ISN’T ETERNAL TORMENT UNJUST?

 

 

 

Perhaps the most serious charge brought against the righteousness of God is the charge that eternal punishment is unjust. It doesn’t seem fair that God would punish eternally for the wrongs that he been committed in this life. The famous atheist Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899) had charged:

 

·       “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.”

 

This 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 wouldn’t allow the death of babies and suffering in general.

 

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. This is because it is hard to precisely nail down the nature of eternal punishment. For example, the skeptic charges 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. For example, the former co-Head of The Biologos Foundation, which is devoted to promoting evolution to the church, had written, quoting Richard Dawkins affirmatively:

 

·       [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. http://biologos.org/blog/exposing-the-straw-men-of-new-atheism-part-five/

 

Although Karl Giberson didn’t mention his disdain for an eternal punishment, it seems likely that his understanding of and preference for “modern theology” would also lead him and many “Christian” evolutionists to question the NT teachings on eternal punishment.

 

 

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 objectively correct answers. To do so is absurd. However, this is exactly what the skeptic does when he claims that eternal punishment is unjust.

 

As an atheist, C.S. Lewis saw this glaring contradiction:

 

·       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. (Mere Christianity (MacMillan, 1960) p.31)

 

Lacking an objective standard of justice, Lewis perceived that atheism is unable to charge God or anyone else with injustice.

 

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 Germantown in NYC from his Ireland in the early 1930s. While he was watching a news clip in the 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, lacked authority to make a moral claim. This realization sent him into a moral tailspin, resulting in his becoming a Christian.

 

Does the skeptic have any substantive and objective basis for his indignation against the prospect of eternal judgment? Seemingly not!

 

Rather than being unjust, it seems that eternal punishment might be a necessary element of justice. It was also implemented to serve as a deterrent as the Apostle Peter had argued:

 

·       For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked…then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment. (2 Peter 2:4–7, 9)

 

Contrary to secular opinion, we need to know that God will ultimately judge. It is this knowledge that enables us to leave aside thoughts of revenge, hatred, and unforgiveness and to apply ourselves to what we have been called to do – to love.

 

Miroslav Volf, who has 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 that the practice of non-violence requires a belief in divine vengeance.

 

Volf knew that his stance would be unpopular in the West. He understood that when we have no substantive experience with victimization, we also 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. (The Reason for God, Dutton, 2008, 75)

 

Instead of the belief that hell leads to a more hellish society, it seems that the absence of this belief will incline us to seek our own form of “justice.” Why? The impulse to seek justice transcends the way we had been raised. Even children universally demand justice. Desiring justice is part of our human nature, and it demands expression and satisfaction.

 

Keller observes that in societies where the doctrine of eternal judgment 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.

 

The threat of eternal judgment seems to be a necessary element for a thriving society, as long as it is associated with the possibility of forgiveness.

 

PREMISE #2 - The God of the Bible promises eternal punishment.

 

To answer this question, we need to survey the entirety of the Bible’s teachings on this subject. Does God proactively torment the unbelievers with fire? I doubt it. It seems that much of the language of eternal fire is figurative rather than literal. Sometimes, 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 “fire” – Matthew 13:42, 50)

 

Clearly, both the language of eternal fire and outer darkness cannot be taken literally. They are even mutually exclusive. Besides, there are other verses mentioning eternal judgment as “the weeping and gnashing of teeth,” unassociated with fire or darkness, but with 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 of 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 of their perceived loss.

 

To complicate the matter further, eternal punishment is also referred to as “destruction”:

 

·       “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him [God] who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28; 2 Thess. 1:9; James 4:12)

 

In view of these uncertainties, the charges against God and defenses for God’s justice become difficult or even impossible to make.

 

It also seems unjust for God to punish all the lost souls with the same exact punishment. However, 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 we had (John 15:22, 24). Nevertheless, it seems that we all have some degree of evidence or light (Romans 1:18-20; 2:14-15). In any case, we reject God’s light in favor of the darkness of ignorance (John 3:19-21).

 

Besides these uncertainties, we are only given hints of the fate of stillborn or the aborted pre-born? However, it seems that judgment will coincide with one’s understanding and actions:

 

·       "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 deserves, they do teach that God will judge fairly, considering individual cases.

