The most serious philosophical charge brought against God is
the charge that eternal punishment is unjust. It is part of an even broader
challenge—the problem of evil and suffering. It goes like this:
·
If the God of the Bible is just, loving, and
omnipotent, He would not allow the death of babies, or suffering in general.
An answer to this challenge can be found in the words of
Paul:
·
I consider that our present sufferings are not
worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. (Romans 8:18)
If the tribulations and griefs of this life are no more than
a moment compared to a blissful eternity, Paul’s revelation offers a reasonable
reprieve from the problem of evil and suffering. Besides, the Bible assures us
that God has good reasons for allowing this evil for a limited time.
However, this does not answer the problem posed by the
doctrine of “eternal punishment.” For one thing, it doesn’t seem right that God
would eternally punish us for sins we
committed within our fleeting, ephemeral lives. The famous atheist Robert
Ingersoll (1833-1899) made this charge:
·
Eternal punishment must be eternal cruelty and I
do not see how any man, unless he has a brain of an idiot, or the heart of a
wild beast, can believe in eternal punishment.1
Put less crudely, the atheistic argument goes like this:
PREMISE #1: Eternal
punishment is not just.
PREMISE #2:
The God of the Bible promises eternal punishment.
CONCLUSION:
The God of the Bible cannot be just…or even exist.
PREMISE
#1: Eternal punishment is not just.
Admittedly, this challenge is difficult to address. Part of
the difficulty lies in the challenge of nailing down the precise nature of
eternal punishment. For one thing, there is the problem of figurative language.
For example, skeptics charge that they will not believe in a God who is “stoking
the eternal fires of hell.” Even “Christian” evolutionists question the just
nature of the God of the Bible. Karl Giberson, former co-head of The Biologos Foundation, which is
devoted to selling evolution to the church, quoted and affirmed the words of
the atheist Richard Dawkins:
·
[The OT God is a] “tyrannical anthropomorphic
deity… [who] commanded the Jews to go on genocidal rampages”…But who believes
in this [OT] deity any more, besides those same fundamentalists who think the
earth is 10,000 years old? Modern theology has moved past this view of God.2
Giberson did not mention his disdain for an eternal
punishment. However, it seems likely that his understanding of and preference
for “Modern theology” would also lead him and many supposedly Christian
evolutionists to question the NT teachings on eternal punishment. The following
are some questions about eternal punishment that I will try to answer…
Does God proactively
torment unbelievers with fire? I
doubt it. It seems that much of the language of eternal fire is figurative
rather than literal. In the same way, there are times when Jesus refers to hell
as “outer darkness”:
·
"Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie
him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will
be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'” (Matthew 22:13; also, 8:12; 25:13. Verses
including references to fire may be found in Matthew 13:42, 50)
Clearly, both the language of eternal fire and outer
darkness cannot be taken literally—they are mutually exclusive. Besides, there
are other verses describing what is associated with darkness or fire—“the
weeping and gnashing of teeth”—as being associated with neither fire nor
darkness, but of eternal regret:
·
"There
will be weeping there, and gnashing
of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the
kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out.” (Luke 13:28)
In this verse, “weeping…and gnashing” is not the product of
darkness or fire but a reaction to the eternal loss of blessing. This would
lead us to believe that eternal torment might not be the product of God
proactively tormenting these unfortunate souls, but rather the angst-filled recognition
of eternal loss.
Isn’t it unjust of God
to punish all of the lost souls with exactly the same punishment? On the contrary, it is apparent
that there will be degrees of punishment:
·
Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which
most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. "Woe
to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in
you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in
sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and
Sidon on the day of judgment than for you.” (Matthew 11:20-22)
Judgment will depend upon the amount of evidence for
believing that each of us receives from God (John 15:22, 24). Nevertheless, according
to the Apostle Paul, we all have some degree of evidence, or light (Romans
1:18-20; 2:14-15). However, we reject that light (John 3:19-21).
What about the fate
of babies or the aborted pre-born? What evidence for believing could they
possibly have been given? The Bible does not answer this question. However,
it does teach that the extent of punishment will be relative to the extent of
our guilt—what we knew and what we did:
·
"That servant who knows his master's will
and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with
many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment
will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will
be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will
be asked.” (Luke 12:47-48)
Although these verses do not explicitly lay out the punishment
that each one deserves, they do teach us that God will judge fairly, taking
into account individual situations.
Could it be that we
choose our own eternal punishment? There
are also other considerations that make it difficult for us to determine the
exact nature of eternal punishment. In fact, it seems Biblically possible that hell and our condemnation might be self-chosen:
·
“For God did not send his Son into the world to
condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is
not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he
has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict
[“condemnation,” KJV]: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness
instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates
the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be
exposed." (John 3:17-20)
Many verses inform us that Jesus did not come to judge (John
5:45; 8:15; 12:47-49; Matthew 7:2). How then is the unbeliever condemned? He is
self-condemned! How can this be? Referring
back to John 3: “…whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he
has not [he has refused and has not]
believed (John 3:18).” Once again, verse 19 reconfirms that judgment is a self-judgment. The unbeliever has the
light, but he rejects the light in favor of the darkness. He hates the light
and will flee from it.
