On the Punishment of the Wicked
This work will be dealing, as the title implies, with the punishment of the wicked and the justification of the righteous. The thought evolved from a work by a middle century philosopher by the name of Boethius. The book is titled The Consolation of Philosophy, and was written by Boethius after being imprisoned wrongly and sentenced to death. While the entire book is certainly fascinating, the part we are going to focus on is sub-book four: Good and Ill fortune. I want to begin with a quote.
But, lo! Herein is the very chiefest cause of my grief – that, while there exists a good ruler of the universe, it is possible that evil should be at all, still more that it should go unpunished. While wickedness reigns and flourishes, virtue not only lacks its reward, but is even thrust down and trampled under the feet of the wicked, and suffers punishment in place of crime. That this should happen under the rule of a God who knows all things and can do all things, but wills only the good, cannot be sufficiently wondered at nor sufficiently lamented. (Boethius, Translated by James, 78)
This question, which has been posed since the ages of recorded history began, rang specifically true with Boethius. He had been a man of great power and integrity. He was imprisoned, and sentenced to death, under false crimes. How could he not keep from crying out “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani!”? Why, O’ God, have thou forsaken me? Why, Perfect Goodness, do the wicked prosper over me? Why, why does evil prevail? The response that is given to Boethius by Lady Philosophy (the book is written as a dialect between Boethius and the embodiment of philosophy, Lady Philosophy) is extremely paradoxical. It is not logical, at first glance, and even frustrating.
It is because thou knowest not the end of existence that thou deemest abominable and wicked men to be happy and powerful. (Boethius, Translated by James, 18)
The first reply from Lady Philosophy is simple. Certainly, they appear to prosper. But the only reason the wicked seem to gain reward is because you have a warped sense of reward and justice. I want to expand on this point with a story.
James and Linn come home from their vacation to find their home ransacked and looted. They go in and find their forty six inch plasma high definition television gone, along with the mock Van Gogh that ran for a couple grand. Three hundred miles away, Miles just sold the painting and is currently sitting on his stolen couch watching a stolen forty six inch plasma high definition television drinking a stolen beer from the six-pack. He suddenly remembers and goes to a safe behind a painting, putting the six thousand dollars he got into the safe. He smiles as he nestles it safely, bringing his total value up to almost half a million dollars. He sighs with contentment and sits back down.
Now by our standards, how would we define justice? How would we define punishment?
In one version, the police would pay a visit to Miles. The television and couch would be returned, and the six hundred thousand dollars given back to those to whom it belonged. Miles would get six to ten and a year of therapy for his problem. He would then re-enter society a new and changed man, and make himself an honest living. Justice.
In another version, Miles never gets that knock on the door. He never repays the money, he never returns the couch. He lives in contentedness till he dies of old age in a nice retirement home. Justice?
Boethius argues that both cases, justice is served. The paradox occurs, however, when Boethius claims that in the second version, better justice is served. How, you ask, can Miles get away with his crimes and be even more justified? The answer lies in the shallowness of our perception. We think that righting the wrong will create justice. Boethius, however, claims that the very nature of going un-righted causes the evil (Miles) to become more evil. Simply put, the punishment of evil is to become more evil. Again, I want to rely on a section of The Consolation of Philosophy to explain my point.
“Then, all men, good and bad alike, with one indistinguishable purpose strive to reach good?”
“Yes, that follows.”
“But it is certain that by the attainment of good men become good?”
“It is.”
“Then, do the good attain their object?”
“It seems so.”
“But if the bad were to attain the good which is their object, they could not be bad?”
“No.”
“Then, since both seek good, but while the one sort attain it, the other attain it not, is there any doubt that the good are endued with power, while the bad are weak?”
“If any doubt it, he is incapable of reflecting on the nature of things, or the consequences involved in reasoning.”
(Boethius, Translated by James, 81)
Everyone is striving to reach good. The good do it through natural means, by virtue. The evil do it through unnatural means, by evil. The good are able to reach their goal, and as such, have power. The evil, however, are incapable of reaching their goal, and as such, have no power. Before we go back to our story, we need to establish one more precept. God is the ultimate goal of every life. As I stated, everyone is trying to reach good. Good is, by definition, God. It then follows that, whether or not men recognize it for what it is, God is the ultimate goal of our life. Now we can get back to the story.
At the end of the age, James, Linn and Miles are present. James and Linn are able to discern God, they are able to see Him and love Him, because they recognize good for what it is, and understand how to attain this good. The reward for the virtuous is increased virtuousness. Miles cannot see God, for he cannot recognize Him. He has spent his life seeking good through evil, and now, with the Perfect Good present, Miles passes Him by. The punishment of the evil is to become more evil.
We can now see clearly that, when the veil of improperly defined justice is lifted, the wicked are indeed punished and the virtuous rewarded. There is, however, one last point I want to clear up. I stated earlier that case two of the punishments is the worst of the two. I want to explain the reasoning behind that. In case one, however unrealistic, Miles is redeemed. He calls evil out for what it is and learns how to find good in a virtuous manner. Case two, however is the opposite. Miles continues to act uncorrected, and eventually leads himself into such a pit that he cannot discern between good and evil. You see, this is why God punishes His people. He knows that if we begin to engage in evil acts, we will fall quickly into a pit from which He cannot help us, at least not without removing our free will. Evil is a slippery slope, one that is filled with large drops and a dark hole at the bottom. God does not want that for us. He wants us to be able to discern good and evil, because He knows that when we can call it out for what it is, we will choose good.
So let’s conclude what we have discovered.
- The punishment of the wicked is to become more wicked. The reward for the virtuous is to become more virtuous.
- Unpunished evil is more dangerous than punished evil.
- Satan veils us with evil so that we cannot find God.
- God must punish us for our evil so that we can learn to love Him better.
God is good. In order to understand good at the end of the age we must first understand good on the earth. So I pray that we continue to search for good. I pray that when we are presented with the chance to perform good with no reward, we perform it. I pray that when we commit evil, we allow ourselves to be punished so that we can learn to find good. I pray that we become a people searching for good in a world cloaked in evil.
