Punishment
Punishment
The word punishment is employed to translate (1Jn 4:18 RV_) and (Heb 10:29). The corresponding verbs and , translated punish, are used indiscriminately (Act 4:21; 2Pe 2:9; cf. Act 22:5; Act 26:11); so that the classical distinction, exemplified in Plato and Aristotle, between , which regarded the retributive suffering, and , which regarded the correction of the offender, can hardly be pressed in the case of NT usage (for the distinction, see R. C. Trench, Synonyms of the NT8, London, 1876). Other words translated punishment are (2Th 1:9 RV_), (1Pe 2:14, vengeance in RV_), and (2Co 2:6).
The term punishment (Lat. pCEna) may be defined as pain or suffering inflicted in expiation of a crime or offence by an authority to which the offender is subject. The authority inflicting it may be human or Divine. The human authority may be civil or ecclesiastical. Human authority to inflict punishment is ultimately derived from a Divine source.
1. Punishment inflicted by human authority.-Under this head may be mentioned (a) that inflicted by civil authority. Roman magistrates, under the supremacy of the Emperor, in so far as they administered just laws, are regarded as executors of the Divine wrath or vengeance against evil-doers, and submission to their jurisdiction is made imperative on members of the Apostolic Church (1Pe 2:14; cf. Rom 13:1-5).
(b) That inflicted by ecclesiastical authority. () In the Jewish Church, the supreme Sanhedrin at Jerusalem and local Sanhedrins claimed and exercised the right to punish persons adjudged guilty of contumacy, schism (), or seducing the people. On the basis of such charges it was sought to make the apostles and others who adhered to their doctrine and fellowship amenable to punishment (Act 4:21; Act 22:25; Act 26:11). () In the exercise of discipline, the members of a Christian church, acting as a judicial body, were vested with the power to inflict censure, or the severer punishment of exclusion from the fellowship of the Church, on every brother who walked disorderly (1Co 5:3-5, 1Th 5:14, 2Th 3:6). In carrying out the sentence of exclusion, the name and authority of Christ, as King and Head of the Church, were solemnly invoked. While the extreme penalty of exclusion was called punishment (, 2Co 2:6; , 2Co 7:11), the object of its infliction was the ultimate restoration of the offender to Church privileges (2Co 2:6 f.; cf. 2Co 10:8, 2Co 13:10).
2. Divine punishment.-In passages in which the term occurs it is conceived as eschatological. (a) It is associated with the Intermediate State. () According to representations derived from apocalyptic literature, the fallen angels are depicted as undergoing punishment in Tartarus while awaiting the Final Judgment (2Pe 2:9; cf. 2Pe 2:4, Jud 1:6; 1Pe 3:19). () The inhabitants of the Cities of the Plain have been continually subjected to punishment since the period when it was first inflicted upon them in the time of Lot (Jud 1:7 RV_).
(b) Punishment is associated with the Parousia. () At the Second Advent the heathen and unbelieving Jews who have persecuted or ill-used members of the Church are to receive the due reward of their deeds. The punishment meted out to them is more particularly defined as eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might (2Th 1:9 RV_). () Apostates from the Christian faith, being guilty of wilful sin, for which no further sacrifice is provided, are liable under the New Covenant to far severer punishment at Christs Return than that which overtook offenders under the Old Covenant (Heb 10:29 f.; cf. Heb 10:37).
The primary purpose of punishment, human or Divine, is to vindicate the law, and uphold the moral order of the world, which, in the absence of such sanction. would fail to command the respect of the law-breaker. Punishment may also be imposed with a view to reform the offender or to deter others from the commission of like offences by making an example of him. It must be maintained, however, that even should punishment fail to exercise a corrective or deterrent effect, its infliction as righteous retribution would still be justified (see W. N. Clarke, An Outline of Christian Theology, Edinburgh, 1898, pp. 253-255, and R. Mackintosh, Christianity and Sin, London, 1913, p. 215). Punishment is the natural correlate and consequence of guilt. It presupposes that the wrong-dcer is responsible for the acts which have exposed him to it, and justly merits its infliction. Divine punishment is the reaction of Gods holy nature against sin. It is the outward manifestation of the Divine wrath against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. As the manifestation of Gods just resentment, it is mainly, though not exclusively (in opposition to Ritschl, see A. E. Garvie, The Ritschlian Theology2, Edinburgh, 1902, pp. 307-310), eschatological. Punishment by itself, i.e. apart from disclosures of Divine grace, leading to the apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ (Shorter Catechism, A. 87), has no redemptive or remedial effects upon the character, and cannot produce repentance (Rom 2:4; Rom 4:15, 2Co 7:10). Doubtless it is for this reason that the future punishment of the impenitent is never regarded as tending to the purification of the sufferers. Whatever possibilities the eternal future may have in store, the NT draws a veil over the fate of those who have failed to improve the opportunity afforded by the dispensation under which men are now living.
Literature.-For theories of punishment, in addition to works referred to in art._ see F. H. Bradley, Ethical Studies, London, 1876, ch. i; J. Seth, A Study of Ethical Principles10, do., 1908, pp. 320-323; Borden P. Bowne, Principles of Ethics, New York, 1892, ch. x; G. F. Barbour, A Philosophical Study of Christian Ethics, Edinburgh and London, 1911, pp. 285-291, 409 f.
W. S. Montgomery.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
Punishment
(most properly expressed in Hebrew by some form of , pakad, strictly to visit, and in Greek by or , but frequently denoted by other terms). The following account is based upon the Scripture statements, with illustrations from ancient and modern sources. SEE CORPORAL INFLICTIONS.
I. Historical Review of Bodily Inflictions among the Hebrews. The earliest theory of punishment current among mankind is doubtless the one of simple retaliation, blood for blood, SEE BLOOD REVENGE, a view which in a limited form appears even in the Mosaic law. Viewed historically, the first case of punishmnent for crime mentioned in Scripture, next to the fall itself, is that of Cain, the first murderer. His punishment, however, was a substitute for the retaliation which might have been looked for from the hand of man, and the mark set on him, whatever it was, served at once to designate, protect, and perhaps correct the criminal. That death was regarded as the fitting punishment for murder appears plain from the remark of Lamech (Gen 4:24). In the post-diluvian code, if we may so call it, retribution by the hand of man, even in the case of an offending animal, for blood shed, is clearly laid down (Gen 9:5-6); but its terms give no sanction to that wild justice executed even to the present day by individuals and families on their own behalf by so many of the uncivilized races of mankind. The prevalence of a feeling of retribution due for blood shed may be remarked as arising among the brethren of Joseph in reference to their virtual fratricide (Gen 42:21). The punishmenit of death appears among the legal powers of Judah, as the head of his family, andl he ordered his daughterin-law, Tamar, to be burned (Gen 38:24). It is denounced by the king of the Philistines, Abimelech, against those of his people who should injure or insult Isaac or his wife (Gen 26:11; Gen 26:29). Similar power seems to have been possessed by the reigning Pharaoh in the time of Joseph (Gen 41:13).
