Skip to main content

Punishing People Doesn't Atone for Their Sin

  Little do some people know, punishing others for their sin will not atone for their sin, abrogate their sin, take care of their sin, or cleanse them of their sin. I am mainly speaking here about the misguided notion of humans punishing other humans for their sins.  Only Jesus Christ can take away sin because he was considered as a lamb without spot or blemish, the perfect sacrifice (according to 1 Peter 1:19, John 1:29, Hebrews 10:12).  Furthermore, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was once for all and doesn't require any further sacrificial atonement in any capacity whatsoever, and this concept is repeated often in the book of Hebrews (for example, Hebrews 9:12, 10:10, 10:14).
  There are forms of "punishing" people in church discipline and other aspects of life, but actual consequences never atone for people's sin, they only urge people to repent. Procedures should always resemble Biblical steps such as Matthew 18:15-17.
  People, in their wicked human nature, always tend to take their striving for revenge, vengeance, and punishment far beyond the Biblical idea of "eye for an eye."  A person who loses their eye typically wants to cut another's head off and eat their heart for breakfast. That is unrighteous behavior and thinking, and people should be using the civil and criminal courts to seek justice anyway. Jesus warned people in the sermon on the mount, "...do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also" (Matthew 5:39).
  A study of the civil ordinances in the Old Testament will reveal that many of the statutes follow the principle of restorative justice and restitution. The offender pays back the victim in a sum equivalent to the wrongdoing. Modern criminal justice should generally reflect the principles found in the civil ordinances of the Mosaic Law.
   All of this is notwithstanding the specific way in which God's wrath might be satisfied by punishing people in hell (though it is eternal punishment, so we can't assume the wrath is ever satisfied). The whole first part of this post was to communicate specifically as to how things are "under the sun" in terms of human relations (and what we have to consider about Jesus Christ), not how God's wrath is poured out against the unsaved. However, atonement has the specific connotation of reconciliation- sinners reconciling with a holy and just God. "When we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to Him [God] through the death of his Son (Romans 5:10; see also 2 Cor 5:18-19, Ephesians 2:16; Colossians 1:20). Punishment in hell has no aspect of reconciliation that I've ever seen the scriptures.
 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Personality Types and the Fall of Man Argument

   There will be some who will want to say that I was being illogical or unbiblical when I wrote the post about how personality differences get misunderstood.  Their argument is basically that differing personalities are a consequence of the Fall of Man- a consequence of the DNA getting disordered.  Therefore, they will say, that people who don't fit the "perfect personality" are sinful. God created one man, they will say, with a perfect personality (Adam).  In truth, they can cite Adam, Eve, and Jesus.  That argument is not correct, and I will stand my ground on this.    The reason why they are not correct is because they are making the unwarranted assumption all of Adam's descendants would have had the same personality had the Fall never happened. I can say with a fair degree of certainty that had the Fall never happened, there would have been different kinds of people with different personalities, it just would have been a more perfect world. ...

I don’t have legalism. That should explain things

    Many of you probably noticed that I have referred to secular songs multiple times in my posts. The reason why I can be a professing Christian and listen to and/or refer to secular songs is because I do not have the heresy of legalism. Others who adhere to legalism have been trying to say (wrongfully so) that believers in Christ are not ever allowed to listen to any “secular music.” That would be incorrect as speaking too simply and drawing a hard and fast boundary line for everyone where no hard and fast boundary exists.    If you want to know what legalism is, I am providing a few links here to explain it-  https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-Christian-legalism.html     https://carm.org/what-is-legalism   Legalism (when it occurs in the church) is basically (typically) the erroneous belief system which states that a person’s salvation depends on the continual adherence to rules of conduct and behavior (either to attain or mainta...

Going Against One's Word or Breaking Vows

    Inherent in the problem having to do with breaking a vow that one has previously made (from a Biblical point of view) is the classic distinction between "law" and "grace" which is talked about a great in the writings of Paul. It is not advisable to make a vow (Matthew 5:34-35), or to break a vow (Matthew 5:33), obviously because of the strict justice of God and His righteous standard. However, to think that a vow made foolishly, rashly, in error, while intoxicated, poisoned, mentally compromised, etc, must always be observed forever, is not only a wrong way or practice for being too legalistic, it would practically be heresy because one would be ignoring what Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross. The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross does away with the ceremonial ordinances of the Old Testament by fulfilling them, bringing them to completion in the bringing of a new covenant in Him. Well guess what? In the Old Testament ceremonial ordinances the Jews had a way t...