The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The Mercy And Justice Paradox

Evangelical Universalism Arguments for Evangelical Universalism
#21

“Correction” and “discipline” are synonymous. But “punishment” either in the sense of vengeance, or in the sense of administering a penalty for breaking a rule or law, is quite different. (Please read my signature statement again). The passage in Heb 12 depicts the Lord as disciplining or correcting his children out of love.

Here is the whole passage from Hebrews 12 from the Revised Standard Version:

5 And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons?
“My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,
nor be weary when reproved by him.
6 For the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives.”
7 It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline?
8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.
9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live?
10 For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness.
11 For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.
12 Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees,
13 and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed.

The verb translated as “disciplines” literally means “to train a child”. God trains his children for their good, that their behaviour may improve.
The author compares this training to tht of a good human father, who also trains his children for their own good. In doing that, he may make things a bit unpleasant for the child that he is training. At times he may deprive him of privileges, or even spank him. But a loving father does not scourge (whip) his child. Any father who does that, does not do it out of love, but probably out of anger, or even a desire to hurt in order to punish the child, or make him “pay” for what he has done. A good father doesn’t do that. He loves his child, and will do what it takes to help him behave better, but he never whips his child, acting out of anger.

The RSV translates the Greek word which is rendered as “scourges” as “chastises” (in red above). That is an improvement over “scourges”. The word in its nounal form is translated as “affliction” in Mark 3:10, 5:29, 5:34, and Luke 7:21 in the EMTV, NASB, NKJV and the RWebster. I suggest that it be translated as “afflicts” in the passage above. “The Lord afflicts every son whom He receives.” With what does He afflict them? We may not be able to say (for it will vary widely depending on the person), but He inflicts them with something unpleasant, not to punish them in the sense of inflicting a penalty for what they did, but in order to correct their behaviour. God certainly does not scourge (whip) them.

#22

The scripture here shows that Jesus will return inflicting vengeance on people. Vengeance is the opposite of mercy. Notice the texts say His vengeance is just. We can conclude that Christ’s justice includes an element of retribution. Not that it’s completely retribution. It is also restorative.

#23

The word that some translators render as “vengeance” ought to be translated as “judgment”. All of God’s judgments are remedial.

#24

Paidion

Here Jesus repays with affliction those who have afflicted. This is clearly retribution and therefore the word should be translated as vengeance. After all that’s what the word means in Greek.

#25

Maybe retribution, in some measure, is remedial. Knowing that there is a consequence for deliberate action to harm another, to prey upon those unable to defend themselves, is also…judgment. The result of retribution and judgment? Awakening. Brokenness. the result of brokenness- forgiveness, reconciliation.

#26

I Had some difficulty over this matter for the last few years, starting when I came to believe in Universal Salvation. I had only looked at Justice solely from the restorative point of view, after I had tried to convince myself that desserts had no importance. I think that I had the idea that deservedness was unimportant, and could not find any reason how harm on another could be just. What I had noticed is that justice without mercy turns into cruel injustice and mercy without justice becomes unmerciful. C.S. Lewis does a good job of exposing this system in his essay on Humanitarian Punishment in God at the Dock. But he is essentially right about how the practice of mercy without concern for justice essentially turns into a tyranny. He demonstrates how punishment never asks whether a person deserves the punishment, but only if it will cure the one being punished or be a deterrent. However, this creates a system of punishment that can either exceed what was deserved, and become just as cruel as a despot, but presumes some utility or “The ends justifies the means”, or on the deterrent end, there is no concept of justice, and if punishment is just a deterrent, this is nothing more than behaviorism that presumes might makes right. Yet the problem with justice without mercy becomes unjust quite easily. I remember reading in a book from Julie Ferwerda known as “Raising Hell”, that the whole concept of “An Eye for an Eye” was meant to teach true justice, particularly at a time when most legal systems advocated serious penalties for offenses against the elites, and easy penalties committed against slaves. I remember an Orthodox theologian commented on how Anselms ideas of atonement arose from Honor/shame cultures, where offenses against kings have higher penalties than offenses against peasants. I have seen very little change today. In fact, I have noticed that many Christians think in a similar way about Hell, in considering an offense against an infinite being meriting infinite punishment. Yet the proposition assumes God is just one being one infinite being among many finite beings, as opposed to being goodness truth and beauty itself. People have quoted Psalm 51 where it says “Against you alone have I sinned”, which has been interpreted to mean that only God is offended. By this logic, that would be like saying murder is only criminal because it offended the Government. If I am correct, the idea behind this is that Sin being only against God is equivalent to saying Sin is a refusal of the absolute good. Yet this interpretation often assumes that there is no such thing as sinning against another.

I think part of this loss of sense of justice has only created this “Passive-aggressive” mercy, where the Christian turns the other cheek, and take abuse from their enemies, but leave vengeance up to God. Hence they hope that their enemies will suffer endless torture in the afterlife, while they get to sit in heaven. What I have noticed is that theories of justice in the form of merciless honor, and mercy in the form of utilitarian injustice are contradictions. But I find that natural law will never be satisfied with any form of mercy that never brings one to justice, or any kind of justice dispropotional barring off mercy.

#27

We must understand that man’s system isn’t God’s system. God is holy. Holiness when applied to God not only refers to moral purity but to everything that separates Him from His creation and His creatures. He’s distinct. He alone is God. Therefore, His justice is a holy justice. There’s an infinite distance between us and God. There are ways we are like God and ways we are not. We see this justice in Rev.:

It goes on to say:

God punishes them DOUBLE for their sins. This seems unjust according to human standards of justice. But we are finite. God is Holy. His justice is Holy.

This is just one way to look at it. I claim this view is REASONABLE not certain. It can be rationally resisted. There are other views.

#28

I believe the glory of God is the going public of his infinite worth. I define the holiness of God as the infinite value of God, the infinite intrinsic worth of God. And when that goes public in creation, the heavens are telling the glory of God ~~ John Piper

The public display of the infinite beauty and worth of God is what I mean by “glory,” and I base that partly on Isaiah 6, where the seraphim say, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty. The whole earth is full of his—” and you would expect them to say “holiness” and they say “glory.” They’re ascribing “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty. The whole earth is full of his—” and when that goes public in the earth and fills it, you call it “glory.”

So God’s glory is the radiance of his holiness, the radiance of his manifold, infinitely worthy and valuable perfections. ~~ John Piper

#29

According to Norman Geisler

To the objection that there is no redemptive value in the damning of souls to hell, it can be pointed out that hell satisfies God’s justice and glorifies it by showing how great and fearful a standard it is. “The vindictive justice of God will appear strict, exact, awful, and terrible, and therefore glorious” (Edwards, 2.87). The more horrible and fearful the judgment, the brighter the sheen on the sword of God’s justice. Awful punishment fits the nature of an awe-inspiring God. By a majestic display of wrath, God gets back the majesty he has been refused. ~~ Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (online)