Passing onwards to Mosaic times, we find the sentence of capital punishment, in the case of murder, plainly laid down in the law. The murderer was to be put to death, even if he should have taken refuge at God’s altar or in an asylum city, and the same principle was to be carried out even in the case of an animal (Exo 21:12; Exo 21:14; Exo 21:28; Exo 21:36; Lev 24:17; Lev 24:21; Num 35:31; Deu 19:11-12; and see 1Ki 2:28; 1Ki 2:34). Moses, however, did not allow parents to be put to death for their children, nor children for their parents (Deu 24:16), as did the Chaldeans (Dan 6:24) and the kings of Israel (comp. 1Ki 21:9; 1Ki 21:26).
The extensive prescription of capital punishment by the Mosaic law, which we cannot consider as a dead letter, may be accounted for by the peculiar circumstances of the people. They were a nation of newly emancipated slaves, and were by nature perhaps more than commonly intractable; and if we may judge by the laws enjoined on them, which Mr. Hume well remarks are a safe index to the manners and disposition of any people, we must infer that they had imbibed all the degrading influences of slavery among heathens. Their wanderings and isolation did not admit of penal settlements or remedial punishments. They were placed under immediate divine government and surveillance. Hence, wilful offences evinced an incorrigibleness which rendered death the only means of ridding the com munity of such transgressors, and this was ultimately resorted to in regard to all indiviluals above a certain age, in order that a better class might enter Canaan (Num 14:29; Num 14:32; Num 14:35). If capital punishment in Christian nations be defended from the Mosaic law, it ought in fairness to be extended to all the cases sanctioned by that law, and, among the rest, as Paley argues, to the doing of any work on the Sabbath day (Mor. Phil. b. v, c. 7).
II. Capital Crimes under Mosaism.
(A.) Absolute. The following offences also are mentioned in the law as liable to the punishment of death:
1. Striking, or even revilinlg, a parent (Exo 21:15; Exo 21:17).
2. Blasphemy (Lev 24:14; Lev 24:16; Lev 24:23 : see Philo, V. M. 3:25; 1Ki 21:10; Mat 26:65-66).
3. Sabbath-breaking (Num 15:32-36; Exo 31:14; Exo 35:2).
4. Witchcraft, and false pretension to prophecy (Exo 22:18; Lev 20:27; Deu 13:5; Deu 18:20; 1Sa 28:9).
5. Adultery (Lev 20:10; Deu 22:22 : see Joh 8:5, and Josephus, Ant. iii, 12, 1).
6. Unchastity
a. Previous to marriage, but detected afterwards (Deu 22:21).
b. In a betrothed mwoman with some one not affianced to her (ibid. Deu 22:23).
c. In a priest’s daughter (Lev 21:9).
7. Rape (Deu 22:25).
8. Incestuous and unnatural connections (Lev 20:11; Lev 20:14; Lev 20:16; Exo 22:19).
9. Man-stealing (Exo 21:16; Deu 24:7).
10. Idolatry, actual or virtual, in any shape (Lev 20:2; Deu 13:6; Deu 13:10; Deu 13:15; Deu 17:2-7 : see Joshua 7 and Jos 22:20, and Num 25:8).
11. False witness in certain cases (Deu 19:16; Deu 19:19). Some of the foregoing are mentioned as being in earlier times liable to capital or severe punishment by the hand either of God or of man, as (1) Gen 9:25; (5) Gen 12:17; Gen 20:7; Gen 39:19; (6) Gen 38:24; (8) Gen 19:38.
(B.) Relative. But there is a large number of offences some of them included in this list which are named in the law as involving the penalty of cutting off (; Sept. ) from the people. On the meaning of this expression some controversy has arisen. There are all together thirty-six or thirty-seven cases in the Pentateuch in which this formula is used, which may be thus classified:
1. Breach of Morals. Under this head we have the following: Wilful sin in general (Num 15:30-31). *Fifteen cases of incestuous or unclean connection (Lev 18:29; Lev 20:9-21).
2. Breach of Covenant, as follows:
*Uncircumcision (Gen 17:14; Exo 4:24). Neglect of Passover (Num 9:13). *Sabbath-breaking (Exo 31:14).
Neglect of Atonement-day (Lev 23:29).
Work done on that day (Lev 23:30).
*Children offered to Molech (Lev 20:3).
*Witchcraft (Lev 20:6).
Anointing a stranger with holy oil (Exo 30:33).
3. Breach of Ritual, as follows:
Eating leavened bread during Passover (Exo 12:15; Exo 12:19). Eating fat of sacrifices (Lev 7:25). Eating blood (Lev 7:27; Lev 17:14). *Eating sacrifice in an unclean condition (Lev 7:20-21; Lev 22:3-4; Lev 22:9).
Offering too late (Lev 19:8).
Making holy ointment for private use (Exo 30:32-33). Making perfume for private use (Exo 30:38). Neglect of purification in general (Num 19:13; Num 19:20). Not bringing offering after slaying a beast for food (Lev 17:9). Not slaying the animal at the tabernacle door (Lev 17:4). Touching holy things illegally (Num 4:15; Num 4:18; Num 4:20; and see 2Sa 6:7; 2Ch 26:21).
In the foregoing list, which, it will be seen, is classified according to the view supposed to be taken by the law of the principle of condemnation, the cases marked with * are (a) those which are expressly threatened or actually visited with death, as well as with cutting off. In those (b) marked , the hand of God is expressly named as the instrument of execution. We thus find that of (a) there are in class I seven cases, all named in Lev 20:9-16; in class 2, four cases; in class 3, two cases; while of (b) we find in class 2 four cases, of which three belong also to (a), and in class 3 one case. The question to be determined is, whether the phrase cut off be likely to mean death in all cases; and to avoid that conclusion Le Clerc, Michaelis, and others have suggested that in some of them the ceremonial ones it was intended to be commuted for banishment or privation of civil rights (Michaelis, Laws of Moses, vol. iii, 237, p. 436, trans.). Rabbinical writers explained cutting off to mean excommunication, and laid down three degrees of severity as belonging to it (Selden, De Syn. i, 6). SEE ANATHEMA.
