alive in modern-day Israel at the time of Jesus’ return, but that never made any sense to me. This is one of those verses that you sort of put on the shelf because they don’t agree with your current theology, you know? Now it makes perfect sense to me. It just simply means exactly what it says! Imagine that! (Well, I was surprised, anyway.)

So yes, God did intend evil for Israel at the time Amos spoke, but it was a short-term (relatively) evil, whose goal was to reconcile Israel to Himself. I hope this helps to clarify.

Blessings, Cindy

Excellent points!

Melchizedek · March 9, 2018, 1:59am

Thanks Cindy, that’s what I was trying to get at. It always comes back around to grace and mercy, though not necessarily in the immediate passage.

firedup2000 · March 9, 2018, 1:59am

Cool! Good stuff.

phillip_macdonald · March 9, 2018, 1:59am

Great discussion here! It reminds me of a poster that “Beautiful Angle” created and posted around their city. (They have done hundreds of others, some of which are quite amazing like the apology they did from the Church called “repent”)

This one is called “firemercy”:

beautifulangle.homestead.com/poster59.html

Phillip
godslovewins.com

WE_ARE_ALL_BROTHERS · March 9, 2018, 1:59am

I’d believe that this was what Amos meant if stopped at one verse too

“In that day I will raise up the fallen booth of David,
And wall up its breaches;
I will also raise up its ruins
And rebuild it as in the days of old;

That they may possess the remnant of Edom
And all the nations who are called by My name,”
Declares the LORD who does this.

“Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD,
“When the plowman will overtake the reaper
And the treader of grapes him who sows seed;
When the mountains will drip sweet wine
And all the hills will be dissolved.
Also I will restore the captivity of My people Israel,
And they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them;
They will also plant vineyards and drink their wine,
And make gardens and eat their fruit.
I will also plant them on their land,
And they will not again be rooted out from their land
Which I have given them,”
Says the LORD your God.

— Amos 9:11-15

Or do we, like some others, believe this to be an interpolation?

The whole point of the book of Amos is to discuss Yahweh’s justice (one of ultimate restoration). This article might be of help?

corpselight · March 9, 2018, 1:59am

Cindy Skillman:

Dirtboy wrote: It doesn’t say that there is an ultimate purpose beyond the “evil” that is good.

True, however even though it doesn’t say this right here in this passage, later (chronologically) we find that God’s punishment of His people WAS given in order to restore them. Amos (contrary to the late position of the book in the OT) prophesied prior to the career of Isaiah, so he was talking about the same judgment Isaiah spoke of, which was ultimately the exile to Babylon. There were a lot of false prophets at the time, telling everyone that God was pleased with them and prophesying nothing but good things for the rosiest of futures. God is contradicting this, saying, “No – I am NOT planning good things for you, but evil things.” It was a warning, but the people, liking what they heard from the false prophets a lot better, chose to listen to them instead of to Amos (or later, Isaiah, Ezekiel, or Jeremiah).

Later, even through the ultimate weeping prophet, Jeremiah, God says:

The LORD’s anger will not turn back until He has completely fulfilled the purposes of His heart. In time to come you will understand it clearly. (Jeremiah 23:20 HCSB)

and later still:

"I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never turn away from doing good to them, and I will put fear of Me in their hearts so they will never again turn away from Me. (Jeremiah 32:40 HCSB)

And He says many other loving, restorative things to them. Ultimately, Paul tells us:

And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written: The Liberator will come from Zion; He will turn away godlessness from Jacob. (Romans 11:26 HCSB)

Some like to qualify this statement by Paul to include only those alive in modern-day Israel at the time of Jesus’ return, but that never made any sense to me. This is one of those verses that you sort of put on the shelf because they don’t agree with your current theology, you know? Now it makes perfect sense to me. It just simply means exactly what it says! Imagine that! (Well, I was surprised, anyway.)

So yes, God did intend evil for Israel at the time Amos spoke, but it was a short-term (relatively) evil, whose goal was to reconcile Israel to Himself. I hope this helps to clarify.

Blessings, Cindy

well put!
yes, all scripture must be weighted against the rest of scripture.
to me, as you said, this passage merely says that God is having to use the cane…it doesn’t say it’s forever, and it doesn’t say that good won’t come out of the evil of being smacked with the cane, and it also doesn’t say (at least not there) that the cane is being used in order to not “spoil the child”

dirtboy · March 9, 2018, 1:59am

corpselight:

Cindy Skillman:

Dirtboy wrote: It doesn’t say that there is an ultimate purpose beyond the “evil” that is good.

