Divine Justice Issues (XXXI)

Is eternal punishment fair?

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels...And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Mattt. 25: 41, 46 esv) 

"when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.  They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed." (II Thess. 1: 7-10 esv)

These are two of the many texts of scripture which uphold the teaching of eternal punishment. Some who deny eternal punishment will sometimes argue that the word "eternal" (Greek "aiōnios") does not mean unending but simply means for a long time. But this is totally untenable. The same word is used for "eternal life" that is used for "eternal punishment." So, if we say that the punishment comes to an end then we will also have to affirm that the life will also come to an end. Also, the same Greek word is used when it speaks of God as being eternal. 

Some also want to say that "eternal punishment" denotes annihilation or extermination. But, again, this is not tenable. Dr. Robert Peterson at Ligonier (See here or here) writes under the heading "Annihilation or Eternal Punishment" that there are "six main arguments" that annihilationists use to prove their proposition. He gives those arguments in these words (emphasis mine):

"First is an argument based on the Bible's use of fire imagery to describe hell. We are told that fire consumes what is thrown into it, and so it will be for the lake of fire (Rev. 19:20; 20:10, 14, 15; 21:8)—it will burn up the wicked so that they no longer exist.

Second is an argument based on texts that speak of the lost perishing or being destroyed. Examples include unbelievers perishing (John 3:16) and suffering "the punishment of eternal destruction" (2 Thess. 1:8).

Third is an argument based on the meaning of the word eternal. In hell passages, it is claimed, eternal means only pertaining to "the age to come" and not "everlasting."

Fourth is an argument based on a distinction between time and eternity. Annihilationists ask: how is it just of God to punish sinners for eternity when their crimes were committed in time?

Fifth is an emotional argument that God Himself and His saints would never enjoy heaven if they knew some human beings (let alone loved ones and friends) were perpetually in hell.

Sixth is an argument that an eternal hell would tarnish God's victory over evil. Scripture declares that God will be victorious in the end; He will "be all in all" (1 Cor. 15:28). We are told that this idea seems hard to reconcile with human beings suffering endlessly in hell."

Dr. Peterson responds to these arguments and shows how they are not valid. He cites texts which speak of people being "tormented forever." (Rev. 14: 10-11; 20: 10) You cannot torment a person who no longer exists. Nor can you separate torment from consciousness. A person who has no cognition cannot suffer torment. We see this fact verified in the story of the rich man and Lazarus and of their conscious experience and condition in the afterlife (Luke 16) where we find the rich man in the fires of Hell (Hades) saying that he is "tormented in this flame." (Luke 16: 24) 

I like these words of Dr. Peterson:

"Fourth is the argument that it is unjust of God to punish sinners eternally for temporal sins. It strikes me as presumptuous for human beings to tell God what is just and unjust. We would do better to determine from His Holy Word what He deems just and unjust."

In answer to the question in the heading above, Google AI gives this Overview:

"Whether eternal punishment is fair is a complex theological and philosophical question with no universally agreed-upon answer. Some argue that it is a just punishment for sin, reflecting the gravity of offending a holy and infinite God. Others argue that it is an unfair disproportionate punishment, as a finite sin does not warrant an eternal penalty." 

In answering this question we must resort to the syllogism I offered in chapter three.

1. All that God wills and does is just. 

2. God willed and did A. 

3. A is just

This is essentially the same thing that Dr. Peterson stated in the above citation which I particularly liked. 

Transgression of God's law must be punished. That is a foundational principle of God's government and of his law and order. Forgiveness of sin cannot be given apart from satisfaction to law and justice. The question then becomes whether eternal torment in the fires of Hell is a just recompense. The scriptures teach that "every transgression and disobedience" receives from God "a just recompence of reward." (Heb. 2: 2 kjv) God is the lawgiver and the judge of all and therefore it is his right to dictate what is criminal and what is the punishment for crimes committed. So the scripture says:

"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us." (Isa. 33: 22 kjv)

"There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?" (James 4: 12 kjv)

Since God is the Creator of all, he has the sovereign right to make law and to command all to keep it. He also has the right to decree what the punishment will be for any violations of his law. Most believers in God will acknowledge this much. But some will object that God is being too harsh and cruel in sentencing sinners to unending punishment and torments. Some even criticize God by saying that he should be more lenient, perhaps only giving a slap for violations or put sinners on probation. 

The doctrine of eternal (or endless) punishment will rarely be accepted by those who are condemned by God. To them it will always appear to be a case of "cruel and unusual punishment" and which makes God to be cruel, harsh, severe, and tyrannical. This reminds me of that old hymn by hymnist Isaac Watts wrote titled "Show Pity Lord" where he writes these lyrics:

Should sudden vengeance seize my breath, 

I must pronounce thee just in death; 

And if my soul were sent to hell, 

Thy righteous law approves it well.

