Once upon a time, a naïve couple lived in blissful ignorance, unaware of their own lack of knowledge. Then, a cunning, malevolent figure exploited their innocence, convincing them they could become all-knowing, just like God. Seduced by this idea, they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, which opened their eyes to the vast world of information surrounding them. This act was based on the Serpent’s deceptive promise that eating the fruit would grant them complete knowledge. However, while humanity has gained more knowledge than any other known species, it remains a fraction of what can be known.
Imagine the entire range of knowledge as the vast array of fruits and vegetables that exist. In comparison, the knowledge that Adam and Eve—and, by extension, humanity—possess is like a single piece of fruit.
It is not arrogant for God to claim omniscience because He truly knows all. In contrast, when humans claim complete understanding, it only further reflects our inherent limitations.
This gap between our limited knowledge and the boundlessness of what can be known is fertile ground for sin. For instance, even the most astute judge can err disastrously if missing small yet crucial information. Similarly, everyday people make flawed decisions or judge others harshly because they lack a complete picture of circumstances. This propensity to judge, a mere example, illustrates how our limited understanding influences our actions.
Our inherent limitations—lacking complete wisdom, understanding, and knowledge—define our human condition. These constraints mean that we are inherently fallible as individuals and communities. God, in His perfection, embodies the ideal judge. To approach fairness, a human judge must gather as much wisdom, information, and experience as possible and take adequate time to consider the evidence. However, most human decisions, probably including that of Adam and Eve, are made under time and knowledge constraints, often exacerbated by mental stress, physical conditions, or emotional biases.
In this context of inherent imperfection, Jesus represents the exception. He provides a perfect standard against which we can measure and align our lives. While we lack a detailed instruction manual for every situation, Jesus offers a living example to live by. Emulating Jesus means adopting His life as a model for our own, where His teachings inspire our actions and theological understanding.
Striving to be Christ-like helps us mitigate the effects of sin. Yet, the reality of life’s complexities means that even with the best intentions, situations often demand knowledge we don’t possess, and decisions must be made in less-than-ideal conditions. This imperfection doesn’t just apply to moral dilemmas; it’s a pervasive part of the human experience. When someone cries out, “It’s not fair!” they often highlight this discrepancy between someone’s limited perception and the fuller reality.
As Christ-followers, we are called to bridge this gap with grace, recognizing that while we aspire to perfection, it is unattainable in this world. This recognition risks harshly judging ourselves or others. Instead, we should offer understanding and forgiveness. Humans, inherently limited and fallible, need patience and grace from God, each other, and themselves.
Should an Infinite God Infinitely Punish His Finite-Created Humans?
One of the more philosophically sophisticated arguments made by proponents of eternal punishment posits that while we are finite beings, emotional and with minimal understanding, our sins attain an infinite quality because they are committed against an infinite being—God. Thus, infinite punishment is deemed justifiable. This strange rationale, intriguing on faulty philosophical grounds, aligns with a common intuition: the gravity of an offense increases with the dignity of the person offended. For example, slapping a child is seen as less severe than slapping the king’s son. This argument was articulated by the 13th-century Dominican friar Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae:
The magnitude of the punishment matches the magnitude of the sin. Now a sin that is against God is infinite; the higher the person against whom it is committed, the graver the sin—it is more criminal to strike a head of state than a private citizen—and God is of infinite greatness. Therefore an infinite punishment is deserved for a sin committed against Him.
Thomas Aquinas
The belief that sin against an infinite God merits infinite punishment is flawed for the following reasons:
- The argument that sin against an infinite God merits infinite punishment weakens when we consider that God, being infinite, is beyond any harm or diminishment by human sins. God’s infiniteness implies that He cannot be truly hurt or damaged by our actions. In this sense, the impact of our actions on God is negligible, making it disproportionate to claim that these finite actions merit infinite consequences. If anything, God’s infinite nature suggests He can absorb and endure any offense without the need for extreme retribution—much like a parent absorbing their small child’s tantrum without feeling compelled to kill them. This perspective underscores the idea that God’s love is big and wide enough to endure everything. In this paradigm, God’s justice would focus more on correction and restoration rather than endless, pointless punishment, as He is not threatened or diminished by human wrongdoing. (If anything, God’s dignity is more likely injured by the slander of those who profess to worship Him yet impugn His character by teaching Eternal Conscious Torment! Even here, the real damage is done to those who reject God because of this false report.)
