Conclusion

We have examined the biblical words for “hell.” Sheol and Hades, while often translated as “hell” in older versions of the English bible, are more appropriately left untranslated in modern versions. Moreover, these terms refer not to the final state of the wicked, but to the intermediate state between death and the final resurrection to life and judgment at Christ’s Parousia. Therefore, any argument that suggests that these terms simply refers to the “abode of the dead” and not to hell as eternal punishment is a red herring. The term Gehenna is used by Jesus as a metaphor for eternal punishment. That it refers to an actual garbage dump outside of Jerusalem is irrelevant because that image is meant to convey the prospect of never ending torment (as the fires of Gehenna burn continually, so also will the “fires” of hell).

We have also seen that the bible does indeed teach the doctrine of the eternal punishment of the wicked in hell, and it does so quite explicitly. We looked at three passages – Daniel 12:2; Matthew 25:46; and Revelation 14:11 – all of which teach that the future punishment of the wicked will be conscious and everlasting. There are other passages we could have looked at, such as 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 or Revelation 20:11-15. All of these passages share one thing in common: Their native context is that of the final judgment at the end times prior to the initiation of the eternal state. Arguments against these texts essentially consist in playing semantic and linguistic games with the text of Scripture (such as saying “eternal” does not really mean “eternal”); they are not the fruits of proper exegesis, but rather the inventions of clever eisegesis.

Finally, we have considered two major objections to the doctrine of eternal punishment – namely, that it’s incompatible with God’s goodness and his justice. In each of these cases, the objections originate from a misunderstanding of the attributes of God and the Creator/creature distinction.

It is clear from this brief treatment that the objections to the traditional view of hell and eternal punishment find their genesis out of a rejection of the God revealed in Scripture. As an old saying goes, “God created man in his own image, and man returned the compliment.” In our revulsion of the God revealed in the Scriptures, we have fashioned an idol; a God who is all love and no justice; a God who will indiscriminately forgive sin and allow people into heaven even if they reject his Son; a God who must bow to the dictates and understanding of the very creatures he has made.

Furthermore, in rejecting the doctrine of eternal punishment, we are rejecting the very revealed word of God. We fall into the same trap our first parents fell into in the Garden all those millennia ago when the Serpent tempted them by saying, “Hath God said?” These two concepts – the Triune God and his revealed word – form the foundation for all Christian thought and practice. When we abandon this firm foundation, we are left, as the Apostle Paul says, “Tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.”^[1]

Consider the ramifications of abandoning this doctrine. What happens to our evangelism? What happens to our exhortations to holy living? What happens to our theology? Without hell, our evangelism becomes meaningless; from what are we warning sinners to flee? Without hell, our exhortations become meaningless; what is the point of holy living if every one eventually gets to heaven anyway? Without hell, what happens to our theology becomes empty and meaningless; as H. Richard Niebuhr once said, “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a world without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.” As confessional Christians, we must defend this doctrine from its detractors; not because we glory in the eternal torments of the wicked like sadists, but because we glory in the Triune God of Scripture and in his revealed word. Venema was right in saying that our attitude toward this doctrine reveals our willingness to submit to the word of God.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Analysis of Arguments Against Eternal Punishment

If one abandons Scripture, doctrine becomes subject to our whims. The doctrine of eternal punishment in hell offends our modern sensibilities for many reasons. The esteemed Reformed theologian of the past century, Herman Bavinck, lists several reasons why people reject the traditional view of hell: 1) Eternal punishment is not compatible with the goodness, love and compassion of God; 2) eternal punishment is incompatible with the justice of God; 3) eternal punishment is simply unimaginable and inconceivable; 4) Scripture does not teach on eternal, endless punishment; 5) Scripture offers hope for the reconciliation and salvation of all people.^[1] We have already dealt with the fourth argument in the previous section of this paper and demonstrated that the bible does indeed teach the doctrine of eternal punishment. The third argument stems from a basic lack of understanding concerning the holiness of God and the severity of sin. Eternal punishment seems unimaginable because we tend to downplay the holiness of God and the seriousness of sin. The fifth argument lies outside the scope of this paper,^[2] but we can (and will) deal with the first two arguments. It should be noted that all objections to the doctrine of eternal punishment essentially reject or distort Scripture, grossly misunderstand and misrepresent the nature and attributes of God, and are based on emotion, human reasoning or both. Cornelis Venema makes an interesting point in his book, The Promise of the Future:

The doctrine of hell is a true test of our willingness to stay within the boundaries of Scripture when it comes to the subject of last things. At no point in our consideration of the Bible’s teachings about the future are we more inclined to allow our own judgment and opinions take precedence over an exposition of the Bible’s teaching and the church’s historic understanding. What we do with the subject of hell is a litmus test of our readiness to follow the way set out for is in the Scriptures, even when that way proves at times to be difficult and unpleasant.^[3]

This observation is apparent when we consider popular books like Love Wins, by Rob Bell, or even more scholarly responses to the doctrine of hell, such as that by philosophy of religion professor, Wilko Van Holten, who writes, “Rather, such deviation [from the traditional view of hell] should be preceded by an exposition of the untenability of traditional claims, and be based on good rational argument.”^[4] So what shall we say about the arguments offered against the traditional view of hell? Let us briefly consider the first two arguments Bavinck offers above.

ETERNAL PUNISHMENT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD

How could a God who is taught in Scripture to be infinitely good, loving and compassionate consign people to hell for all eternity? This seems to make God anything but infinitely good, loving and compassionate. How do we answer this question? The first thing we can offer by way of response is to affirm the premise of this argument; namely, that God is infinitely good, loving and compassionate. The bible does explicitly affirm that God is love (1 John 4:8), good (Psalm 25:8), and compassionate (Psalm 78:38). Moreover, God does not delight in punishing the wicked, but rather would that they would repent (Ezekiel 18:23). But we cannot pit the attributes of God against one another. While acknowledging that God is loving, compassionate and good, he is also just (Deuteronomy 32:4), righteous (Psalm 7:11) and holy (Isaiah 6:3). Furthermore, God, as Creator, is also Judge (Genesis 18:25), and a good judge must judge evil and punish it accordingly. God is the sum of all his attributes; they are not parts that are added onto to his essence – they are his essence. To say “God is” is to say, “God is love,” “God is good,” and “God is holy.” The question that must be asked to hell’s critics is can a God who is infinitely good not punish sin? Would we consider an earthly judge “good” if he did not execute justice on the evildoer? Another question that can be asked is assuming that eternal punishment is incompatible with God’s goodness, what about temporal punishment? If God is too good to punish unbelievers with an eternity in hell, is he not also too good to punish the unbeliever here on earth? The argument against the traditional view of hell based on its incompatibility with God’s goodness falls on its own sword. This argument essentially boils down to making God out to be like a permissive human parent who never disciplines his child.

ETERNAL PUNISHMENT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE JUSTICE OF GOD

Suppose those who argue against eternal punishment acknowledge that God, as just, must punish human wickedness. Granting that, the critics will then turn around and say that eternal punishment is incompatible with God’s justice. How can temporal, human sins warrant an eternity of punishment in hell? Is there not some measure of justice that dictates that the punishment must fit the crime? For example, God institutes the lex talionis in Exodus 21:23-25 (“Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth…”). There is no possible way our temporal sins can deserve eternal punishment. One answer to this conundrum is that the lex talionis is applicable to man, not God. God is not subject to human standards of judgment. The lex talionis was instituted to make sure human systems of punishment are just and to avoid over zealous retaliation (you injure me, so I kill you). However, we do not want to push this argument too far. While God is not to be held to human standards, we also do not want to say that God’s standards are completely alien to human standards. The bible says that God’s law is written on our hearts (Romans 2:14-15), and our sense of justice (despite our fallenness) is derived from God’s sense of justice.

Another answer to this problem of eternal punishment being incompatible with God’s justice is to put forth the argument from status – a sin against a human being is worthy of a temporal punishment, but a sin against a divine Being is worthy of eternal punishment. In other words, the guilt of a sin is proportional to the worthiness or honor of the offended party. Anselm of Canterbury is an advocate of this line of argumentation.^[5] Critics of this argument, such as Van Holten, will argue, “The primary difficulty with [the status] principle is to find a proper interpretation of it.”^[6] Upon what basis do we measure the status of individuals? What makes someone “more important” than another such that a crime against one is worthy of greater punishment than a crime against another? This critique has merit insofar as it is confined to the human realm. Nations may have laws that treat certain races, genders or social classes differently than other, but under God, we are all human, and our ontological status is equal coram Deo (before the face of God). However, this critique gets applied to the Creator/creature relationship: “Furthermore, there is an initial difficulty with the underlying Anselmian strategy of dividing beings into two ontologically different kinds: human and divine.”^[7] Van Holten will go onto to say that it is difficult to see how God’s divinity is a “morally relevant characteristic, such that it entails that sinning against God makes humans liable to eternal punishment.”^[8] This argument completely misses the infinite divide between the Creator and the creature! It also completely misses the fact that as creature, we owe complete and total obedience to our Creator. This ontological difference is so vast that, as prominent theologian, R.C. Sproul often says, “Sin is cosmic treason against God.” Furthermore, we, as creatures, do not get to sit in judgment on the Creator and dictate to him what is just and what is unjust. As noted above, God is just (“All his ways are justice…just and upright is he” Deuteronomy 32:4). If God, according to his infinite justice, attaches the penalty of eternal punishment for “cosmic treason” against him, then that penalty is just. It is not simply just because God says so (i.e., arbitrarily), but also because it is in God’s nature to be “just and upright.” It is a just punishment because he is just. We have no right, as creatures, to stand in judgment of God. As the Apostle Paul aptly says, “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?”^[9]

