God Cannot Punish?

[Dranu]

According to CCC #1472, the only two possible kinds of punishments (eternal and temporal), “…must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.” Now I suppose this can be interpreted in more than one way given the ambiguous term ‘vengeance’ and the context, but the most common sense translation seems to suggest it means “just punishment is sufficiently (completely) caused internally by the evil itself.”
Thus:
**1.) **God does not cause any punishment (since all such things are sufficiently caused by the sin according to this interpretation of the CCC)
2.) That which does not cause something cannot be said to have done it.
**Therefore:**God does not punish.
That is, there is no wrath that falls from the heavens sort of thing. There is no holy crusader bringing the hammer of justice to our demonic foes. Just punishment is ONLY evil’s suicidal nature. (and these ‘truths’ already seem (to me) kind of wrong and ugly)

Now, several New Testament Biblical passages seem to reinforce this (e.g. God cast out the daemons of legion but allows them to (rather than force them I believe) enter pigs which ends up killing themselves. E.g. Judas ends up killing himself rather than God striking him down. E.g. St. Paul talking about sinners being delivered to their flesh). Additionally, there is a great amount of truth that evil is often times its own punishment and doing right is often its own reward. However, this interpretation also renders a very large portion of the Bible non-literal (and does something very odd with Jesus’s whip-in-hand fury at the Temple). Like talks of the Eternal God changing, talks of God punishing must be viewed more as the sin itself punishing due to God’s lack of interference. Commands to put sin to death and to hate it must mean more like ‘ignore it’ (and love God instead) rather than to actually act directly against them. It also renders the acts of direct punishment by parents against their children or acts of the state against criminals that are not merely non-action, as ungodly. It also seems to render acts of anger to be purely sinful, since it is a affirmative will of the destruction of something, and the emotion of anger would likewise just be a temptation of hell and never a motivation for right action (and this evidence I find to be the most damning against the interpretation I mentioned)(again think of our Lord’s fury at the Temple. That certainly seems literal and does not seem allegorical).

Now this interpretation seems right, but I wonder if it only ‘seems’ right to me because I don’t desire it to be so (you know how things that seem like the harder path to take seem right just because of that) or because it actually is. It certainly seems to have some big hurtles to jump (as mentioned above). Any ideas on this view of God and punishment? Perhaps any ideas on the interpretation of that passage?

 

[JDaniel]

According to CCC #1472, the only two possible kinds of punishments (eternal and temporal), “…must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.” Now I suppose this can be interpreted in more than one way given the ambiguous term ‘vengeance’ and the context, but the most common sense translation seems to suggest it means “just punishment is sufficiently (completely) caused internally by the evil itself.”
Thus:
**1.) **God does not cause any punishment (since all such things are sufficiently caused by the sin according to this interpretation of the CCC)
2.) That which does not cause something cannot be said to have done it.
**Therefore:**God does not punish.
That is, there is no wrath that falls from the heavens sort of thing. There is no holy crusader bringing the hammer of justice to our demonic foes. Just punishment is ONLY evil’s suicidal nature. (and these ‘truths’ already seem (to me) kind of wrong and ugly)

Now, several New Testament Biblical passages seem to reinforce this (e.g. God cast out the daemons of legion but allows them to (rather than force them I believe) enter pigs which ends up killing themselves. E.g. Judas ends up killing himself rather than God striking him down. E.g. St. Paul talking about sinners being delivered to their flesh). Additionally, there is a great amount of truth that evil is often times its own punishment and doing right is often its own reward. However, this interpretation also renders a very large portion of the Bible non-literal (and does something very odd with Jesus’s whip-in-hand fury at the Temple). Like talks of the Eternal God changing, talks of God punishing must be viewed more as the sin itself punishing due to God’s lack of interference. Commands to put sin to death and to hate it must mean more like ‘ignore it’ (and love God instead) rather than to actually act directly against them. It also renders the acts of direct punishment by parents against their children or acts of the state against criminals that are not merely non-action, as ungodly. It also seems to render acts of anger to be purely sinful, since it is a affirmative will of the destruction of something, and the emotion of anger would likewise just be a temptation of hell and never a motivation for right action (and this evidence I find to be the most damning against the interpretation I mentioned)(again think of our Lord’s fury at the Temple. That certainly seems literal and does not seem allegorical).