Like the penitent thief on the cross on the right side of Christ who said to the other impenitent thief "we are suffering justly for our crimes" (Luke 23: 41), so all those who go into Hell's eternal prison should confess the same as Isaac Watts says in league with the words of the penitent thief. 

The denial of eternal punishment gives the wicked hope; For even if he goes to the prison of Hell for his crimes, he will eventually "serve his time" and be able to leave Hell and enter Paradise. Or, if the wicked believes in annihilation at death, he will have no fear of judgment in the afterlife to deter him from sin. The denial of eternal punishment is the actual belief of all those who believe in universal salvation. It is also the belief of most Muslims and of other religions. One Muslim web page says this (See here):

"If the Qur’an and Hadith taught eternal hell, I wanted to know. So I dove into a study of both. I arrived at an undeniable conclusion: Islam does not teach eternal damnation for anyone. Here are seven reasons why Islam rejects the concept of eternal hell — for Muslims and everyone else." (emphasis mine)

Interesting is the fact that this Muslim is arguing against other Muslims who affirm that the Koran teaches endless punishment. Therefore it seems that Muslims are divided on the question as are Christians, except that eternal punishment in Islam seems to be a minority view whereas in Christianity it is the major view.

If everyone who goes to Hell will eventually serve his or her time and then be given release and right to enter Heaven, then it seems that the atoning sacrificial death of Christ becomes unnecessary. This is in fact the view of Muslims who reject the idea of Christ's sacrificial death, arguing that Allah has provided no substitute for any and that Allah is able to forgive sin apart from any satisfying of justice for those sins. They believe that it is unjust for a person to be punished for another persons' crimes, a question we have already addressed.

Matt Slick at CARM writes (See here - emphasis mine) under the heading "How just is the God of Islam?":  

"If a person commits a sin such as murder or theft, should that person be punished? The obvious answer is yes. But why should he be punished?

There are two primary reasons we can offer why someone who commits a sin should be punished. First, he has broken the law of God; and if God does not exercise punishment, then what is the purpose of the law? To not exercise punishment for sin is to permit the sin to exist without consequence. Second, he has harmed others; and if he is not punished, others will be encouraged to do the same.

Therefore, we can conclude that it is proper to exercise judgment/punishment for the crimes committed by individuals.

If the same person who has committed a sin, such as murder or theft, says that he is sincerely sorry for what he has done and that he would never do it again, should society excuse him from punishment? Maybe, maybe not.

God is holy and righteous; and if he didn’t carry (out) a punishment for sins, he would be allowing evil to exist without consequence. The result would be, essentially, to condone evil; and since God cannot do that, His justice requires that a proper punishment be incurred for each sin.

Likewise, if God did not punish someone because that person said he was sorry and would not do it again, then is God being just? After all, if he did not exercise the punishment for breaking his law, he is then permitting evil to exist without proclaiming its error or dealing with its consequence."

This is a good summation of the biblical teaching on forgiveness and on punishment for sin (or crime). 

Slick writes further:

"In Islam, a Muslim who commits murder and thievery can ask Allah for forgiveness and receive that forgiveness without Allah exercising any punishment whatsoever. According to Islam, Allah may forgive that person–if he so chooses. But doesn’t that mean the righteous judgment of Allah is not satisfied? Doesn’t it mean that the sin has essentially been ignored by forgiving it; and that the Law of God, though broken, has resulted in no punishment? Is this just–not to exercise punishment for the sins committed? It is not. No, for we have already established that punishment is the proper and righteous response to sin. Declining to punish is to avoid satisfying the law of God."

This is the teaching of the Christian scriptures. God is not only a God of love, mercy, grace, compassion, longsuffering and forbearance, but he is a God of justice and wrath against sin, one who hates iniquity and who will in no instance "clear the guilty." (Exo. 34: 7) Habakkuk says "Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrongdoing." (1: 13 niv) God cannot simply overlook sin, for it would be against his holy and righteous character and would encourage people to break his laws and to have no fear of divine retribution. And, as we will see, the "punishment will fit the crime" in God's sentencing sinners to eternal punishment. 

There are really only two options. Either God is 1) overreacting and "flying off the handle," or "making a mountain out of a molehill," for breaking God's law or 2) sin is extremely heinous and deserves eternal punishment. God is viewed by many as either too severe or too lax.