But most commentators agree that, in accordance with the prim facie meaning of Hebews 10:28, the sentence of cutting off must be understood to be death-punishment of some sort. Saalschtitz explains it to be premature death by God’s hand, as if God took into his own hand such cases of ceremonial defilement as would create difficulty for human judges to decide. Knobel thinks death- punishment absolutely is meant; so Corn. a Lapide and Ewald. Jahn explains that when God is said to cut off, an act of divine providence is meant, which in the end destroys the family, but that cutting off in general means stoning to death, as the usual capital punishment of the law. Calmet thinks it means privation of all rights belonging to the Covenant. It may be remarked (a) that two instances are recorded in which violation of a ritual command took place without the actual infliction of a death- punishment: (1) that of the people eating with the blood (1Sa 14:32); (2) that of Uzziah (2Ch 26:19; 2Ch 26:21), and that in the latter case the offender was, in fact, excommunicated for life; (b) that there are also instances of the directly contrary course, viz. in which the offenders were punished with death for similar offences: Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10:1-2); Korah and his company (Num 16:10; Num 16:33), who perished from the congregation; Uzzah (2Sa 6:7); and, further, that the leprosy inflicted on Uzziah might be regarded as a virtual death (Num 12:12). To whichever side of the question this case may be thought to incline, we may perhaps conclude that the primary meaning of cutting off is a sentence of death to be executed, in some cases, without remission, but in others voidable (1) by immediate atonement on the offender’s part; (2) by direct interposition of the Almighty, i.e. a sentence of death always recorded, but not always executed. It is also probable that the severity of the sentence produced in practice an immediate recourse to the prescribed means of propitiation in almost every actual case of ceremonial defilement (Num 15:27-28). See Saalschtitz, Arch. Hebr. 10:74, 75, vol. ii, 299; Knobel, Calmet, Corn. a Lapide on Gen 17:13-14; Keil, Bibl. Arch. vol. ii, p. 264, 153; Ewald, Gesch. App. to vol. iii, p. 158; Jahn, Arch. Bibl. 257.
III. Penalties. Punishments, in themselves, are twofold, capital and secondary; and in the cases we are considering they were either native or foreign.
(A.) Of capital punishments, properly Hebrew, the following only are prescribed by the law.
1. Stoning, which was the ordinary mode of execution (Exo 17:4; Luke 20 :$; Joh 10:31; Act 14:5). We find it ordered in the cases which are marked in the lists above as punishable with death; and we may remark further that it is ordered also in the case of an offending animal (Exo 19:13; Exo 21:29). The false witness, likewise, in a capital case would, by the law of retaliation, become liable to death (Deu 19:19; Maccoth, i, 1, 6). In the case of idolatry, and, it may be presumed, in other cases also, the witnesses, of whom there were to be at least two, were required to cast the first stone (Deu 13:9; Deu 17:7; Joh 8:7; Act 7:58). The Rabbinical writers add that the first stone was cast by one of them on the chest of the convict, and if this failed to cause death, the bystanders proceeded to complete the sentence (Sanhedr. 6:1, 3, 4; Goodwyn, Moses and Aaron, p. 121). The body was then to be suspended till sunset (Deu 21:23; Jos 10:26; Josephus, Ant. 4:8, 24), and not buried in the family grave (Sanhedr. 6:5).
2. Hanging is mentioned as a distinct punishment (Num 25:4; 2Sa 21:6; 2Sa 21:9), but is generally, in the case of Jews, spoken of as following death by some other means. Hanging alive may have been a Canaanitish punishment, since it was practiced by the Gibeonites on the sons of Saul (2Sa 21:9).
3. Burning, in pre-Mosaic times, was the punishment for unchastity (Gen 38:24). Under the law it is ordered in the case of a priest’s daughter (Lev 21:9), of which an instance is mentioned (Sanhedr. 7:2); likewise in case of incest (Lev 20:14); but it is also mentioned as following death by other means (Jos 7:25), and some have thought it was never used excepting after death. Among the heathens this merciful preliminary was not always observed, as, for instance, in the case of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Daniel 3). The Rabbinical account of burning by means of molten lead poured down the throat has no authority in Scripture.
4. Death by the sword or spear is named in the law (Exo 19:13; Exo 32:27; Num 25:7), although two of the cases may be regarded as exceptional; but it occurs frequently in regal and post-Babylonial times (Jdg 9:5; 1Sa 15:33; 1Sa 22:18; 2Sa 1:15; 2Sa 4:12; 2Sa 20:22; 1Ki 2:25; 1Ki 2:34; 1Ki 19:1; 2Ki 10:7; 2Ch 21:4; Jer 26:23; Mat 14:8; Mat 14:10) a list in which more than one case of assassination, either with or without legal forms, is included.
5. Strangling is said by the rabbins to have been regarded as the most common but least severe of the capital punishments, and to have been performed by immersing the convict in clay or mud, and then strangling him by a cloth twisted round the neck (Goodwyn, M. and A. p. 122; Otho, Lex. Rab. s.v. Supplicia; Sanhedr. 7:3; Ker Porter, Trav. ii, 177; C. B. Michaelis, De Judicus, ap. Pott, Syll. Comm. 4: 10, 12). This Rabbinical opinion, founded, it is said, on oral tradition from Moses, has no Scripture authority.
(B.) Besides these ordinary capital punishments, we read of others, either of foreign introduction or of an irregular kind. Among the former,
1. Crucifixion (q.v.) is treated separately, to which article the following remark may be added, that the Jewish tradition of capital punishment, independent of the Roman governor, being interdicted for forty years previous to the Destruction, appears in fact, if not in time, to be justified (Joh 18:31, with De Wette, Comment.; Goodwyn, p. 121; Keil, 2, 264; Josephus, Ant. 20:9, 1).
2. Drowning, though not ordered under the law, was practiced at Rome, and is said by St. Jerome to have been in use among the Jews (Cicero, Pro Sext. Rosc. Am. 25; Jerome, Com. on Matthew lib. iii, p. 138; Mat 18:6; Mar 9:42). Josephus records that the Galilaeans, revolting from their commanders, drowned the partisans of Herod (Ant. 14:15, 20).
3. Sawing asunder or crushing beneath iron instruments. The former is said to have been practiced on Isaiah; the latter may, perhaps, not always have caused death, and thus have been a torture rather than a capital punishment (2Sa 12:31, and perhaps Pro 20:26; Heb 11:37; Just. Mart. Tryph. 120). The process of sawing asunder, as practiced in Barbary, is described by Shaw (Trav. p. 254).