Now this interpretation seems right, but I wonder if it only ‘seems’ right to me because I don’t desire it to be so (you know how things that seem like the harder path to take seem right just because of that) or because it actually is. It certainly seems to have some big hurtles to jump (as mentioned above). Any ideas on this view of God and punishment? Perhaps any ideas on the interpretation of that passage?

Dranu:

Very interesting observations. I’m trying to think this through: if God is Infinite, and if God is Immutable, it would certainly make sense that He does not punish. Punishment would mean that He would have to decide then act, which would mean change or mutation. But God does not change or mutate, so the idea that we cause our own punishment(s) would seem to follow from these determinants. Don’t you think?

Unless God knows in advance what each of His creations is going to do then, as part of Creation’s roll-out, includes punishments. A dilemma indeed!

God bless,
jd

 

[Dranu]

I’m trying to think this through: if God is Infinite, and if God is Immutable, it would certainly make sense that He does not punish. Punishment would mean that He would have to decide then act, which would mean change or mutation. But God does not change or mutate, so the idea that we cause our own punishment(s) would seem to follow from these determinants. Don’t you think?

Thanks for the reply JD.

Interesting thoughts. However, it would unfortunately also mean God does not cause our reward (and that we cause it). Also, insofar as ‘love’ is an act, it means God does not love us.

Anyhow, that would only follow if He never acted (i.e. God would be the unmoved non-mover). I would argue God is unchangingly acting (i.e. an eternal act/ unmoved mover). God’s act is the same now as it was billions of years ago, so to speak. So this same act could be responsible for punishment and reward. If we are simplistic and look at God’s act as ‘justice’ this would be obvious (but I think His act is much deeper than that, or at least that His justice somehow means the same thing as His mercy, His creative acts, His loving acts etc).

Unless God knows in advance what each of His creations is going to do then, as part of Creation’s roll-out, includes punishments. A dilemma indeed!

I think this is a better analogy, except I think its not so much God knowing it in advance as much as it God knowing it outside of time. At any rate, that line from the Catechism would seem to suggest that God does not roll out the punishments at all.

 

[jochoa]

Thank you for an excellent thought-provoking post!

My Thoughts on CCC #1427
In order to better analyze the passage, I think it is important to consider some definitions.
Punishment - a penalty inflicted
Penalty - A disadvantage or unpleasant experience suffered as the result of an action or circumstance.
Conceived - to cause to begin: originate
Vengeance - violent revenge
Sin - Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God

Now here is a paraphrasing that I can understand somewhat easier:
“If a punishment (whether ever-lasting or temporary) is godly, it will be a non-violent & non-retaliatory consequence of deliberate disobedience.”
Here are my analysis, justifications, and examples of the parts of this passage:

1. There are 2 types of punishments - Ever-lasting & Temporary
   Temporary punishments are varying qualities of distress caused by wrongful actions. It can also be characterized by loss of peace, happiness, health, and/or longevity. An example: If a person is considering murdering a person, they are in great amounts of distress and have lost great amounts of peace and happiness.
   Ever-lasting punishment is simply inflicting a penalty forever.
2. A godly punishment must not originate out of revenge and must not be violent. This makes sense based on the following: God is Unconditionally Loving. Therefore He is Always patient and kind, he cannot be violent, and he can never get hurt. Since no person can hurt him, he cannot act out of Revenge.
3. A godly punishment must be the consequence of sin. Meaning God will only punish based on Deliberate disobedience. Recall that during crucifixion, the crucified wrong-doer was saved for his service to Jesus. God would not punish him for his past wrongful deeds because the deeds were not of deliberate disobedience. This is also why Jesus is not held accountable for the anger at the temple. I will revisit this issue later.
4. Punishments can be inflicted by God or any person given authority. However, if it is a godly punishment, it will not originate out of revenge, will not be violent, and it will be the consequence of deliberate disobedience.
   A few more of my thoughts on this passage:
5. God is the only being capable of administering eternal punishments.
6. God’s non-violent and eternal punishment will be the rejection of entering Heaven.
7. God administers temporal punishments during purgatory. My reasoning: Heaven is filled with perfection. Most of us will not be perfect when we die, however we are not rejected from Heaven because we are trying to be more Christ-like. We just need God’s complete knowledge and time [purgatory] to perfect our practice of God’s Will and Love.

My thoughts on Jesus at the Temple
I think that His anger at the Temple is a demonstration of his humanity and development of learning the Word of God.
My Reasoning: Jesus, the man, had to learn God’s Love and Will. This can be perceived from Hebrews 5:8 (ESV) - “Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.” This is depicting that he had to practice it. Sometimes he failed and sometimes he succeeded. Through experimentation of sometimes being patient and kind(somewhat impatient and angered) to always being patient and kind & and comparing which yielded greater peace, happiness, and spreading of God’s Word or less suffering, he realized God knows Best (always be patient and kind), therefore obey Him fully.

My thoughts on parental/governmental punishments
There is some validity in your statement regarding action based punishments are ungodly. However, I prefer to word it as: The only godly punishments parents/authority figures can inflict are non-violent, non-retaliatory penalties in response to a deliberate disobedience. As a parent/authority figure, this is another excellent thought-provoking concept, which is such an incredible challenge to master.

My Thoughts on “Acts of Anger as Purely Sinful”
I could agree that: since acts of anger are always destructive of peace, anger is not completely righteous. However, I cannot agree that anger is always sinful, and here is my reasoning:
Though anger is always destructive (to peace in the least), it is not always a sin. Keep in mind that a sin is a deliberate disobedience to the known will of God. There is a great amount of subjectivity in the definition of sin. There is individual consideration. There is consideration for the knowledge of God’s Will of the individual. There is consideration of complete disobedience. Example of Determining Sinful Action: Did I sin if: I told my child, “Give me that book on the shelf.”? Analysis (Defining the subjectivity): What do I know of God’s Will and Law of Love? I know that unconditional love is always polite and honoring of free will. Do I know how to be polite? Yes. I can say, “Please.” Do I know how to honor my child’s free will? Yes. I can request in the form of a question (ie. Would you please give me the book?) and can accept my child’s decision. Did I make the command in the “heat of the moment”? No. There were no extenuating circumstances. At this point, it is safe to say, that I deliberately disobeyed the word of God, and therefore sinned.
Sometimes people are angry due to lack of knowledge, lack of understanding, or extenuating circumstances. It is these moments in which God grants compassion and patience.

My Thoughts on “Big Hurdles to Jump”
Definitely! Without the knowledge of God, the greatest commandment to love God as Jesus Christ loved him is also the greatest challenge anyone can ever embrace. The Awesome news is that the better and closer you get to unconditionally loving God through Jesus Christ’s example, the greater peace, happiness, health, & longevity you will gain and spread throughout society!

I hope I have not wasted your time because you have greatly helped enrich mine.

 

[Dranu]

I think I am embracing the position that ‘God cannot punish’ is a false position. Therefore, I take the sentence in the Catechism (#1472) to have a different meaning than the apparent meaning and its strict logical entailment. I’ll put up my position by answering your gracious and thought through post, Jochoa.