- The logic behind infinite punishment for sins against an infinite being leads to absurd ethical conclusions. For instance, if we follow this reasoning, it would suggest that cursing a prime minister or a pastor is a far worse crime than torturing and killing a pet dog or cursing a layman simply because the prime minister and pastor hold a higher position of authority. This conclusion is ethically bizarre, as it prioritizes offenses against status over tangible harm inflicted on sentient beings. It reveals the flawed nature of the argument, showing that it fails to consider the consequences of actions and the suffering they cause. Instead, it places undue emphasis on the status of the offended party, leading to a distorted and unjust moral framework based on class and status.
- If one accepts the premise that finite beings can merit infinite punishment, this has disturbing ethical implications for our understanding of justice and morality. It implies that any deviation from moral perfection, no matter how small, deserves the most extreme punishment possible, which leads to an untenable and ethically problematic worldview. This kind of moral absolutism is not only impractical but also unjust, as it ignores the nuances of human experience, intention, and the nature of actions.
- Humans, being finite creatures, are incapable of committing truly infinite sins. Our lives are limited in time and scope, and so are our actions. If the soul is truly infinite, then killing someone would only be a temporary interruption of their physical existence. To classify our offenses as deserving of endless punishment ignores the fundamental limitations of human existence and capability. Furthermore, suppose every sin is infinitely punishable because it is against an infinite God. In that case, this collapses all distinctions in the severity of sins, making all transgressions—from a woman lying about how her friend’s wedding dress looks to ISIS and Hamas raping or killing of children—equally heinous, which contradicts the biblical differentiation of sins (John 19:11).
- In God’s own law, as revealed in the Torah, justice is portrayed as proportional, often following the principle of lex talionis—“an eye for an eye” (Exodus 21:24). This principle of proportional justice does not align with the idea that finite human sins should incur infinite punishment. Biblical justice, in its most rational form, is based on proportionality—matching the severity of the punishment with the severity of the offense. Finite beings committing finite actions, regardless of the being against whom they are committed, logically deserve finite consequences. To argue that a finite action deserves infinite punishment because the offended party is infinite conflates the nature of the being with the nature of the offense, thereby committing the Category Mistake Fallacy and undermining the principle of proportional justice. In other words, the punishment should be proportionate to the crime, not to the status of the offended party. Can you imagine a loving father threatening their child, “If you don’t behave perfectly, because I am your father, I will have no other choice but to set you on fire! It’s only just!”? Or, can you imagine a judge handing down a 75-year prison sentence to an impoverished 18-year-old single mother because she stole baby food from a major retailer like Walmart instead of a small grocery store to nourish her hungry child? Clearly, this argument does not hold up logically.
- The argument hinges on the concept of infinity, but infinity in itself is complex and often misunderstood. Infinity cannot simply be applied to moral actions or consequences in a straightforward manner. Just because God is infinite does not mean that every action against Him carries infinite consequences. For instance, when the nation of Israel sinned against Him, the consequences were always of a finite nature. Infinity, in mathematics and philosophy, is not merely “bigger” or “greater” but represents a different kind of concept altogether, one that is absent from Israel’s Law and doesn’t deduct for moral actions.
- Punishment, by its very definition, is temporary and corrective. The very concept of a punishment with an infinite nature is self-contradictory. From a philosophical standpoint, infinite punishment could be seen as purposeless suffering. If punishment is intended to correct, deter, or rehabilitate, then an infinite punishment would be entirely ineffective in achieving these goals, as it offers no opportunity for learning, growth, or repentance. It becomes mere vengeance, which is not aligned with rational concepts of justice. Arthur P. Adams (1848-1920), a Methodist minister, wrote regarding the Greek word “kolasis,” which was translated as “punishment”:
The purpose of “punishment” is not only the protection of society, and the restraint of the offender, but also his reformation; this latter should be the main purpose of “punishment”; any “punishment” that is not conducive to this end is wholly unjustifiable, it is simply an attempt to overcome one evil with a greater evil; – now to talk about endless “punishment”, is nonsense, as much as it would be to talk of endless correction, or endless reforming. You might speak of endless torture, or endless suffering; but endless “punishment” is not a proper collection of terms at all.