4. Pounding in a mortar is alluded to in Pro 27:22, but not as a legal punishment. It is mentioned as a Cingalese punishment by Sir E. Tennant (Ceylon, ii, 88). Something similar to this, beating to death (), was a Greek punishment for slaves. It was inflicted on a wooden frame, which probably derived its name from resembling a drum or timbrel in form, on which the criminal was bound, and beaten to death (2Ma 6:19; 2Ma 6:28; comp. 2Ma 6:30). In Josephus (De Macce.) the same instrument is called , or wheel (5, 9). Hence, to beat tupon the tympanum, to drum to death, is similar to breaking on the wheel (Heb 11:35). David inflicted this among other cruelties upon the inhabitants of Rabbath-ammon (1Ch 20:3).
5. Precipitstion, attempted in the case of our Lord at Nazareth, and carried out in that of captives from the Edomites, and of St. James, who is said to have been cast from the pinnacle of the Temple; also said to have been executed on some Jewish women by the Syrians (2Ch 25:12; 2Ma 6:10; Luk 4:29; Euseb. H.E. ii, 23). This punishment resembles that of the Tarpeian rock among the Romans.
6. The Persians had a singular punishment for great criminals. A high tower was filled a great way up with ashes, the criminal was thrown into it, and the ashes, by means of a wheel, were continually stirred up and raised about him till he was suffocated (2Ma 13:4-6).
Criminals executed by law were buried outside the city gates, and heaps of stones were flung upon their graves (Jos 7:25-26; 2Sa 18:17; Jer 22:19). Mohammedans, to this day, cast stones, in passing, at the supposed tomb of Absalom (Fabri Evagatorium,, i, 409; Sandys, Trav. p. 189; Raumer, Palast. p. 272).
(C.) Of secondary punishments among the Jews, the original principles were,
1. Retaliation, eye for eye, etc. (Exo 21:24-25; see Gell. Noct. Att. 20:1). Retaliation, the lex talionis of the Latins, and the of the Greeks, is doubtless the most natural of all kinds of punishment, and would be the most just of all if it could be instantaneously and universally inflicted; but when delayed, it is apt to degenerate into revenge. Hence the desirableness that it should be regulated and modified by law. The one-eyed man mentioned by Diodorus Siculus (12) complained that if he lost his remaining eye, he would then suffer more than his victim, who would still have one left. Phavorinus argues against this law, which was one of the twelve tables, as not admitting literal execution, because the same member was more valuable to one man than another; for instance, the right hand of a scribe or painter could not be so well spared as that of a singer. Hence that law, in later times, was administered with the modification, Ni cum eo pacet, except the aggressor came to an agreement with the mutilated person, de talione redimenda, to redeem the punishment by making compensation. Moses, accordingly, adopted the principle, but lodged the application of it in the judge. If a man blemish his neighbor, as he hath done, so shall it be done to him. Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, wound for wound, stripe for stripe, breach for breach (Lev 24:19-22). He, however, makes wilful murder, even of a slave, always capital, as did the Egyptians. Roman masters had an absolute right over the lives of their slaves (Juvenal, 6:219). The Egyptians doomed the false accuser to the same punishment which he endeavored to bring on his victim, as did Moses (Deu 19:19).
2. Compensation, identical (restitution) or analogous; payment for loss of time or of power (Exo 21:18-36; Lev 24:18-21; Deu 19:21). The man who stole a sheep or an ox was required to restore four sheep for a sheep, and five oxen for an ox thus stolen (Exo 22:1). The thief caught in the fact in a dwelling might even be killed or sold; or if a stolen animal were found alive, he might be compelled to restore double (Exo 22:2-4). Damage done by an animal was to be fully compensated (Exo 22:5). Fire caused to a neighbor’s corn was to be compensated (Exo 22:6). A pledge stolen, and found in the thief’s possession, was to be compensated by double (Exo 22:7). All trespass was to pay double (Exo 22:9). A pledge lost or damaged was to be compensated (Exo 22:12-13); a pledge withheld, to be restored with 20 per cent. of the value (Lev 6:4-5). The sevenfold of Pro 6:31, by its notion of completeness, probably indicates servitude in default of full restitution (Exo 22:2-4). Slander against a wife’s honor was to be compensated to her parents by a fine of one hundred shekels, and the traducer himself to be punished with stripes (Deu 22:18-19).
3. Stripes, whose number was not to exceed forty (Deu 25:3); whence the Jews took care not to exceed thirty-nine (2Co 11:24; Josephus, Ant. 4:8, 21). This penalty was to be inflicted on the offender lying on the ground in the presence of a judge (Lev 19:20; Deu 22:18). In later times, the convict was stripped to the waist and tied, in a bent position, to a low pillar, and the stripes, with a whip of three thongs, were inflicted on the back between the shoulders. A single stripe in excess subjected the executioner to punishment (Macccoth, iii, 1, 2, 3, 13, 14). It is remarkable that the Abyssinians use the same number (Wolff, Trav. ii, 276). We have abundant evidence that it was an ancient Egyptian punishment. Nor was it unusual for Egyptian superintendents to stimulate laborers to their work by the persuasive powers of the stick. Women received the stripes on the back, while sitting, from the hand of a man; and boys also, sometimes with their hands tied behind them. The modern inhabitants of the valley of the Nile retain the predilection of their forefathers for this punishment. The Moslems say, The stick came down from heaven a blessing from God. Moses allowed corporal punishment of this kind by masters to servants or slaves of both sexes (Exo 21:20). Scourging was common in after-times among the Jews, who associated with it no disgrace or inconvenience beyond the physical pain it occasioned, and from which no station was exempt (Pro 17:26; comp. 10:13; Jer 37:15-20). Hence it became the symbol for correction in general (Psa 89:32). Solomon is a zealous advocate for its use in education (Pro 13:24; Pro 23:13-14; comp. Sir 30:1). In his opinion, the blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil, and stripes the inward parts of the belly (Pro 20:30). It was inflicted for ecclesiastical offences in the synagogue (Mat 10:17; Act 26:11). Among torturing or tedious penalties,
4. Scourging with thorns is mentioned (Jdg 8:16). Reference to the scourge with scorpions, i.e. a whip or scourge armed with knots or thorns, occurs in 1Ki 12:11. So in Latin, scorpio means a knotted or thorny switch. The stocks are mentioned (Jer 20:2); passing through fire (2Sa 12:31); mutilation (Jdg 1:6; 2Ma 7:4; and see 2Sa 4:12); plucking out hair (Isaiah 1, 6; Neh 13:25); in later times, imprisonment, and confiscation or exile (Ezr 7:26; Jer 37:15; Jer 38:6; Act 4:3; Act 4:18; Act 12:4). Imprisonment, not as a punishment, but custody till the royal pleasure was known, appears among the Egyptians (Gen 39:20-21). Moses adopted it for like purposes (Lev 26:12). It appears as a punishment inflicted by the kings of Judah and Israel (1Ki 22:27; 2Ch 16:10; Jer 37:21); and during the Christian tera, as in the instance of John (Mat 4:12) and Peter (Act 12:4). Murderers and debtors were also committed to prison, and the latter tormented till they paid (Mat 18:30; Luk 23:19). A common prison is mentioned (Act 5:18); and also an inner prison, or dungeon, which was sometimes a pit (Jer 38:6), in which were stocks (Jer 20:2; Jer 29:26; Act 16:24). Prisoners are alluded to (Job 3:18), and stocks (13:27). Banishment was inflicted by the Romans on John (Rev 1:9). As in earlier times imprisonment formed no part of the Jewish system, the sentences were executed at once (see Est 7:8-10; Selden, De Syn. ii, c. 13, p. 888). Before death, a grain of frankincense in a cup of wine was given to the criminal to intoxicate him (ibid. 889). The command for witnesses to cast the first stone shows that the duty of execution did not belong to any special officer (Deu 17:7).