Vengeance - violent revenge

I would disagree with that definition, and its my opinion that the Catechism probably does not mean that when it uses it in 1472. I would say it often means an act that fulfills retribution (a revenge but a holy type of revenge insofar as it accords with mercy), and it need not be violent. I do think, however, that the Catechism might mean a different term by it. For example, often in the history of the Church, the use of terms like ‘anger’, ‘wrath’ and ‘killing’ do not necessarily only mean the neutral term we normally mean by those terms, but the neutral term with an evil annexed to them (e.g. unrighteous anger, sinful wrath, and murder). Likewise, terms that often by their plain meaning mean something wholly good, have often been used to denote something neutral or even at times wrong. Vengeance, retribution, and vindication often fall under this (though I have less direct evidence of this, I am pretty sure some examples could be found…

Its my thought that the Catechism uses the term ‘vengeance’ in a similar matter. I think perhaps in this case it uses it in a negative sense rather than the wholly good or neutral sense’. ‘vengeance’ here, might mean something like ‘revenge that does not take into account what is actually due’. This interpretation would make a lot of sense since the Catechism was designed to teach the average modern reader the basic teachings of the Church. Being ever mindful of her audience, the Church likely took into account that the term ‘vengeance’ typically has a negative connotation in the modern mind (likely for the worse). It also seems to be one of the best interpretations since this allows all the difficulties I mentioned in the first post to disappear as follows:

If that is what ‘vengeance’ means (namely, ‘revenge that does not take into account what is actually due’) in 1472, then plainly 1472 can be consistent with the idea that ‘God can punish’. The line that immediately follows (namely that punishment follows from “the very nature of sin”) would simply clarify that the punishment of sin is simply giving the sinner the logical consequence of the nature of sin: death, be it temporal or eternal. Since the nature of sin is the act of turning away from life and goodness (namely God), then it follows that sin itself leads to the punishment of losing life and goodness. However, though death follows from sin, sin is not a sufficient explanation for the punishment:
1.) Laws of logic (namely the principle of identity and non-contradiction) guarantee that sin itself leads to the punishment of losing life and goodness.
2.) Either something other than God guarantees this law, and thus God is only God because of a cause other than Himself, or God is God only because of Himself and thus is the guaranteer of these laws.
3a.) Obviously the principle of identity is not caused by something other than God (or God is not truly the first cause for God would only be God because of something else).
3b) This can be seen in another way, for if identity were not caused by God, then everything that is would not be because of God (at least as a necessary cause), but because of something else.
**4.) **Thus God guarantees the laws of logic.
**5.)**Thus, insofar as God provides the laws of logic, God is in that way responsible (i.e. the cause) for the punishment of sinners.

Furthermore, all the quotes from the Bible, such as Judas’s suicide, the herd of Swine, and the mentioning of being turned over to the flesh as a punishment all elaborate on the truth that punishment follows from sin itself, but this does not mean that God is not also responsible for the punishment. He is, even while sin being basically its own punishment. In fact, the sinner’s rejection of God likely entails that he wants a delusion (a necessary falsehood or a contradiction) to not be a delusion. The sinner calls good what is evil (how can one try and violate the laws of logic more?) God sort of says that the truth is the truth, and that one cannot escape from the truth. Its kind of akin to a person jumping out the window who wills to fly. He can will it all day long, but his act is one that does not result in flying, but this is guaranteed by laws of aerodynamic and by gravity.

One further note. Though I think we should find God’s justice beautiful, we must not be soley consumed with it and forget that God is also all merciful. Where mercy is logically possible (i.e. before death) God has found a way to meet both it and justice through His gracious sin offering.

jochoa:

My thoughts on Jesus at the Temple
I think that His anger at the Temple is a demonstration of his humanity and development of learning the Word of God.

Thats an interesting thought. I’m not sure what the doctrinal status is on Jesus’ knowledge. If he had any, however, it would seem to be a venial sin if this act were wrong, and I don’t think Jesus committed venial sin even.

