Featured Retribultion Theology

Retribution Theology is basically the view that good deeds result in good things happening. That one who sows evil will reap evil. "One who sows to the flesh will of the flesh reap a whirl wind." Galatians 6:8

The thinking that bad happens as a result of sin is seen in the question given to Jesus, "Rabi, who sinned, this man or his parents?" (John 9:2)

This same thinking is carried over to expressions concerning God's wrath.

That God MUST have satisfaction for all injustice done to Him.

I will take the side that such theology is not Scriptural.

God does not present himself as vindictive (returning tit for tat), rather as both the Justice and the one who justifies. (Romans 3:26) He is that which listens for the confession and then does the cleansing (1 John 1:7-9)

At no point was Job reaping what he had sown.

At no point did Paul become healthy, wealthy, and wise from doing right.

So why is "retribution theology" so much a part of those who portray scenes of the Cross or of Heaven?

In my opinion, it is because even society demands such a view. A person is said to "get their just desserts" when punished for evil.

Yet, I don't consider the expanse of Scripture supporting such view. Even in the Old Testament, the retribution thinking was not carried through.

When an Israeli committed a grave offense, such that a group may desire justice, that offender could flee to a safe city. The offended could then go to the city and present their case.

If that person was found innocent, that person had to remain in the city, never to go out accept at their own risk until the death of the high priest. (I wonder if this is why the Israelis took up the practice of rotating high priests?)

If that person was found guilty, that person was taken by the offenders and punished.

Is this an example of retribution?

No, because the innocent still had to be restricted. There was not an grant or waver to allow freedom to travel at will.

Ultimately, retribution theology fails both from support of Scripture but also from natural inclinations.

For we all have had the occasion of expressing what in practice we would not perform. Yet, retribution theology would demand the performance.

For example, parents of a rebellious child could take the child to the city council (sitting at the gate) and ask if the child needed to be put to death.

Retribution would not allow for the asking, but the slightest rebelliousness would automatically result in stoning.

Your thoughts?

 

Neither place is actually retributive theology. It presents no redeeming value in the punishment, nor does it result in an equilibrium upon such punishment being endured.

This is the ultimate hazard of the retributive system because it obliges determined length in which each infraction is measured. At the end of serving the retribution, there is no more condemnation, and folks like the RCC and Mormons consider that humankind ultimately all reach heaven.


In particular to the examples you gave:

"The wages of sin is death."

How that death comes is appointed by God.

But it is still death. There is no "retribution" in death.

"Do not fear those that destroy the body and afterward have no power, rather fear Him who can destroy both the body and the soul in hell." (Matthew 10:28)

 

I didn’t redefine retribution.

Retribution theology rests on the thinking that just payment is made releasing the offender from further requirements the offended.

Death does not do that, just as I showed by the Scriptures, and why some groups insist some retribution after death, for they present that not all sins are forgiven and therefore must undergo some time in the flames.

 

This is a bit long, but I hope it will be helpful for the readers.

1 Corinthians 11 is a great verse. It is clearly an instructive verse in the expectations of God.

Perhaps the NASB may present as a bit easier to follow for the readers.

27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. 30For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. 31But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. 32But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.​

A question comes from the judgment thinking. Is the "discipline (chastening)" retribution, or is it corrective instruction in righteousness?

Remember, death is merely a transition carrying in itself no judgment or condemnation. It is as one born, an event. The manner of birth, the environment of the birth, ..., may impact what results are after the birth, but the birth is but a transition.

Therefore, are the sickly and soon dead retribution, or was it that of the natural effects of sowing (to the wind) and reaping (the whirlwind), and more, were these used as examples of the standard God expects. (A pattern seen often in the OT and NT)

There are times from our perspective that it may seem retribution theology is in effect, when, from the perspective of God, it is not.

For example, at the cross, the prophet Isaiah predicted what the reaction of those that passed by would be. "Those three got what they deserved." ("We esteemed Him smitten of God and afflicted." But, that was not at all what was actually taking place.

When humankind (especially in the OT) might look upon a matter as God's wrath and His retribution, there is actually that of instruction in righteousness taking place. From the time of Eden, God does not talk face to face with humankind. He instructs by demonstration.

For example: The fire slaying the two sons of Aaron. It wasn't retribution, for there was immediate death, but it was a demonstration of what God would and would not tolerate in such a manner that everyone could not mistake the lesson.

The same may be considered about those who "took unworthily" in the verse above, or Ananias and Sapphira in Acts, was it retribution or was it instruction in righteousness? From human perspective, one might attempt to explain it as just retribution, when in actuality there was no payment made, no removal of judgement from the offenders, but instruction in righteousness to the assembly.


To clarify the difference in the attempt to help in understanding for the readers:

Retribution carries the thinking of payment for a crime committed. That when payment is made, there is no more demand of payment. Typically the American justice system thinking. It results in a revolving door of crime and punishment, going along with the saying, "if you can't do the time don't do the crime." Retribution never works, not in the home, not in the society.

Godly discipline is not retribution based. Discipline is instruction based. A parent will discipline a child for wrongs, not to punish for the crime but instill the understanding that certain matters are acceptable and unacceptable. This is seen in the Corinthians passage, above.

Throughout the Scriptures (both OT and NT) "instruction in righteousness" is taking place.

A final rhetorical question.

Is there ever a time of retribution theology is found in the Scriptures? The answer is Yes.

There are (imo) two places it is seen.

1) the removal of Adam and Eve from the garden. (Not instructive, everlasting punishment)
2) the casting of all evil into the eternal Lake of Fire. (Not instructive, everlasting punishment)​

Neither has the goal of "instruction in righteousness" and presenting the standard of God's expectations as the determination of the events.

These are truly retribution with no credit given for time served, no early release dates, no parole, no escape, no limit or ending date.

 

But, is such punishment "retribution" or instruction in and encouragement toward righteousness?

It is like that statement in 1 John concerning "cleansing." We may not like the scour pad being applied, but removing the grime and polishing for shine, allows a greater unobstructed use of His light.

I did not chasten my son out of the need to have him suffer for a wrong done, but out of the desire he present himself more worthy of who he represented of who he was identified as belonging.

That I used a whip in the form of a board, leather, words, or look, my son knew such meant he belonged.

So, our Father chastens and beats every son, because such are identification marks that we belong.

 

When?

If in the present, then there is no reason for the lake of fire.

If in the future, then the lake of fire is determined upon sin and not belief.

All would then be cast in the lake of fire, for "All have sinned."

 

Some would desire it to be,

However, with the exception of the removal from Eden and the Second Coming, the presentation of Scriptures is consistently that of instruction of righteousness.

In your thoughts, flip through the pages of the history of Scriptures. Each event in which some human tragedy is expressed is used as instruction in the righteousness of God.