Arthur P. Adams
Job
While philosophically compelling to some, this theory finds no support in Scripture. In fact, a similar argument is presented by the “Three Stooges” — Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad — in the story of Job and is challenged by Elihu:
I would like to reply to you [Job] and to your friends with you [Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad]. Look up at the heavens and see; gaze at the clouds so high above you. If you sin, how does that affect him? If your sins are many, what does that do to him? … Your wickedness only affects humans like yourself.
Job 35:4-8
Following Elihu’s speech, when God eventually speaks to the group, He condemns Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad but notably does not rebuke Elihu. This absence of correction suggests that Elihu’s perspective, which details the nature of God’s justice, was aligned with divine truth. Considering God’s silence on Elihu’s statements, it seems evident that the idea of infinite punishment lacks scriptural endorsement. This is further affirmed by the explicit divine disapproval of similar views held by Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad, making this philosophical argument for eternal damnation scripturally implausible.
In summary, the idea that sin against an infinite God merits infinite punishment is logically inconsistent with the biblical principles of proportional justice, risks portraying God in a negative moral light, misunderstands the concept of infinity, and leads to untenable ethical implications. A more rational approach would be to consider the nature and intent of the actions, the finite capacities of human beings, and the goals of justice, which should include fairness, correction, and the goal of redemption.
Why Only a Temporary Punishment Makes Sense
Consider this scenario: you’re driving, distracted for a moment, and tragically, you accidentally run over a baby, resulting in its death. It’s a horrifying situation, and it’s your fault. Suppose that the baby ends up in an eternal paradise. Would it then make sense for your punishment to be eternal torment in a fiery furnace once you die? Of course not.
This raises a significant point: if our ultimate destinations converge in the same eternal state, even the gravest misfortunes here are temporary. This doesn’t negate consequences, but it questions the necessity of eternal punishment.
Such a drastic scenario helps illustrate a broader theological debate: If God despises sin but loves the sinner, His justice system should aim to eradicate the (effects of) sin rather than destroy the sinners. It could be argued that even in the most morally depraved individuals, God’s image still exists. Therefore, for God to destroy or forever torture the sinner means He will also destroy or forever torture His own image in them.
What Purpose Could Eternal Torment Serve?
What, then, is the purpose of eternal torment? This question challenges the Augustinian-Calvinist concept of hell as a place of endless torturous punishment. Such retribution is neither corrective nor rehabilitative, offering no opportunity for the damned to change, improve, or seek redemption. Instead, it mirrors the unrelenting fury of immature, human-like vengeance rather than reflecting God’s just and merciful character as portrayed in the Bible. The idea of eternal torment seems to conflict with the God described as loving, forgiving, and compassionate—a God whose justice is restorative, not rooted in endless wrath.
Conversely, Jesus’s metaphors of individuals being remanded to prison and “delivered to the torturers, until he should repay everything he owes” (Matthew 18:34) or “you shall most certainly not emerge until you repay the very last pittance” (Matthew 5:26; cf. Luke 12:59) suggest a punishment of temporary nature rather than eternal torment. The language of “until” implies a set duration or a point at which the punishment will end once the debt is paid.
Conclusion
The “justice paradigm” advocating for eternal torment in hellfire posits that all sinners, and consequently all humanity, merit perpetual burning. However, this perspective seems fundamentally flawed. Human lives, while fleeting, are followed by an eternal existence; thus, the sins of our temporal lives, having temporary effects, should logically incur temporary punishments. What, then, is the purpose of eternal punishment? Is it merely retributive, serving no purpose other than to inflict sadistic pain for the sake of God’s amusement? How does this reconcile with the concept taught by Israel’s prophets of God as a gentle, loving parent who disciplines—not to destroy—but to teach and reform Israel:
A bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice.
Isaiah 42:3
Moreover, the idea of eternal torment is at odds with the eschatological promises found in Scripture, such as in Revelation 21:4, where God assures us that death, mourning, crying, and pain will cease. If eternal hellfire exists, how could these promises ever be fulfilled? Would God erase our memories of “unsaved” loved ones to spare us from eternal grief, thereby stripping us of our identities and experiences that have shaped us into who we are? Such a prospect raises disturbing ethical and theological questions about the nature and character of God.
If God’s punishment is indeed temporary, it does not diminish His justice but rather proves the principle that “where sin increased, grace increased all the more.” (Romans 5:20). God’s justice is not limited to retribution but is ultimately rooted in His desire for redemption and restoration of all things.
This article was a copy-paste from my new book on hell: HELL: A Jewish Perspective on a Christian Doctrine