My Thoughts on “Acts of Anger as Purely Sinful”
I could agree that: since acts of anger are always destructive of peace, anger is not completely righteous. However, I cannot agree that anger is always sinful,

I think anger can actually be holy at times. Anger against sin itself has to be good (even if done in full knowledge and full consent) in my opinion. This entails that in those situations, the lack of anger may be sinful.

I hope I have not wasted your time

Of course not! Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

 

[jochoa]

Excellent Discussion and Thoughts!

I would say it often means an act that fulfills retribution (a revenge but a holy type of revenge insofar as it accords with mercy), and it need not be violent.

In my rewording, I mean to be in agreement with your statement. My difficulty in understanding your statement is your use of “holy” and “mercy.” I interpret the phrase, “a revenge but a holy type of revenge insofar as it accords with mercy,” as “a natural consequence following wrongdoing.”
In application:
Wrongdoing - I think angered thoughts towards my daughter for playing music too loud in the house.
Natural Consequence - The distress in my mind leads to headaches and poor decision making abilities on subsequent issues.

In order to accept the strict use of the word, “vengeance,” I think it is important to note the use of a quality of vengeance “as a kind of vengeance”]. There are many kinds of vengeance: Literally, Qualitative, & Hateful. Also there are varying qualities of violence, including zero violence. Therefore, the catechism is stating that God’s punishments will not be violent nor seeking revenge.
Literally seeking revenge would be desiring to cause the same pain in the same manner as the initial offense. Example: Eye for an Eye
Qualitative seeking revenge would be desiring to cause the same pain but in a different manner as the initial offense. Example: The initial offense is taking an eye, but the offender is blind, therefore the revenge desires an ear.
Hatefully seeking revenge would be desiring to cause greater pain than the initial offense.

Some questions regarding Jesus’ anger in the temple
How does the catholic church define sin?
Is there a difference between wrongdoing and sin?
Did Jesus commit a wrongdoing and/or sin against the Law of Love?
What is the catholic church’s stance on Jesus’ knowledge as a baby, teen, and adult? Did he have to learn God’s Word?

I believe the answer lies in the application of the Law of Love and the Law of Mercy. The Law of Love says to always be patient. If one were to get angered, they are not being patient and therefore and not being unconditionally loving. The law of mercy says forgive them for they know not what they do. God does not perceive Jesus’ anger as a sin because Jesus did not deliberately disobey His Word for he was doing the best given his understanding of the word at the time.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts and would like you to present a scenario in which you feel CCC #1427 does not hold true. Then we could discuss the factors involving the scenario.

 

[Y2K]

You are all mistaken.

exposingchristianity.com/

 

[Dranu]

In my rewording, I mean to be in agreement with your statement. My difficulty in understanding your statement is your use of “holy” and “mercy.” I interpret the phrase, “a revenge but a holy type of revenge insofar as it accords with mercy,” as “a natural consequence following wrongdoing.”

I am not quite sure I follow what you mean here. Here are some of my terms defined though:
holy

I’m not sure I agree. I would think eye for an eye justice is perfect justice, and God is just, thus he loves eye for an eye justice. What we have learned as Christians is that God is also all merciful. So although God still seeks eye for an eye justice (hence Christ being a sin offering), He takes that debt up Himself where it is possible.

Some questions regarding Jesus’ anger in the temple
How does the catholic church define sin?

Catechism definitions are 1849-1851. To sum it up, basically sin is an offense (will, word, or deed) against God.

Is there a difference between wrongdoing and sin?

No

Did Jesus commit a wrongdoing and/or sin against the Law of Love?

No.

What is the catholic church’s stance on Jesus’ knowledge as a baby, teen, and adult? Did he have to learn God’s Word?

Not sure.

I believe the answer lies in the application of the Law of Love and the Law of Mercy. The Law of Love says to always be patient. If one were to get angered, they are not being patient and therefore and not being unconditionally loving.

Should we be at peace and patient with evil or should we not be patient at all and seek to destroy it (often through non-physically-violent means nonetheless)?

