Why does God sometimes not punish the sinner but people related to the sinner?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DetectiveNiko
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DetectiveNiko

Guest
For example, in the story of David when his son was punished instead of David.
(You can argue that in turn that does still count as a punishment to David, but why not just punish him then and be direct ? Why punish his son who did nothing wrong ?)
This also goes for Pharaoh’s son and all the other Egyptian firstborns. I get that its supposed to be symbolism of what they did to them, but since when do you fight injustice with injustice ?
Why not kill Pharaoh instead ?
Just a question I was wondering about.
Thanks for the answers ahead of time 🙂
 
Really good, and deep question.

I’m not sure I am qualified to answer, but I’ll throw my thoughts out there.

Perhaps we need to look at a couple of events in John’s Gospel:
  1. The Man Born Blind
  2. The Raising of Lazarus
In John 9:3, Christ responds to the question of if the cause of the man’s blindness was his sin, or the sin of his parents: Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him.

And in John 11:4, the sisters of Lazarus feared if Jesus did not hurry to the side of their sick brother, he would die, we see: But when Jesus heard it he said, “This illness is not unto death; it is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by means of it.”

Now let’s next consider the deaths of the first born in Egypt, and the death of David’s son:

We might be looking at Death from the worldly instead of the spiritual perspective. After all, we do, as Christians believe that physical death is unavoidable, but that we have hope of the realization of the promise made by God for eternal life after death.

So perhaps through the deaths of these otherwise innocents, they gained entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven, because they were instrumental in showing to others, the glory of God.
 
Last edited:
Friend I appreciate your post, and will agree that LIFE itself in a sense is unfair, because Life IS THE GOF TEST.

Isaiah 43: 7 &21 “every one who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.” … the people whom I formed for myself t**hat they HEY MIGHT declare MY praise"

Isaiah 55:8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD.

IT BOILS DOWN TO WHO IS IN CHARGE … US OR GOD AND THE RESPONSIBILITY CAN’T BE SHARED.

The practice of one’s religious beliefs is termed .“faith”, because that is God’s planned expectation for us. NOT everything is to be logically understood, when we with human minds and intellects contemplate GODLY things…

Pray much therefore for the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Understandsing
Counsel
courage
piety
knowerdge
fear [Awe]
wisdom

The Holy Spirit will grant these as He deems fit and useful for each of us and for building UP His Church

Pray very much,
Patrick
 
I think that you have to take into consideration the totality of the event.

In the Jewish culture, it was important to have children. Women who were infertile were seen as being punished by Yahweh God.

Still there were several levels to David’s punishment; the first and most direct (though you do not seem to agree with it) was the loss of the child. While the woman may not have been involved in the murder of her husband and his soldiers (back them loyalty counted and a leader would have have several soldiers by his side, during battle, at all times who would give their lives for him (marines, if you will) and these too had to been killed in order to get to their leader), she was complicit with David in having the adulterous relationship. So the loss of the innocent child was also a cost of their adultery.

Another punishment was that David’s desire to build Yahweh God a Temple was rejected by God–‘you’ve spilled too much blood.’

Then there was the issue of his dynasty. His own son sought to kill him. His power and wealth was taken from him and his own son took residency, in his palace/s and took his concubines and made them his for all of Israel to mock David’s complete downfall.

I know that some of this seems kind of rough (like the innocent child dying); but consider that the Promise is that the Messiah is of the House of David and that through Him David’s kingdom will be eternal… so the first child was rejected as the child of the Promise and Salomon continue the line.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
The Old Testament book of Wisdom contains half a chapter on the righteous who die young that you might find worth reading. See Wisdom 3:1-12.
 
Last edited:
Some passages say that God doesn’t punish people for the sins of others, and some say he does.

Examples of ones that claim he does not:

Jeremiah 31:30 “But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.”

Deuteronomy 24:16 “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”

It’s important to note that not only does it say that God killed David’s son, but that he made the child very ill and suffered six days before dying on the seventh. Even if people want to claim God had to kill the boy for David’s sin, the suffering seems unneceseraily cruel (beyond the existing cruelty of killing a boy because his father cheated).
 
The same question can be applied to not investing in the world (investing in heaven instead) and the parable of the workers who were told to use their funds and the one who buried the coin was repremanded. It’s a good question…
 
Hereiam said:
In John 9:3, Christ responds to the question of if the cause of the man’s blindness was his sin, or the sin of his parents: Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him.

And in John 11:4, the sisters of Lazarus feared if Jesus did not hurry to the side of their sick brother, he would die, we see: But when Jesus heard it he said, “This illness is not unto death; it is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by means of it.”
Click to expand...
Nice approach…!

I think I would just add that it’s important to note that these events didn’t take place in order to glorify God; they took place and God was glorified. In other words, a malevolent God did not cause evil in order that good might come of it. Rather, evil occurred, and God made something good come of it.

So, bastard sons of Davidic kings do not become heirs to the throne. (This is a good thing.) God doesn’t cause it, although there’s a certain nuance that’s necessary to recognize here: in the time when this happened, they believed that God was the primary cause of everything that happened in the world. (If he wasn’t, they reasoned, and something occurred that God didn’t want to happen, then that would imply that God wasn’t all-powerful. The only other alternative, in their minds, was that God caused each event in the world, directly.) So, they might have thought He caused David’s son’s death, but that’s not how we understand God today.
 