(D.) Of punishments, especially non-capital, inflicted by other nations we have the following notices: In Egypt, the power of life and death and imprisonment rested with the king, and to some extent also with officers of high rank (Gen 40:3; Gen 40:22; Gen 42:20). Death might be commuted for slavery (Gen 42:19; Gen 44:9; Gen 44:33). The law of retaliation was also in use in Egypt (Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians, 2:214. 215, 217). In Egypt, and also in Babylon, the chief of the executioners, Rab-Tabbachim, was a great officer of state (Gen 37:36; Genesis 39; Genesis 40; Jer 39:13; Jer 41:10; Jer 43:6; Jer 52:15-16; Dan 2:14; Mar 6:27; Michaelis, Mos. Recht, iii, 412; Josephus, Ant. 10:8, 5). He was sometimes a eunuch (Josephus, Ant. 7:5, 4). SEE CHERETHITE
Putting out the eyes of captives, and other cruelties, as flaying alive, burning, tearing out the tongue, etc., were practiced by Assyrian and Babylonian conquerors; and parallel instances of despotic cruelty are found in abundance in both ancient and modern times in Persian and other history. The execution of Hamnan and the story of Daniel are pictures of summary Oriental procedure (2Ki 25:7; Est 7:9-10; Jer 29:22; Dan 3:6; Dan 6:7; Dan 6:24; comp. Herod. 7:39; 9:112, 113; see Chardin, Voy. 6:21, 118; Layard, Nineveh, ii, 369, 374, 377; Nin. and Bab. p. 456, 457). The duty of counting the numbers of the victims, which is there represented, agrees with the story of Jehu (2Ki 10:7), and with one recorded of Shah Abbas Mirza, by Ker Porter (Travels, ii, 524, 525; see also Burckhardt, Syria, p. 57; and Malcolm, Sketches of Persia, p. 47).
With the Romans, stripes and the stocks, , nervus and columbar, were in use, and imprisonment with a chain attached to a soldier. There were also the liberoe custodioe in private houses (Act 16:23; Act 22:24; Act 28:16; comp. Xenoph. Hell. iii, 3, 11; Herod. 9:37; Plautus, Rud. iii, 6, 30, 34, 38, 50; Aristot. Eq. [ed. Bekker] 1044; Josephus, Ant. 18:6, 7; 19:6, 1; Sallust, Cat. 47).
Exposure to wild beasts appears to be mentioned by St. Paul (1Co 15:32; 2Ti 4:17), but not with any precision. The lion’s den was a Babylonian punishment (Daniel 6), and is still customary in Fez and Morocco (see accounts of, by Hoest. c. ii, p. 77).
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Punishment
The New Testament lays down the general principles of good government, but contains no code of laws for the punishment of offenders. Punishment proceeds on the principle that there is an eternal distinction between right and wrong, and that this distinction must be maintained for its own sake. It is not primarily intended for the reformation of criminals, nor for the purpose of deterring others from sin. These results may be gained, but crime in itself demands punishment. (See MURDER; THEFT)
Endless, of the impenitent and unbelieving. The rejection of this doctrine “cuts the ground from under the gospel…blots out the attribute of retributive justice; transmutes sin into misfortune instead of guilt; turns all suffering into chastisement; converts the piacular work of Christ into moral influence…The attempt to retain the evangelical theology in connection with it is futile” (Shedd).
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
PUNISHMENT
As the supreme Lord and the perfect judge, God is the source of all justice. He loves what is good and is the giver of all blessings (Zep 3:5; Mat 19:17; Jam 1:17). He also hates what is evil and requires just punishment on the sins that people commit (Psa 94:1-2; Rom 12:19; Heb 10:30).
Order in society
God desires that human society function justly and orderly. Therefore, he has given to human beings the responsibility to administer justice in society and to carry out fitting punishments on wrongdoers (Rom 13:1-4; 1Pe 2:13-14; see GOVERNMENT).
Such punishments must always be just. They must not be relaxed to favour people of power and influence such as the rich; nor must they be imposed rashly to take advantage of defenceless people such as the poor (Exo 23:3; Exo 23:6; cf. Rom 2:11; Jam 2:6). Always the punishment must be in proportion to the crime (Exo 21:22-25; Deu 25:1-13; Gal 6:7). Where the wrongdoing involves loss or damage, the wrongdoer should compensate the person who suffers the loss or damage (Exo 22:1-6; Luk 19:8).
Punishment of wrongdoers should be carried out primarily because they deserve it, not because the ruling authorities want to use them to teach others a lesson (Deu 13:10; Deu 19:19; Deu 25:2; Luk 23:41; Heb 2:2). If, however, the punishment serves to warn others or reform the wrongdoer, so much the better (Deu 13:11; Deu 19:20).
Eternal punishment
Being a holy and righteous judge, God must punish sin (Joh 5:26-29; Rom 2:1-6). But Gods holiness and righteousness are not separate from his love. He has therefore provided a way of salvation so that when people repent of their sins and trust in his mercy, they can receive forgiveness. Christ bears the punishment of their sins for them (Heb 9:28; 1Pe 2:24; see JUDGMENT; PROPITIATION). Those who repent are forgiven and receive eternal life. Those who refuse to repent remain unforgiven and suffer eternal punishment (Mat 25:46; 2Th 1:9).