Thus there is at least one good place for anger. If to love means to will the good of another, to love another (or ourselves) we must be angry at any sin that arises in another. If we follow the law of love, we should be angry with sin. I should add that our anger, if righteous, is not just fueled by the hate of sin alone, but primarily because of the love of God and His justice. So really this ‘hatred’ of sin is a type of love ironically. Furthermore, giving to sin what it is due (what God wills for it), is giving sin what is good for it. To will the good for another is to love. Thus, to will the destruction of sin (what sin is due) is to be loving towards sin . Now there are other ways to define hatred and anger rather than just ‘willing the destruction of something’ (as I use those terms). For instance, hatred and anger may be defined as willing evil for something. Under that definition, hatred and anger are always wrong.

The law of mercy says forgive them for they know not what they do.

That would not be purely mercy, it would also be justice. If one acts in ignorance, one is due far less punishment (out of justice). Mercy is forgiving a debt that a person really does owe. You see, our Father is so loving that He forgives us even if we knowingly commit some abomination (so long as we later turned with Him and hate the past sin too). To reflect on the precious sacrifice of Christ Himself is to stand in awe of just how gracious His mercy was (for God, being all just, still demanded justice with His mercy, as seen on the cross).

God does not perceive Jesus’ anger as a sin because Jesus did not deliberately disobey His Word for he was doing the best given his understanding of the word at the time.

This is an interesting possibility. It is contingent on what Christ’s knowledge was, etc.

jochoa:

I look forward to hearing your thoughts and would like you to present a scenario in which you feel CCC #1427 does not hold true. Then we could discuss the factors involving the scenario.

I think you may mean 1472, but I think there are no scenarios when it is wrong (my interpretation of it anyhow). That is, I think it is absolutely true

 

[DPMartin]

According to CCC #1472, the only two possible kinds of punishments (eternal and temporal), “…must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.” Now I suppose this can be interpreted in more than one way given the ambiguous term ‘vengeance’ and the context, but the most common sense translation seems to suggest it means “just punishment is sufficiently (completely) caused internally by the evil itself.”
Thus:
**1.) **God does not cause any punishment (since all such things are sufficiently caused by the sin according to this interpretation of the CCC)
2.) That which does not cause something cannot be said to have done it.
**Therefore:**God does not punish.
That is, there is no wrath that falls from the heavens sort of thing. There is no holy crusader bringing the hammer of justice to our demonic foes. Just punishment is ONLY evil’s suicidal nature. (and these ‘truths’ already seem (to me) kind of wrong and ugly)

Now, several New Testament Biblical passages seem to reinforce this (e.g. God cast out the daemons of legion but allows them to (rather than force them I believe) enter pigs which ends up killing themselves. E.g. Judas ends up killing himself rather than God striking him down. E.g. St. Paul talking about sinners being delivered to their flesh). Additionally, there is a great amount of truth that evil is often times its own punishment and doing right is often its own reward. However, this interpretation also renders a very large portion of the Bible non-literal (and does something very odd with Jesus’s whip-in-hand fury at the Temple). Like talks of the Eternal God changing, talks of God punishing must be viewed more as the sin itself punishing due to God’s lack of interference. Commands to put sin to death and to hate it must mean more like ‘ignore it’ (and love God instead) rather than to actually act directly against them. It also renders the acts of direct punishment by parents against their children or acts of the state against criminals that are not merely non-action, as ungodly. It also seems to render acts of anger to be purely sinful, since it is a affirmative will of the destruction of something, and the emotion of anger would likewise just be a temptation of hell and never a motivation for right action (and this evidence I find to be the most damning against the interpretation I mentioned)(again think of our Lord’s fury at the Temple. That certainly seems literal and does not seem allegorical).

Now this interpretation seems right, but I wonder if it only ‘seems’ right to me because I don’t desire it to be so (you know how things that seem like the harder path to take seem right just because of that) or because it actually is. It certainly seems to have some big hurtles to jump (as mentioned above). Any ideas on this view of God and punishment? Perhaps any ideas on the interpretation of that passage?