Will this same condemnation accompany the unbeliever into
the next life and before the great judgment? It seems so. Many verses assure us
that those who reject the light will not be able to stand before it…or Him:
·
Not so the wicked! They are like chaff that the
wind blows away. Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor
sinners in the assembly of the righteous. (Psalm 1:4-5; also 15:1-2 and 24:3-4;
Isaiah 2:20-22; Malachi 3:2; Luke 21:36; Revelation 6:15-16; 20:11)
It is very possible that this same hatred of the light that causes
the sinner’s present self-condemnation will also bring about their
self-condemnation in the next life. Although this is horrific, in light of this
self-condemnation, we cannot easily
charge God with injustice. Instead, it is
we who are unjust! From this perspective, the sinner is choosing his own destiny—the darkness in which he
feels the greatest sense of comfort. How can this be unjust?
But doesn’t this theory circumvent the Bible’s teachings
that “…we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may
receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or
bad” (2 Corinthians 5:10)? No! The great judgment might simply represent an
affirmation—a rubber-stamping—of that
which each one of us has already chosen.
For the children of God, the great judgment will be a time
of rejoicing. This is because our fate has already been settled. It is then
that we will be changed, “…in a twinkling of an eye” (1 Corinthians 15:50-52)
to become like Him (1 John 3:2; 1 Thess. 4:14-17). Therefore, when we stand
before Him, there will be no doubt about our eternal fate.
It seems that the lover-of-darkness has also sealed his own
fate—by running from the light. In view of this possibility, no one can
coherently blame God or impugn His righteous, just nature.
Even if hell is self-chosen,
isn’t God still morally responsible for giving us this choice? Not
necessarily. Perhaps God will give the sufferers the option of pulling-the-plug
and facing utter annihilation. Even though this option is horrific, it cannot
be unjust. If God is the giver of life, there is nothing unjust about allowing
the self-condemned to extinguish it.
This is just a possibility. There is nothing in the
Scriptures that lays out this option. However, there is nothing that precludes
it. Admittedly, there is much about eternal judgment that remains unspecified
in the Scriptures.
Can the skeptic coherently say that
eternal punishment is unjust? To
claim that something is unjust, we need to compare it with an objective
standard of justice. However, skeptics have rejected an objective standard in
favor of moral relativism. They have become like the math teacher grading an
exam without an objectively correct answer key. To try to do so is absurd. Yet,
this is exactly what the skeptic does when he claims that eternal punishment is
unjust.
When C.S. Lewis was still an atheist, he came to see this
very predicament:
·
My argument against God was that the universe
seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of “just” and
“unjust”?...What was I comparing this universe with when I called it
unjust?...Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was
nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument
against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world
was really [objectively] unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my
private fancies….Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple.3
Lewis perceived that atheism was unable to bear the weight
of his life or to provide the roadmap he needed for navigating it.
The poet and atheist, W.H. Auden, learned the same lesson—that
secular humanism is unable to provide any moral basis for our indignation against
evil. Auden moved to Brooklyn from his native England in 1939. While he was watching a
news clip in a movie theater about the Nazi invasion of Poland, he was
horrified to see the audience rise to its feet to applaud and cry out, “Destroy
the Poles.” Auden wanted to take a strong moral stance against their response,
but he realized that—as an atheist—his values were merely self-constructed and,
therefore, lacking in any persuasive value. This realization sent him into a
moral tailspin, resulting in his becoming a Christian.4
Likewise, does any skeptic have a substantive, objective basis
for his indignation against the prospect of eternal judgment? Seemingly not.
v v v
Rather than being
unjust, it seems that eternal punishment is a necessary element of justice. Contrary to secular opinion, we
need to know that God will ultimately judge. It is this knowledge that enables
us to leave aside any thoughts of revenge, hatred, or unforgiveness. Instead, we
are free to apply ourselves to that for which we have been called—to love.
Miroslav Volf, who survived the civil wars of the former
Yugoslavia, has written:
·
The only means of prohibiting all recourses to
violence by ourselves is to insist that violence is legitimate only when it
comes from God…My thesis is that the practice of non-violence requires a belief
in divine vengeance.5
Volf knew that his stance would be unpopular in the West. He
understood that when we have no substantive experience with being victimized,
we also will have no experience of the overwhelming, life-controlling need to
avenge.