The word eternal indicates the nature, rather than the length of time, of the life or punishment. They belong to the eternal and spiritual world in contrast to the temporal and material world. Nevertheless, there is a terrible endlessness about the punishment, as Jesus clearly pointed out (Mar 9:43-48; see HELL).
There is no indication in the Bible that Gods judgment of condemnation on the wicked will be reversed. The judgment is final, and therefore the punishment is eternal (Mat 8:12; Mat 13:41-42; Joh 3:36; Rom 2:5-11). The punishment is not for the purpose of correction. It is for the purpose of carrying out the penalty that the person, because of his sin, deserves (1Pe 1:17; Rev 16:6).
Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary
Punishment
PUNISHMENT
1. Gods punishment of sin.For the sufferings of Christ for sin, see Atonement: the present article is concerned only with the punishment of men. The Gospel teaching on this important subject can be briefly summarized in a few paragraphs:
(a) The fact of punishment.This fact is involved in certain explicit statements of our Lord Himself (Mat 13:41-42; Mat 25:46, Joh 15:2; Joh 15:6), and clearly suggested in more than one of His parables (Mar 12:9, Mat 13:30; Mat 22:13-14, Luk 13:9; Luk 13:22 ff.). It is further implied both in the recognition of Gods wrath upon men (Joh 3:36) and of a consequent difference in their destinies (Mat 13:41; Mat 13:43; Mat 25:46, Joh 5:29), and in frequent references to Gehenna (Mat 5:29; Mat 10:28, Mar 9:43-48, Luk 12:5) or to the place of outer darkness (Mat 8:12; Mat 22:13; Mat 25:30). So serious may this punishment be, that death would be a preferable alternative (Mar 9:42); and, unrestricted to individual transgressors, it may fall also both upon cities (Mat 10:15; Mat 11:21; Mat 23:38) and upon nations (Mat 21:43-44; Mat 23:35; Mat 23:38). The principle of punishment was illustrated in our Lords action (Mar 11:12 ff., Mar 11:15 ff. ||) as well as inculcated in His words.
(b) The expression of punishment.Gods punishment of men for sin, the fact of which is thus recognized by the Gospels, finds expression in different ways, () Our Lord seems to hint that even in the conditions of a mans present life the penalty of sin may sometimes be perceived. At least it would appear that in certain cases He allows that a connexion exists between sin and physical sickness (Mar 2:10-11 || Joh 5:14). Nowhere, however, does He approve the view, which emerges in the OT, that a similar explanation accounts for the presence in the world of human sorrow. (On the contrary, sorrow even becomes, in His esteem, a ground for rejoicing [Mat 5:4; Mat 5:10-12]). Apart from these vague suggestions of a physical penalty, the Gospels recognize both a present and a future punishment of sin. () There is a sense in which a mans judgment, and hence his punishment, is immediate. And not only is this true in that his sin involves remorse (Mat 26:75; Mat 27:4-5, Mar 6:16), but also because his very attitude to Christ automatically enriches his personality or issues in its impoverishment (Joh 3:18-19; Joh 9:1; Joh 9:11-12, Mat 25:28-29, cf. Luk 2:34). () There is a second sense in which a mans judgment lies in the future (Mat 13:41-43; Mat 25:31 ff. and frequently). A discussion of the punishment resulting from that judgment does not fall within the scope of the present article, and the reader is therefore referred to the separate study on Eternal Punishment. Here it will suffice to observe that, whatever be its accidents, the essence of punishment will consist in banishment from the presence of Christ (Mat 7:23; Mat 25:41); and that it will be marked by varying degrees of severity (Mar 12:40, Mat 10:15; Mat 11:22; Mat 11:24, Luk 12:48), each of us by his own use of opportunity providing his own criterion (Mat 5:7; Mat 7:1-2; Mat 10:33, Mar 4:24).
(c) The aim of punishment.Punishment may be conceived as either disciplinary or retributive in its purpose. Our Lord Himself, in all probability with deliberate intent, made no unmistakable pronouncement on the meaning of the doom of the rejected. All that we can do, therefore, is to deduce from His words certain general considerations bearing more or less closely on the end that punishment has in view () On the one hand, the teaching of the Gospels confirms the verdict of our own moral sense, that so long as there is any hope of a sinners recovery, the reformatory element must at least be prominent in the transaction. Inasmuch as judgment is self-acting (Joh 3:19; Joh 12:31), it inevitably accompanies Gods gift of His Son (Joh 3:18; see Westcott, in loc.); yet we are specifically taught that not judgment but salvation is Gods deepest thought for mankind (Joh 3:17; so Mat 18:14, Joh 6:39; Joh 8:11, Luke 15, cf. also Joh 5:24). It is in keeping with this that of the two words denoting punishment, and , distinguished in classical Greek as respectively remedial and penal in their purpose (so Plato; see Trench, Syn. vii.), it is the former that is preserved in the report of Christs teaching (Mat 25:46). That the classical shade of meaning is retained in the NT is signified by the suggestive use of in 2Pe 2:9, where the punishment precedes judgment, and therefore could scarcely yet be retributive. () On the other hand, the terms in which Christ refers to punishment (e.g. Mat 18:35, Luk 20:47 etc.) would seem to forbid us to reduce it to the mere equivalent of discipline; and He Himself, in speaking of sin that has no forgiveness (Mar 3:28 ||, cf. Mar 14:21 and 1Jn 5:16), distinctly implies a punishment that is retributive in character. The proportion in which these two elements in the Divine punishment of men are combined, is beyond our knowledge. Human analogies can merely give us vague hints, every analogy being to some degree imperfect, and therefore to the same degree misleading. Instead of seeking to dogmatize on what does not at present fall within the sphere of our understanding, it would seem wise to confine our conclusions to two broad principles:
(i.) The punishment of the sinner is such as Love can inflict. If God is Love (1Jn 4:8; 1Jn 4:16), there can be no act of His which is not an expression of His nature. Sometimes Love reveals itself as tenderness. Sometimes it reveals itself as wrath (cf. the striking sequence of verses in Mat 10:28-29; Mat 21:13-14); for if sin is more than a fiction, the measure of Gods love for the sinner will determine the severity of His anger against his sin. Indeed, the surest proof of the punishment of sin is to be found in the love of God. It is only something less than love that would palliate evil in the life of the loved one. If, therefore, punishment is an expression of Love, it will contain the elements of discipline and retribution in such proportion as Love demands. What that proportion is we cannot say: we must be content to leave ourselves in the hands of Perfect Love.