 

There are also other considerations that make it difficult for us to determine the exact nature of eternal punishment. It seems very 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 didn’t come to judge (John 5:45; 8:15; 12:47-49; Matthew 7:2). How then is the unbeliever condemned? It seems likely that he is self-condemned! How can this be?  “Whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not [refused to] believed (John 3:18).” Verse 19 reconfirms that judgment is a self-judgment. The unbeliever has the light but rejects the light in favor of the darkness and flees from the light, lest he be exposed. This means that, ultimately, we get what we want – either to remain eternally in the presence of the Light or to flee from it. What can be more just!

 

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 approach the light, but flee:

 

·       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 24:3-4; 15:1-2; Luke 21:36; Isaiah 2:20-22; Malachi 3:2; Rev. 6:15-16; 20:11)

 

It is very possible that this same hatred of the light, the sinner’s present self-condemnation, will also bring about their self-condemnation in the next life. Although this is horrific, we cannot easily charge God with injustice. Instead, it is we who are unjust! From this perspective, the sinner is merely 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 or a rubber-stamping of what we have 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 Cor. 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 of our eternal fate.

 

Likewise, 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.

 

However, doesn’t an eternal punishment, even if self-chosen, still call into question God’s justice? Not necessarily! Perhaps God will give the sufferers the option to pull-the-plug and face utter annihilation. Even though this option is horrific, it cannot be unjust. If God is the giver of life, there is nothing unjust about His allowing the self-condemned to extinguish it.

 

Nevertheless, the Bible consistently warns that the punishment is eternal, whether eternal death, fire, or darkness:

 

·       "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matthew 25:46)

 

The punishment will be just as eternal as “eternal life.” It is understandable that such verses are troubling. However, we do not know the exact nature of this eternal judgment. (Perhaps God will offer the sufferer the option of pulling-the-plug into eternal death?) Considering this uncertainty, the lover-of-Light will give God the benefit of the doubt, while those who hate the Light will find reasons to negate its existence. 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, and if we find this troubling, we should reconcile with Him before it is too late.

 

CONCLUSION – 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 loss didn’t 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. His meager understanding forbade him from bringing indictments against God and, therefore, he 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 didn’t 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 know that we are just a speck in this grand universe, we act as if we were nearly omniscient. Instead, we cannot even define the basics like the nature of time, space, matter, or light. The simplest things are beyond our knowing, and yet we too have the hubris to accuse God of injustice. Perhaps we too need to learn a little humility in keeping with our smallness and cosmic insignificance.

 

If eternal punishment is a reality, love requires us to warn. The greater the threat, the greater the need to warn. This is especially true regarding eternal punishment. In the West, we readily dismiss this threat as so barbaric that it couldn’t possibly be the design of a God of love. However, we refuse to consider how little we truly understand.

 

Keller calls hell “simply one’s chosen identity” (78). In other words, hell is something we choose. Lewis calls hell “the greatest monument to human freedom.” In “The Great Divorce,” 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. (78-79)

 

How do we nip it? By confessing our sins (1 John 1:9), 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 to turn to Christ, we embrace our final destiny. 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. (79)

 

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 Biblical sense. If we hate the Light so much in this life that, we will flee all the more hastily when confronted with His 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 them in the next life! By that time, their fate is sealed, along with their tastes and preferences.

 

This is horrific. What then must we do if we love the hell-bound? We must warn!

The skeptic will object that if God is omnipotent, he should have been able to achieve his “loving” purposes without a hell. However, the omnipotence of God is often misunderstood. Although God can do anything He wants to do, he cannot do it in absolutely any way.

Jesus prayed that there might have been another way for His Father to accomplish His Redemptive purposes apart from the Cross:

·       And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” (Matthew 26:39)

Evidently, there was no other way. This illustrates that God is limited in the ways He can accomplish what He wants. He has many limitations. God cannot sin, violate His promises, and even His character. This probably includes logic. This puts the kibosh on many logical perplexities like, “Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?”

I am guessing that these limitations also impact questions like, “Why cannot GOD create a world without suffering or eternal punishment?” Therefore, I trust that God has good reasons that I cannot fathom for creating as He had.