Writer and theologian Timothy Keller explains:
·
Can our passion for justice be honored in a way
that does not nurture our desire for blood and vengeance? Volf says the best
resource for this is a belief in the concept of God’s divine justice. If I
don’t believe that there is a God who will eventually put all things right, I
will take up the sword and will be sucked into the endless vortex of
retaliation. Only if I am sure that there’s a God who will right all wrongs and
settle all accounts perfectly do I have the power to refrain.6
However, would the belief in eternal punishment, justice,
and hell lead to a more hellish and heartless society? Rather, it seems that
the absence of a belief in eternal punishment and justice would push us to seek
our own revenge and to pursue our own “justice.” Keller observes that in
societies where the doctrine of eternal judgment is rejected, brutality reigns:
·
Many people complain that belief in a God of
judgment will lead to a more brutal society…[but] in both Nazism and
Communism…a loss of belief in a God of judgment can lead to brutality. If we
are free to shape life and morals any way we choose without ultimate
accountability, it can lead to violence. Volf and [poet Czeslaw] Milosz argue
that the doctrine of God’s final judgment is a necessary undergirding for human
practices of love and peacemaking.7
PREMISE
#2: The God of the Bible promises eternal punishment.
This is true. There are many verses that promise eternal
judgment or condemnation. For example:
·
"Then they will go away to eternal
punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matthew 25:46)
The “eternal punishment” mentioned by Christ in this verse
will be just as eternal as the “eternal life” that He conversely mentions. It
is understandable that such verses are troubling. However, as we have already
pointed out, we do not know the exact nature of this eternal judgment. Once
again, perhaps God will offer the sufferer the option of “pulling-the-plug” and
thus succumbing to utter annihilation. In light of this uncertainty, the
lover-of-light should give God the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, I often
respond to these challenges this way:
·
I don’t know how it will all come out in the
end, but I do know that our God is both merciful and just. I also believe that
our Creator has the right to judge His creation. If we find this troubling, we
should reconcile with Him before it is too late.
CONCLUSION:
The God of the Bible cannot be just…or even exist.
Job had also charged God with injustice, and it seemed that
he had good reason to do so. God had allowed Satan to deprive him of almost
everything, and Job was left devastated. However, his losses did not justify
Job’s allegations against God.
·
Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He
said: "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?
Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.” (Job
38:1-3)
The Lord then asked Job a series of questions, and Job could
not answer any of them. Job got the point. He understood too little to bring any
indictment against God and, therefore, repented:
·
The LORD said to Job: "Will the one who contends with the
Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!" Then Job
answered the LORD: "I am unworthy—how can I reply to you? I put my hand
over my mouth.” (Job 40:1-4)
What made Job unworthy? He was beginning to understand that
he had spoken presumptuously about things he did not understand:
·
“You [God] asked, 'Who is this that obscures my
counsel without knowledge?' Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know. You [God] said, 'Listen now, and I will
speak; I will question you, and you shall answer me.' My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have
seen you. Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes." (Job
42:3-6)
Many will find Job’s response repugnant, but why? We too
speak about things we do not understand. Although we—humankind—know that we are
just a speck in this grand universe, we sometimes act as if we were omniscient.
Yet, we cannot even define the basics, like the nature of time, space, matter,
or light. The simplest things are beyond our knowing, and yet—like Job—we have
the hubris to accuse God of injustice. Perhaps we too need to learn a little
humility in keeping with our cosmic insignificance.
If eternal punishment is a reality, then love requires us to
warn those around us. The greater the threat, the more genuine must be our drive
to warn. This is especially true in regards to eternal punishment. In the West,
we glibly dismiss this threat as so barbaric that it couldn’t possibly be the
design of a God of love. However, like Job, there are times when we refuse to
consider how little we truly understand.
Keller calls hell…
·
…simply one’s chosen identity apart from God on a trajectory into
infinity.8
In
other words, hell is something we choose. Lewis calls hell…
·
…the greatest monument to human freedom.9
Keller
quotes Lewis’ words from The Great
Divorce as he paints a vivid picture of how we choose hell:
·
Hell begins with a grumbling mood, always
complaining, always blaming others…but you are still distinct from it. You may
even criticize it in yourself and wish you could stop it. But there may come a
day when you can no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the
mood or even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself, going on forever like a
machine. It is not a question of God “sending us” to hell. In each of us there
is something growing, which will be hell unless it is nipped in the bud.10
How do we nip it? By confessing our sins (1 John 1:9) and
crying out for Christ’s mercy (Romans 10:12-13). How did we get into this mess?
According to Lewis, we continue to harden our heart against the Lord until we
have no heart left (Romans 1:24-28). With every refusal to turn away from our
sins and turn to Christ, we embrace our final destination. Lewis therefore
concludes:
·
There are only two kinds of people—those who say
“Thy will be done” to God or those to whom God in the end says, “Thy will be
done.” All that are in Hell choose it.11
Is this assessment Biblical? Keller correctly reflects that
there are no Biblical accounts of people pleading to be released from hell into
God’s presence (Luke 16). This makes perfect Scriptural sense. If we hate the light
so much in this life that we flee from it, we will flee all the more urgently when
confronted with His even greater intensity in the next life (John 3:19-21).
The Apostle Paul taught that we are a stench to those who
are perishing (2 Corinthians 2:14-16). How much more will our Lord’s glorious
presence nauseate those same people in the next life? By that time, their fate
will be sealed.
This is horrific. If we love the Lord, what then must we do
about those who are bound for hell? We must warn!