(ii.) Hence, too, it follows that the duration of punishment will be such as Love requires. It seems reasonable to expect that as soon as a sinner becomes forgivable, the retributive aspect of punishment is at an end, and discipline alone remains; and that when discipline has utterly failed to reclaim a man, it in its turn must give place to simple retribution. Of the precise point at which either crisis is reached we have no knowledge. In one place our Lord appears to hint that it may be beyond the grave (Mat 12:32), but, as we have already seen, He gave no clear guidance in the matter. Again, we must be content to leave ourselves in the hands of Perfect Love. (On the nature and purpose of punishment, see Moberlys valuable chapter in Atonement and Personality, ch. i.)
2. Forms of human punishment.(a) Among punishments mentioned as of general imposition are several which demand no detailed treatment. Such are decapitation (Mar 6:27, Mat 14:10), drowning (Mar 9:42, Mat 18:6), incarceration (Mar 6:17, Mat 5:25; Mat 18:30, Luk 23:19), and hanging (Mat 27:5), inflicted, according to Jewish custom, only for idolatry or blasphemy, and then only after the victim had already been put to death in some other way (Edersheim, LT [Note: T Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [Edersheim].] ii. 584). With these, too, may be classed the less familiar penalties of precipitation (attempted in the case of our Lord, Luk 4:29) and of mutilation (, Mat 24:51, Luk 12:46). Stoning (Luk 20:6, Joh 8:5, cf. Mat 21:44 || and Mat 23:35 ||) was imposed for many offences, including the unchastity of a betrothed maiden, idolatry, and blasphemy. On one occasion the Jews sought to inflict it on our Lord Himself (Joh 10:31). See art. Stoning. For excommunication, see art. s.v.
(b) The two prominent forms of human punishment inflicted upon Jesus were those of scourging and crucifixion. Scourging, used among the Jews as a penalty for debt (Mat 18:34) or for offences of a religious character (Mat 10:17; Mat 23:34), was also the customary precursor to Roman crucifixion. The Roman scourge was of leather thongs, weighted with bone or some form of metal. The victims suffering was so intense that it frequently led to death before the capital sentence proper could be carried into effect. According to His own prophecy (Mar 10:34, Mat 20:19, Luk 18:33), our Lord was subjected to this cruel instrument of torture (Mar 15:15, Mat 27:26, Joh 19:1). It was inflicted by Pilate in the hope that it would satisfy the passion of the Jews and render the crucifixion unnecessary (Luk 23:22; see Westcott on Joh 19:1). For the details of our Lords crucifixion (Mar 15:22 ||, cf. Gal 3:10-23) and their significance the reader is referred to the special article under that heading. Christ foretold this form of death for other witnesses to truth (Mat 23:34, and probably Joh 21:18) as well as for Himself (Mat 20:19; Mat 26:2, Luk 24:7, Joh 12:32-33).
H. Bisseker.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Punishment
The law required that capital punishment should be inflicted for reviling a parent, blasphemy, sabbath-breaking, witchcraft, adultery, man-stealing, idolatry, murder, etc. Capital punishment was by stoning, Deu 13:10; burning, Lev 20:14; the sword, Exo 32:27; and hanging, Deu 21:22-23. It appears that those who sinned at Baal-peor were first slain, and then hanged or impaled: Num 25:4-5; the word is yaqa, and for hanging is used only here and in 2Sa 21:6; 2Sa 21:9; 2Sa 21:13, when the seven descendants of Saul were ‘hung up to the Lord,’ which may also signify being impaled. There is no record in scripture of crucifixion being practised among the Jews. Capital punishment was at times carried out in ways not mentioned in the law: sawing asunder and cutting with harrows and axes, 2Sa 12:31; Heb 11:37; precipitation, 2Ch 25:12; Luk 4:29.
For minor offences there was flogging, which was restricted to forty stripes. Deu 25:3. A whip with three thongs accounts for the ‘forty stripes less one.’ 2Co 11:24. Also placing in the stocks. Jer 20:2-3. In other cases the punishment was according to the offence: “eye for eye, tooth for tooth,” etc. Exo 21:24-25. Imprisonment for definite periods was not customary as a punishment, though persons were imprisoned. Gen 39:20; 2Ki 25:27; Jer 37:4; Jer 37:18. Punishment was needed in the government of the nation of Israel, as it is in any nation now. God’s four direct punishments were “the sword, the famine, the noisome beast, and the pestilence.” Eze 14:21.
The Lord, referring to the law of an individual demanding an eye for an eye, enjoined forgiveness of personal wrongs; but this in no way interferes with civil government. Christians are exhorted to obey the ordained powers, pay tribute, etc.
Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary
Punishment
Death penalty:
– Shall not be remitted
Num 35:31
– In the Mosaic law the death penalty was inflicted for:
b Murder
Gen 9:5-6; Num 35:16-21; Num 35:30-33; Deu 17:6
b Adultery
Lev 20:10; Deu 22:24
b Incest
Lev 20:11-12; Lev 20:14
b Bestiality
Exo 22:19; Lev 20:15-16
b Sodomy
Lev 18:22; Lev 20:13
b Incontinence
Deu 22:21-24
b Rape of a betrothed virgin
Deu 22:25
b Perjury
Zec 5:4
b Kidnapping
Exo 21:16; Deu 24:7
b Upon a priest’s daughter, who committed fornication
Lev 21:9
b Witchcraft
Exo 22:18
b Offering human sacrifice
Lev 20:2-5
b Striking or cursing father or mother
Exo 21:15; Exo 21:17; Lev 20:9
b Disobedience to parents
Deu 21:18-21
b Theft
Zec 5:3-4
b Blasphemy
Lev 24:11-14; Lev 24:16; Lev 24:23
b Sabbath desecration
Exo 35:2; Num 15:32-36
b Prophesying falsely, or propagating false doctrines
Deu 13:1-10
b Sacrificing to false gods
Exo 22:20
b Refusing to abide by the decision of court
Deu 17:12
b Treason
1Ki 2:25; Est 2:23
b Sedition
Act 5:36-37
– Modes of execution of death penalty:
b Burning
Gen 38:24; Lev 20:14; Lev 21:9; Jer 29:22; Eze 23:25; Dan 3:19-23
b Stoning
Lev 20:2; Lev 20:27; Lev 24:14; Num 14:10; Num 15:33-36; Deu 13:10; Deu 17:5; Deu 22:21; Deu 22:24; Jos 7:25; 1Ki 21:10; Eze 16:40
b Hanging
Gen 40:22; Deu 21:22-23; Jos 8:29