He writes further:

"In Christianity, every sin is dealt with by God in one of two ways. Either God satisfies the law by exercising his punishment upon the sinner by sending him to eternal damnation, or he places the sins of the person on Jesus Christ who suffers the punishment in place of the person. Either way, the justice of God is never ignored. It is proper that sin be dealt with by a punishment relative to the sin. To neglect to do so is to avoid being just. Therefore, we see that the God of Christianity is just because no sin goes unpunished."

 

Every religion that has the Creator forgiving sin without any satisfaction to divine justice has the adverse consequences that Slick points out. If there is no such satisfaction, and every criminal is forgiven and given no punishment every time he repents or says that he is sorry, then there will not be any respect for God's law, and people will be encouraged to sin for they will say to themselves "I will sin and then say 'I repent' and go on and do it again and again." There will be no fear of God. The same is true in regard to human government as Paul said.

"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil." (Rom. 13: 3-4 nkjv)

But this is also superlatively true when it comes to fearing God and his authority. God is also "an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil." People who have no fear of God or punishment in the afterlife lack restraints upon their evil ways. Fear of punishment by citizens for breaking the laws of the nation is a restraint upon criminal activity, and the easier it is for crimes to be committed without being caught and without severe judgment the easier it is to choose to commit crime. 

Saved Without Satisfying Justice

Unlike Islam and other religions that show the Deity forgiving sins apart from any punishment for sin or satisfaction to justice, Christianity does not. God justifies sinners on the basis of the law being satisfied by the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ. Notice how this is what Paul affirms in these words:

"For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." (Rom. 3: 22-26 nkjv)

Barnes Commentary says:

"That he might be just...refers to the fact that God had retained the integrity of his character as a moral governor; that he had shown a due regard to his Law, and to the penalty of the Law by his plan of salvation. Should he forgive sinners without an atonement, justice would be sacrificed and abandoned. The Law would cease to have any terrors for the guilty, and its penalty would be a nullity. In the plan of salvation, therefore, he has shown a regard to the Law by appointing his Son to be a substitute in the place of sinners; not to endure its precise penalty, for his sufferings were not eternal, nor were they attended with remorse of conscience, or by despair, which are the proper penalty of the Law; but he endured so much as to accomplish the same ends as if those who shall be saved by him had been doomed to eternal death." 

Under "Arguments Against Eternal Punishment as Fair" we have these points given by AI:

 

"Disproportionality: Some argue that a finite sin should not warrant an eternal punishment.

Lack of Opportunity for Redemption: The concept of eternal punishment may be seen as eliminating the possibility of redemption for those who repent later.

God's Love and Mercy: The concept of eternal punishment may be seen as contradicting God's love and mercy.

Unnecessary Cruelty: Some argue that eternal suffering is cruel and unnecessary, even if it is a consequence of sin." 

The only way to prove that eternal punishment is too severe is to lesson the heinousness of sin. But, it is the other way around for eternal punishment demonstrates the greatness of rebellion against God, which all transgression of God' law is.

 

Some want to know why Jesus needs not to suffer eternally to save from eternal punishment. Dr. John Piper responds to this we these words (See here):

"Now, the Bible does not say explicitly how this works. But just as we learned the demerit of sin by looking at God’s appointed penalty for it — namely, eternal punishment — so also we learn the merit, or the worth, of Christ and his suffering by looking at the achievement of it — namely, salvation for millions of hell-deserving sinners. So, the question becomes, What is it about the worth of Jesus and his suffering that makes it sufficient to remove the punishment of millions of sinners?" (Emphasis mine)

Though we may not fully grasp how it is so, nevertheless we are assured by the scriptures that Christ suffered the equivalent of eternal torment in his sufferings as a substitute for the sins of others.

Next he writes the following and cites from the learned Jonathan Edwards.

"Let me read you the answer given by Jonathan Edwards and then say a word about it. This comes from a sermon he preached in 1729 entitled “The Sacrifice of Christ Acceptable.” Here’s what he says: 

 

'Though Christ’s sufferings were but temporal [that is, not eternal], yet they were equivalent to our eternal sufferings by reason of the infinite dignity of his person. Though it was not infinite suffering, yet it was equivalent to infinite suffering, for it was infinite expense. His blood which he spilled, his life which he laid down, was an infinite price because it was the blood of God, as it is expressly called. Acts 20:28, “The church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” His life was the life of that person that was the eternal Son of God, though it was the life of the human nature. Now, upon this account, the price offered was equivalent to the demerit of the sins of all mankind, [and] his sufferings equivalent to the eternal sufferings of the whole world. (Works of Jonathan Edwards, 14:452)'"

That is the way Christian apologists answer the objection.

With this chapter we end our series on issues that people have with God's acts and judgments. Though there are several ways where many think God is being unfair, they are wrong to think that way. God is just and whatever he does is right and just even if we cannot fully grasp it completely.