Thanks. But, I would still beg to differ on the contention that the roles in the events in glorifying God were effect rather than cause. I only say that because of the words of Christ in both instances.

Christ pretty clearly says, in 9:3 that the man was born blind so “the words of God might be manifest in him”.
And, in 11:4 that the illness of Lazarus was “so that the Son of God may be glorified by means of it.”

Pax et bonum.
 
Not sure if I am interpreting this correctly but:
Mike_from_NJ said:
Jeremiah 31:30 “But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.”
Click to expand...
The key note here is "but every one " or in other translations " instead everyone ".
I read through the whole passage and in context it seems to be referring to the new covenant.
I could not say what the core differences are between the covenants (besides the laws that God gave the isrealites) since I am not a theologian. But what I think I can say is it links to :
Mike_from_NJ said:
Deuteronomy 24:16 “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”
Click to expand...
Deuteronomy is a book that tackles the laws set for the Isrealites during their journey and their conquering of Jerusalem. So to me it seems, that the Deuteronomy passage put into context (Which you can clearly see when reading Chapter 24 as a whole ) talks about what the people ought to do, not what principles God uses.

But I think from that I got to change one part in the title : “Why DID God sometimes not punish the sinner…”
Might be poor exegesis on my part so I will let others tackle your objections. God bless.
 
Last edited:
Hereiam said:
Thanks. But, I would still beg to differ on the contention that the roles in the events in glorifying God were effect rather than cause. I only say that because of the words of Christ in both instances.
Click to expand...
That presents a real difficulty, though, wouldn’t you say?

If I understand you correctly, you’re implicating God in the production of evil!
Christ pretty clearly says, in 9:3 that the man was born blind so “the words of God might be manifest in him”.

And, in 11:4 that the illness of Lazarus was “so that the Son of God may be glorified by means of it.”
Click to expand...
Right: The effect of Lazarus’ illness was not ‘death’, but ‘the glorification of God’. Doesn’t address the cause of the illness, however.

In the case of the man born blind, Jesus’ disciples are asking “did God make this man blind because his parents sinned, or did God make this man blind because he sins?” Jesus rejects the notion that God makes people blind and replies that this man’s blindness will be the source of the regaining of sight of the people (to God’s glory). Again, we’re not saying “God made him blind so that…”, but rather “his blindness will be the cause of God’s vision-regaining miracle!”
 
No, not difficulty, unless I buy into the implication that God “made” the man blind, and God “made” Lazarus ill.

That would indeed be evil, and something God would not do.

Replace “God made” with “God allowed” and your concern is resolved.

What God did was make lemonade out of lemons! The man was going to be blind, and Lazarus was going to be ill; all God did was use a bad situation to make a good one.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, my “Reply to” was errant…I was replying to Gorgias when I posted:

No, not difficult, unless I buy into the implication that God “made” the man blind, and God “made” Lazarus ill.

That would indeed be evil, and something God would not do.

Replace “God made” with “God allowed” and your concern is resolved.

What God did was make lemonade out of lemons! The man was going to be blind, and Lazarus was going to be ill; all God did was use a bad situation to make a good one.
 
Last edited:
Hi, Mike!

Actually it says that Yahweh God struck the child not that He killed him for several days.

…as for the cruelty, yes, it does seems overkill; but are you God to propose how it should be done or am I so Knowing that I can tell God how to manage things?

That’s the huge conundrum; we look at what is in front of us and make judgments while ignoring the Full picture. While this child suffered a physical death, he did not suffer a spiritual death.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
DetectiveNiko said:
For example, in the story of David when his son was punished instead of David.
Click to expand...
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Death is not a punishment for those who have not sinned.

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come

Death of the body is a transition from this life to the next.

Philippians 1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

David’s child was a new born infant. He therefore, went to heaven when he died.
(You can argue that in turn that does still count as a punishment to David, but why not just punish him then and be direct ? Why punish his son who did nothing wrong ?)
Click to expand...
For those who commit sin, death is a punishment since they have to undergo the pains of hell. That means purgatory or gehenna.

But David’s child did not commit sin, therefore, for him death was only a transition.
This also goes for Pharaoh’s son and all the other Egyptian firstborns. I get that its supposed to be symbolism of what they did to them, but since when do you fight injustice with injustice ?
Why not kill Pharaoh instead ?
Click to expand...
Pharaoh did get killed. By and by. But his death was only after he had hardened his heart and therefore, he suffered both the first and the second death. Death of the body and death of the soul.

The children who died before the age of reason would not be guilty of any sin. The firstborn who died after the age of reason would be subject to judgement in accordance with their works.
Just a question I was wondering about.
Thanks for the answers ahead of time 🙂
Click to expand...
No problem. Thanks for asking.
 
Last edited:
The terms “God” and “injustice” should not appear in the same sentence. We are His creations - to do with as He sees fit. He is above morality as His motives are pure. Morality was imposed on us humans due to our concupiscence. In the case of David and his son, God’s justice reveals the temporal punishment due to David’s sin.

Remember also that Solomon had not yet been born, and David’s sin thwarted God’s plan for Solomon to be King in succession. Of course, God knew of this, but His love of freedom permitted it to occur, so that a greater good would come from it. Theologians have dissected this situation for centuries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top