b Beheading
Mat 14:10; Mar 6:16; Mar 6:27-28
b Crucifixion
Mat 27:35; Mat 27:38; Mar 15:24; Mar 15:27; Luk 23:33
b The sword
Exo 32:27-28; 1Ki 2:25; 1Ki 2:34; 1Ki 2:46; Act 12:2
– Executed by the witnesses
Deu 13:9; Deu 17:7; Act 7:58
– Executed by the congregation
Num 15:35-36; Deu 13:9
– Not inflicted on testimony of less than two witnesses
Num 35:30; Deu 17:6; Deu 19:15
Minor offenses, punishable by:
– Scourging
Lev 19:20; Deu 22:18; Deu 25:2-3; Pro 17:10; Pro 19:29; Pro 20:30; Mat 27:26; Mar 15:15; Luk 23:16; Joh 19:1; Act 22:24; Act 22:29
– Imprisonment
Gen 39:20; Gen 40
– Confinement within limits
1Ki 2:26; 1Ki 2:36-38 Prison
Entailed:
– On children
Exo 34:7; Jer 31:29; Lam 5:7; Eze 18:2-3 Affliction, Design of; Chastisement; Fine; Judgments; Retaliation; Wicked, Punishment of
According to deeds:
– General references
Job 34:11; Psa 62:12; Pro 12:14; Pro 24:12; Isa 59:18; Jer 17:10; Eze 7:3; Eze 7:27; Eze 16:59; Eze 39:24; Zec 1:6; Mat 5:22; Mat 16:27; Mat 23:14; Luk 20:47; Luk 12:47-48 Parables
– Of the vineyard
Isa 5:1-7
– Of the husbandman
Mat 21:33-41
– Of the talents
Mat 25:14-30 Judgment, Judgment According to Opportunity and Works
Delayed punishment
Psa 50:21; Psa 55:19; Pro 1:24-31; Ecc 8:11-13; Hab 1:2-4
Design of:
– To secure obedience
Gen 2:17; Exo 20:3-5; Lev 26:14-39; Deu 13:10-11; Deu 21:21; Deu 17:13; Deu 19:20; Pro 19:25; Pro 21:11; Pro 26:3 Judgments, Design of
Divine punishment, no escape from
Job 11:20; Pro 1:24-31; Pro 11:21; Pro 16:5; Pro 29:1; Jer 11:11; Jer 15:1; Jer 25:28-29; Amo 2:14-16; Zep 1:18; Eze 7:19; Mat 10:28; Mat 23:33; Rom 2:3; Col 3:25; Heb 2:3; Heb 12:25
Eternal:
– General references
Isa 34:8-10; Dan 12:2; Mat 3:12; Mat 10:28; Mat 18:8; Mat 25:41; Mat 25:46; Mar 3:29; Luk 3:17; Joh 5:29; Heb 6:2; Heb 10:28-31; Rev 14:10-11; Rev 19:3; Rev 20:10 Wicked, Punishment of
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Punishment
timoria (G5098) Punishment
kolasis (G2851) Torment
Timoria occurs once in the New Testament (Heb 10:29; cf. Act 22:5; Act 26:11), and kolasis occurs twice (Mat 25:46; 1Jn 4:18). The verb timorein (G5097) appears twice (Act 22:5; Act 26:11), as does kolazein (G2849) (Act 4:21; 2Pe 2:9). The classical use of timoria emphasizes the vindictive character of punishment. It was punishment that satisfied the inflicter’s sense of outraged justice and that defended his own honor or that of the violated law. The meaning of timoria, then, agrees with its etymology.
Kolasis refers to punishment that is designed to correct and better the offender. Thus Plato uses kolaseis and noutheteseis together. Several times in one passage in the Protagoras, Plato’s use illustrates the distinction we have drawn.
For nobody punishes wrongdoers… because one has done wrong in the past (unless he is taking blind vengeance like a beast)… but for the sake of the future, in order that one may not do wrong again.
Plato’s use of the terms may be compared with Clement of Alexandria’s, who defined kolaseis as “particular instructions” and timoria as “retaliation for evil.” Aristotle distinguished the terms this way: “Timoria [vengeance] and kolasis [corrective punishment] differ, for corrective punishment is on account of the one suffering wrong, but vengeance is on account of the one doing wrong, that there may be satisfaction.” Aulus Gellius referred to these and similar definitions.
It has been thought that there should be three reasons for punishing wrongs. One reason is what in Greek is called nouthesia [G3559, rebuke] or kolasis [punishment] or parainesis [L-S 1310, admonition]. It is punishment applied for the sake of correcting or reforming in order that one who has erred accidentally may become more attentive and improved. Another reason is what those who have differentiated these words more exactly call timoria [vengeance]. This is the reason for punishing when the dignity and prestige of the person wronged must be protected in order that an omission of punishment may not make him despised and diminish his honor. For that reason people think that this word was derived from the preservation of honor [time, G5092].
It would be quite erroneous, however, to transfer that distinction in its entirety to the New Testament use of timoria and kolasis.The kolasis aionios (everlasting punishment) of Mat 25:46 is not merely corrective and therefore temporary discipline but rather the athanatos timoria (eternal vengeance), the aidioi timoriai (everlasting vengeance) with which the Lord elsewhere threatens finally impenitent men (Mar 9:43-48).
Part of Aristotle’s distinction is reflected in the scriptural usage of the words. In kolasis the relation of the punishment to the punished is predominant, while in timoria the punisher is emphasized.
Fuente: Synonyms of the New Testament
Punishment
for 1Pe 2:14, AV, “punishment” (RV, “vengeance”), see AVENGE, B, No. 2.
in the NT denotes “penalty, punishment,” 2Co 2:6. Originally it signified the enjoyment of the rights and privileges of citizenship; then it became used of the estimate (time) fixed by a judge on the infringement of such rights, and hence, in general, a “penalty.”
akin to kolazo (PUNISH, No. 1), “punishment,” is used in Mat 25:46, “(eternal) punishment,” and 1Jo 4:18, “(fear hath) punishment,” RV (AV, “torment”), which there describes a process, not merely an effect; this kind of fear is expelled by perfect love; where God’s love is being perfected in us, it gives no room for the fear of meeting with His reprobation; the “punishment” referred to is the immediate consequence of the sense of sin, not a holy awe but a slavish fear, the negation of the enjoyment of love.
“justice,” or “the execution of a sentence,” is translated “punishment” in Jud 1:7, RV (AV, “vengeance”). See JUSTICE.
primarily “help” (see PUNISH, No. 2), denotes “vengeance, punishment,” Heb 10:29.
Note: The distinction, sometimes suggested, between No. 3 as being disciplinary, with special reference to the sufferer, and No. 5, as being penal, with reference to the satisfaction of him who inflicts it, cannot be maintained in the Koine Greek of NT times.