Dranu

Well we all know the Lord’s statement “vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.”

But doesn’t it seem true that the world is always trying to make you or someone else regret? Regret you did that, or said this. There are parents that would make their children regret that they were ever born into the world. There are national relationships that want to make each other regret what may have happened in the past. There are Churches that want to make the other regret what happened four, or five hundred years ago. In their anger they seek vengeance, by any means available to make the other regret. But that vengeance is not theirs to have, though they take it. Consider, Abel didn’t regret that the Lord respected him and his offering, but maybe Cain thought he should, and if Abel didn’t, then maybe Cain was going to make Abel regret it.

Consider what is regretted. If a man regrets the consequence of his action, then does he regret the action, or the consequence. Did King David regret, displeasing the Lord God he loved? Or did he regret the consequence? And note; of the same woman, was the next King. And even in the consequence, wasn’t the revelation of the threshing floor, as the location of the temple to be built, given?

As far as the Lord Jesus’ response to the merchants in the House of His Father. Consider when God made all things, all things have their place, even darkness. The order of things according to the will of God. And that which is out of its place given it, is not according to the will of God. If it is out of its place, then it’s in a place not given it. Hence Jesus having the authority to put things in their given place, that is out of its place. That which causes death and the promotion of that which cause death has no place with the living. No more then darkness has place in the Light. If the living give places for that which causes death, in their place given them, then Judgement is required to put everything into its rightful place. Hence the casting out of devils.

Merchandising is not a sin, but merchandising in the Father’s House has no place given it. And if they do, they are trespassing. We should note that this doesn’t please the Lord.

There is also when He sot to take fruit of the fig tree there was no fruit and He basically cursed the tree that it would feed no one no more. Therefore, if He expects fruit of His tree, then it best have it.

Remember they tried to make Jesus regret coming into the world speaking the Truth of God, and since He is the Truth of God in the world, He didn’t regret it after receiving the strips that heal us. They could not make Him regret being the Son of God in the son of man.

 

[jochoa]

Before I share my final thoughts on this issue, I want to say thanks for the excellent discussion. I have learned a lot from your interpretations and from seeking answers to the questions you encouraged.

About Retaliation
You are correct: God’s punishment is perfectly just.
However, I think the flaw from your initial post is the attempt to mesh Heaven with Earth. God can punish in Heaven/Next-Life, but will not punish on Earth. Therefore, you are also correct in that while on Earth, God does not punish. The natural consequence of the nature of sin is what administers punishment on Earth.

About Sin/Wrongdoing
I am sorry I did not provide this earlier, I just found the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The Church defines sin as the willful violation of the Law of God.
Therefore, there is a difference in wrongdoing and sin. The difference lies in the mindset of the doer. Sin requires the doer to know the Law, understand the Law, agree with the Law, and know how to apply the Law in living.

About Jesus’ Anger
After the incident in the temple, Jesus learned greater obedience and understanding of God’s Will/Word, and revealed this aspect of the Law of God:
Matthew 5:38-40 ESV
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, [1] let him have your cloak as well.
After stating this principle of the Law, Jesus went on to have the greatest patience (Free from All Anger) through an unjust crucifixion.

I hope I have helped make God’s Word more understandable, especially because I understand it greater from our discussion!

May peace be with you!

 

[JDaniel]

I think I am embracing the position that ‘God cannot punish’ is a false position. Therefore, I take the sentence in the Catechism (#1472) to have a different meaning than the apparent meaning and its strict logical entailment. I’ll put up my position by answering your gracious and thought through post, Jochoa.