Biblical Teaching on Eternal Punishment

Space prevents us from fully treating all of the passages that teach on eternal punishment for the wicked after death. However, we will consider some of the more explicit ones.

DANIEL 12:2

The Old Testament book of Daniel is probably the most explicit Old Testament prophetic book that gives us any kind of detail regarding the end times, or “last days.” The book of Daniel can almost be considered as “two books in one.” The first half of Daniel (chapters 1 through 6) are more in the genre of historic narrative as they detail certain stories and events in the lives of Daniel and his three friends Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. In chapters 7 through 12, we are treated to several prophetic and apocalyptic visions Daniel receives. These visions give the reader a vast, panoramic view of the rise and fall of several world empires. In chapter 7, we see the vision of the four great beasts representing the four great world empires: Babylonia, Persia, Greece and Rome. Within that vision, Daniel also receives the vision of the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man, whose empire will shatter all of the empires of the world. Chapter 8 gives us the vision of the ram and the goat, which is believed to represent what is to take place regarding the Medo-Persian Empire and the Greek Empire under Alexander the Great. In chapter 9, Daniel prays regarding the 70 years of captivity prophesied in Jeremiah’s prophecy. The answer to Daniel’s prayer is the vision of the 70 weeks (or 70 “sevens”) before the promised redemption of God’s people. Finally in chapters 10 through 12, Daniel receives a vision regarding the final, end times conflict. Included in this vision is a prophecy of a future resurrection and judgment:

At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever. But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase. (Daniel 12:1-4)

Notice the language the prophet uses, which is reminiscent of the language Jesus uses in his Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24-25, which we will consider next). For our purposes here, the verse that concerns us is v. 2, “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Here is the Old Testament’s most explicit reference to a future resurrection and judgment. Some will be raised to “everlasting life” and some to “everlasting contempt.” The Hebrew word translated as “everlasting” is olam. Depending on the context in which it is used, olam can mean “everlasting and eternal” or “ancient” or “lasting for an indeterminate duration.” It seems clear that in this passage, the meaning of “everlasting” is called for considering we are looking at a prophecy that is to be sealed “until the time of the end.” The same word, olam, is used to modify “life” and “contempt,” so what is referred to in one reference also applies to the second; i.e., however olam modifies “life” also applies to “contempt.” In the Septuagint, the Greek word that is used to translate olam is aionios, which carries the same range of meanings.

MATTHEW 25:46

The next passage we will consider is Matthew 25:46. This passage finds itself located in Jesus’ Olivet Discourse, which is our Lord’s most detailed teaching on the end times. This discourse is in response to the disciples’ question regarding the destruction of the temple and the time of Christ’s return. Jesus’ response weaves together a prophecy regarding the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 70 A.D. as well as a look forward to the Parousia – the Second Coming. After telling his disciples that no one can know the day or the hour of his Parousia, Jesus tells them two parables – the Parable of the Talents and the Parable of the Ten Virgins – which teach the principle that the disciples (and us by extension) should be in a state of constant diligence so that we are prepared for the Lord’s return. After these two parables, Jesus then describes what it will be like at his return in glory in Matthew 25:31-46.

When Jesus returns at the end of this age, he will sit upon his throne (v. 31). All the nations will be gathered before him and he will separate the righteous from the wicked as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats (v. 32). The sheep (representing the righteous) are given the privilege to enter into the kingdom that was prepared for them from before the foundation of the world (v. 34). The goats (representing the wicked) on the other hand, are cast into the “eternal fire” (v. 41). Jesus closes this discourse by saying, “And these [the wicked] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (v. 46).