True, however even though it doesn’t say this right here in this passage, later (chronologically) we find that God’s punishment of His people WAS given in order to restore them. Amos (contrary to the late position of the book in the OT) prophesied prior to the career of Isaiah, so he was talking about the same judgment Isaiah spoke of, which was ultimately the exile to Babylon. There were a lot of false prophets at the time, telling everyone that God was pleased with them and prophesying nothing but good things for the rosiest of futures. God is contradicting this, saying, “No – I am NOT planning good things for you, but evil things.” It was a warning, but the people, liking what they heard from the false prophets a lot better, chose to listen to them instead of to Amos (or later, Isaiah, Ezekiel, or Jeremiah).

Later, even through the ultimate weeping prophet, Jeremiah, God says:

The LORD’s anger will not turn back until He has completely fulfilled the purposes of His heart. In time to come you will understand it clearly. (Jeremiah 23:20 HCSB)

and later still:

"I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never turn away from doing good to them, and I will put fear of Me in their hearts so they will never again turn away from Me. (Jeremiah 32:40 HCSB)

And He says many other loving, restorative things to them. Ultimately, Paul tells us:

And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written: The Liberator will come from Zion; He will turn away godlessness from Jacob. (Romans 11:26 HCSB)

Some like to qualify this statement by Paul to include only those alive in modern-day Israel at the time of Jesus’ return, but that never made any sense to me. This is one of those verses that you sort of put on the shelf because they don’t agree with your current theology, you know? Now it makes perfect sense to me. It just simply means exactly what it says! Imagine that! (Well, I was surprised, anyway.)

So yes, God did intend evil for Israel at the time Amos spoke, but it was a short-term (relatively) evil, whose goal was to reconcile Israel to Himself. I hope this helps to clarify.

Blessings, Cindy
well put!
yes, all scripture must be weighted against the rest of scripture.
to me, as you said, this passage merely says that God is having to use the cane…it doesn’t say it’s forever, and it doesn’t say that good won’t come out of the evil of being smacked with the cane, and it also doesn’t say (at least not there) that the cane is being used in order to not “spoil the child”

I still have some difficulty because God says that he disciplines those he loves. He doesn’t say its an evil thing or that it is “not for good” because we teach that his discipline, no matter how harsh, IS for good.

Cindy_Skillman · March 9, 2018, 1:59am

H7451
רעה רע
ra‛ râ‛âh
rah, raw-aw’
From H7489; bad or (as noun) evil (naturally or morally). This includes the second (feminine) form; as adjective or noun: - adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease (-ure), distress, evil (-favouredness], man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief (-vous), harm, heavy, hurt (-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief, (-vous), misery, naught (-ty), noisome, + not please, sad (-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked (-ly, -ness, one), worse (-st) wretchedness, wrong. [Including feminine ra’ah; as adjective or noun.]

H2896
טוב
ṭôb
tobe
From H2895; good (as an adjective) in the widest sense; used likewise as a noun, both in the masculine and the feminine, the singular and the plural (good, a good or good thing, a good man or woman; the good, goods or good things, good men or women), also as an adverb (well): - beautiful, best, better, bountiful, cheerful, at ease, X fair (word), (be in) favour, fine, glad, good (deed, -lier, liest, -ly, -ness, -s), graciously, joyful, kindly, kindness, liketh (best), loving, merry, X most, pleasant, + pleaseth, pleasure, precious, prosperity, ready, sweet, wealth, welfare, (be) well (-favoured]).

There are a lot of different meanings you could draw out of these two words, DB. I think what we have to keep in mind here is to interpret scripture by scripture. That is to say that elsewhere, God does say that the punishment (the evil) is exacted for the purpose of bringing His people to repentance (which was, in fact, the result – after the Babylonian captivity; Israel never again sank into overt idolatry in the form of worshiping images and trees, asherah and ephods and so forth).

Based on the result of the exile and on God’s other, more positive statements concerning this judgment (which greatly out-number statements such as this one given by Amos), we might interpret this passage:

I’m not an ancient languages scholar, but based on the definitions given by Strongs and also on the things God has to say about this event in many other places in scripture, I don’t think this interpretation would do violence to the original text at all. In fact, it could make it a lot clearer. What do you think?