This belief that God will punish His children who sin is a very traditional belief. What kind of father doesn't punish His child? An unloving one, of course.
Hey, Pirates Who Don't Do Anything, how much truth is there in that?
Larry: Nothin'.
Mr. Lunt: Zilch.
Larry: Nada.
Thank you.
So let's think for a bit- why not punish the sinner for what they've done? After all, they're a Christian yet they've defied God! That ought to be enough for punishment.
Absolutely correct. The problem is, the people who usually make that claim forget the second part: Jesus took all the punishment for the sins of the whole world.
But what about consequences? Are you saying that we can go sin without consequences?
~facepalms~ People, there is a difference between punishment and consequence. Consequence is synonymous with effect; the consequence is the effect resulting from a cause. The consequence, or effect, is what is brought onto the person by their own self. Punishment is brought onto the person by someone in authority (in this case, God). Consequences do happen, like a girl getting pregnant from sex that shouldn't have happened. This happens not by God's doing, but the person's own.
Now there may be more arguments to counter the idea of no punishment, but I believe the Bible itself has the key to lay them all to rest. Take a look in Luke 15:11-24 (Luke 15:11-24 YLT*). It's the parable of the prodigal son; I'm sure you all know this story. The kid tells his dad he wants his inheritance, the dad gives it to him, he goes and spends it all partying and being an idiot, he ends up broke and starving and feeding pigs, he goes back home humbled, and his dad welcomes him home with a ring, robe, shoes, and a party.
Here's how I look at it. The father is God, and the kid is a Christian. The kid (Christian) decides he wants to go out and sin. So the father (God) willingly lets him go (for God respects the human will; He doesn't force Himself onto anyone). The kid (Christian) goes and spends all his inheritance on Lord knows what. Luke 15:13 (Luke 15:13 RSV) says he wasted it. I wouldn't be surprised if this guy was doing just terrible, ungodly things like hooking up with girls and prostitutes (which is actually confirmed in verse 30), having nightly drunken sprees, rubbing his wealth in poor people's faces, etc. (Keep in mind what you'd think of a pastor or someone in today's world who's supposed to be a Christian but acts like this.) Then there's a famine and the guy goes broke (is that a punishment or consequence? Give you a hint: who brought the state of being broke on him- his father or himself?). He gets so desperate that he takes a job feeding pigs, and is so desperate for food he wishes he could eat whatever the pigs are eating (punishment or consequence? So far, the answer to both looks like consequence. He brought it all on himself.) The son (Christian) finally decides to go back to his father (God), but says he will tell his father that he is no longer worthy of being called His son and will be willing to work as a servant. He was preparing to be punished! You think you're being punished severely with a lecture and a whip? At least you get to keep the family name. This one was thinking he would be denounced as even his father's own son. I doubt that's happened to many. He then trods off back home. When the son (Christian) comes back, however, the father (God) sees him from a distance and runs as fast as his legs will carry him towards His son. But is this father (God) running to punish the son (Christian)? Actually, it says He had compassion, gave him a bear hug, and kissed him. The father wasn't mad at all! He was overjoyed when His kid finally came back! The son tried to say to his father that he will be more than willing to work as a hired servant without being recognized as a son. He agrees to whatever punishment his father may have in store for him. The father (God), instead of lashing out at His son (Christian), telling him how wrong he was to do what he did, punishing him, and denouncing him, yells to his servants to bring out the best robe, a ring, and some shoes. He then orders them to take the fattest calf and kill it for a celebration feast and party.
I'm sure you noticed that the father did absolutely nothing to punish His son. Why the heck didn't He? He knew the son had learned his lesson, for one. Otherwise, he wouldn't have come back! In fact, He even says so in Luke 15:24, 27, and 32 (Luke 15:24 NIV, Luke 15:27 NIV, Luke 15:32 NIV). He says the reason there's gonna be a party is because the son, for this, was dead, but now is alive again. The son was lost, but now he's been found. He's come back home safe and sound. What are God's thoughts centered on? The kid is back!
Of course, there's other Christians, represented by the older brother later on. He hears the music and dancing at the party and asks what's going on. And, like most Christians, is shocked to hear that his dad is not punishing the younger brother at all, but celebrating his return. He talks to his father, and points out how well he's behaved the entire time, yet never got a party for himself. Then, possibly attempting to make the father look like a hypocrite, points out that the other son spent his father's life savings on prostitutes, yet gets a full party and the fattest calf gets killed for a feast for him. I do think he represents the Christians who think the other Christians who sin ought to be punished for what they've done. This is done out of a lack of love for the other brother. Had he loved his little brother with the same unconditional love that the father did, he would have ran alongside his father when He ran to greet His son who'd finally returned. But alas, he acts rather in jealousy and anger than love. After the inquiry, the father says they are partying because there is a good reason- the son, who'd gone away and been an idiot, has come to his senses and has returned. He was dead, and is now alive again; he was lost, but is now found.
With this story, told by Jesus (and therefore, God) Himself, I don't see how anyone could believe God punishes His children who disobey Him. Rather, like in the parable, He waits patiently until His child comes back home, ready to greet him/her with open arms and a compassionate, loving heart. This kind of love relationship between man and God was enabled when Jesus took the punishment we deserved on His cross. Now that the punishment has been inflicted, there is no need for it. Only love. That's what I've discovered about God recently more than ever- nothing His children can do will ever make Him run to the returning child with a whip and chains and a long lecture about how wrong they were. And, as I have implied (or rather, as Jesus Himself replied), it is the ones with no love in their hearts that wish to see the wrongdoers punished. Remember the older brother who was whining about the younger one going out and being an idiot and still gets a party? Had he had the love and heart for his brother as his father had for him, he would have come right alongside his father when running to meet the returning son.
Until next time,
J-Lindo
*I put the reference a second time in parentheses with another translation's initials there for people who would rather read a translation easier to read than the KJV, which is the default translation if I do not specify another. If you're on a computer, you'll see what I mean when you hover your cursor over both of them.
You should post more often, I find these quite interesting to read :)
ReplyDeleteWhy thank you :) I do try to, but I sometimes forget about this thing xP
DeleteWell, I don't see why drawing a distinction between "punishment" and "consequence". Punishment and reward can be seen as one or the other according to one's point of view, but they still remain consequences, bound by the natural order of things; and I tend to see God as the manifestation of that order, as a neutral entity that gives us what we deserve whether we perceive it as fair or unfair. Does God not control absolutely everything? In your parable, the "punishment" of the boy was all that misery that he endured, and that was a consequence of what he did. All the circumstances that brought on this punishment were God's doing... his father knew it was sufficient and that his son wasn't likely to do it again; however, in other situations, the consequence or the punishment of someone's behaviour can be more "direct". For example, in the modern world, instead of famine and the loss of his money, the son may have been taken to prison for some violation or something like that, but that doesn't mean that it isn't coming from God! There would be a whole sequence of circumstances causing the police or whoever arrested the boy to do that, and these circumstances are part of the "order of things" controlled by God. What I am trying to say, is that you seem to consider punishment as something bad, and you deduce that God cannot be so cruel towards his creatures; but if you consider it as the natural consequence of our actions, you realize that God is just incredibly fair and that whatever he inflicts us it doesn't mean he doesn't love us.
ReplyDeleteAgain, in the parable, the brother isn't being jealous; had he fully realized that his brother had been punished enough, he would have understood his father's reaction. And he's not to blame for that.
Anyway, this is my opinion, and I thought I had to share it with you :)