I would disagree with that definition, and its my opinion that the Catechism probably does not mean that when it uses it in 1472. I would say it often means an act that fulfills retribution (a revenge but a holy type of revenge insofar as it accords with mercy), and it need not be violent. I do think, however, that the Catechism might mean a different term by it. For example, often in the history of the Church, the use of terms like ‘anger’, ‘wrath’ and ‘killing’ do not necessarily only mean the neutral term we normally mean by those terms, but the neutral term with an evil annexed to them (e.g. unrighteous anger, sinful wrath, and murder). Likewise, terms that often by their plain meaning mean something wholly good, have often been used to denote something neutral or even at times wrong. Vengeance, retribution, and vindication often fall under this (though I have less direct evidence of this, I am pretty sure some examples could be found…

Its my thought that the Catechism uses the term ‘vengeance’ in a similar matter. I think perhaps in this case it uses it in a negative sense rather than the wholly good or neutral sense’. ‘vengeance’ here, might mean something like ‘revenge that does not take into account what is actually due’. This interpretation would make a lot of sense since the Catechism was designed to teach the average modern reader the basic teachings of the Church. Being ever mindful of her audience, the Church likely took into account that the term ‘vengeance’ typically has a negative connotation in the modern mind (likely for the worse). It also seems to be one of the best interpretations since this allows all the difficulties I mentioned in the first post to disappear as follows:

If that is what ‘vengeance’ means (namely, ‘revenge that does not take into account what is actually due’) in 1472, then plainly 1472 can be consistent with the idea that ‘God can punish’. The line that immediately follows (namely that punishment follows from “the very nature of sin”) would simply clarify that the punishment of sin is simply giving the sinner the logical consequence of the nature of sin: death, be it temporal or eternal. Since the nature of sin is the act of turning away from life and goodness (namely God), then it follows that sin itself leads to the punishment of losing life and goodness. However, though death follows from sin, sin is not a sufficient explanation for the punishment:
1.) Laws of logic (namely the principle of identity and non-contradiction) guarantee that sin itself leads to the punishment of losing life and goodness.
2.) Either something other than God guarantees this law, and thus God is only God because of a cause other than Himself, or God is God only because of Himself and thus is the guaranteer of these laws.
3a.) Obviously the principle of identity is not caused by something other than God (or God is not truly the first cause for God would only be God because of something else).
3b) This can be seen in another way, for if identity were not caused by God, then everything that is would not be because of God (at least as a necessary cause), but because of something else.
**4.) **Thus God guarantees the laws of logic.
**5.)**Thus, insofar as God provides the laws of logic, God is in that way responsible (i.e. the cause) for the punishment of sinners.

Furthermore, all the quotes from the Bible, such as Judas’s suicide, the herd of Swine, and the mentioning of being turned over to the flesh as a punishment all elaborate on the truth that punishment follows from sin itself, but this does not mean that God is not also responsible for the punishment. He is, even while sin being basically its own punishment. In fact, the sinner’s rejection of God likely entails that he wants a delusion (a necessary falsehood or a contradiction) to not be a delusion. The sinner calls good what is evil (how can one try and violate the laws of logic more?) God sort of says that the truth is the truth, and that one cannot escape from the truth. Its kind of akin to a person jumping out the window who wills to fly. He can will it all day long, but his act is one that does not result in flying, but this is guaranteed by laws of aerodynamic and by gravity.

One further note. Though I think we should find God’s justice beautiful, we must not be soley consumed with it and forget that God is also all merciful. Where mercy is logically possible (i.e. before death) God has found a way to meet both it and justice through His gracious sin offering.

Thats an interesting thought. I’m not sure what the doctrinal status is on Jesus’ knowledge. If he had any, however, it would seem to be a venial sin if this act were wrong, and I don’t think Jesus committed venial sin even.

I think anger can actually be holy at times. Anger against sin itself has to be good (even if done in full knowledge and full consent) in my opinion. This entails that in those situations, the lack of anger may be sinful.

Of course not! Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Dranu:

Remember, there was also Sodom and Gomorrah. They were cities consumed by fire and brimstone for their sins. How would you respond to this?

God bless,
jd