Similar to the Daniel 12 passage, we have a passage whose native context is judgment (the final judgment). We have the vast sea of humanity coming before the conquering King, Jesus. He passes judgment on the peoples (judgment being based on their body of work in this life). Those who are found righteous are given to inherit the kingdom and eternal life (aionion zoen), and those who are wicked are given over to eternal punishment (aionion kolasin). Again, we have the same word (aionios) modifying both “life” and “punishment,” so whatever in means in one case, it must mean in the other case as well. The range of meanings for aionios is similar to the Hebrew word olam. The word basically means “long ago, eternal, without end.” Since the return of Christ is a consummating event – closing this “present evil age” and ushering in the final state – it makes no sense to posit a meaning for aionios other than eternal.

One point needs to be considered before moving on. Some critics of the doctrine of eternal punishment like to point out that the word kolasis (translated “punishment”) actually refers to “correction.” Kolasis is the noun form of the verb kolazo, which means, “to prune, restrain and correct.” It’s a term from the field of horticulture, and since “pruning” in the bible is used as a metaphor for spiritual growth (cf. John 15:2), the critics will claim that kolasis should not be translated as punishment (i.e., vindictive or retributive), but rather as a process of pruning and correction (i.e., similar to the concept of purgatory in Roman Catholic doctrine). Popular author, Rob Bell, in his recent book, Love Wins, has this to say about kolazo: “The word kolazo is a term from horticulture. It refers to the pruning and trimming of the branches of a plant so it can flourish…Depending on how you translate aion and kolazo, then, the phrase can mean ‘a period of pruning’ or ‘a time of trimming,’ or an intense experience of correction.”^[1] While this is true as far as it goes, kolasis also carries the meaning of punishment. It is synonymous with the word timoria, which also essentially means, “punishment” of the retributive variety. The argument of Bell, and others who employ it, falls apart because the meaning of any word is determined by the context in which that word is found. Since we are looking at the return of Christ at the end of the age and the ushering in of the eternal state, the best meaning for aionion kolasin is that of “eternal punishment.”

REVELATION 14:11

The last passage we will consider is Revelation 14:11. Again, the context of that passage is Revelation 12 – 14. This section of John’s Apocalypse highlights the cosmic struggle between Christ and Satan. In Revelation 14:6-13, we see the angelic announcement of judgment upon the earth. Babylon, that great city symbolizing the forces aligned against God and his people, is fallen and those who worshipped the Beast are judged. In v. 11, we read the following, “And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.” The imagery of this verse is both chilling and clear. Those who remain unrepentant and rebellious will face the dreadful future of eternal punishment; their punishment will go on “forever and ever.” The phrase “forever and ever” translates the Greek eis aionas aionon. Again, some critics of the traditional view of hell as eternal punishment like to point to the word aion and translate it as “age” or “a long period of time with a finite duration.” However, eis aionas aionon is an idiom in Greek, which denotes unlimited duration, or eternity. Hence the phrase “forever and ever” is a proper translation in this instance. If that is not enough, the phrase ouk anapausin (“no rest”) further describes the torment of those who worship the Beast; their torment goes on “forever and ever” and they will receive “no rest” from their torment. If the alternative views of hell are correct (Universalism or Conditional Immortality), then how can it be said that the wicked will have “no rest” from their torment? As Peterson says, “I conclude, therefore, that despite attempts to prove otherwise, Revelation 14:9-11 unequivocally teaches that hell entails eternal conscious torment for the lost. In fact, if we had only this passage, we would be obligated to teach the traditional doctrine of hell on the authority of the Word of God.”^[2]

There are other passages we could turn to in support of the doctrine of eternal punishment in hell, but these three should suffice to make the point. It should be clear that the bible teaches the traditional doctrine of hell. Yet this does not stop critics from ridiculing this doctrine as repugnant and evil. Upon what do these critics base their argument if not from Scripture?

Next: Analysis of Arguments Against Eternal Punishment

The Biblical Words for “Hell”

The Old Testament witness to the doctrine of hell and eternal punishment is scarce, which is one of the reasons critics of the traditional view have attacked it as being unbiblical. The common critique is that the Old Testament does not contain the word “hell.” In the King James Version of the bible, the word “hell” is found 31 times in the Old Testament; and it translates the Hebrew word Sheol. The word basically means “underworld, grave, pit.” Conceptually speaking, Sheol refers to the “place of the dead,” it is where people go when they die. The Old Testament does not seem to discriminate who goes to Sheol, both the wicked and the righteous go there when they die. Since Sheol does not refer to the concept of eternal punishment, modern bible translations have ceased translating Sheol as “hell” and have simply transliterated that word.

This is not to say that the Old Testament is completely devoid of any conception of eternal punishment for the wicked. We will examine an Old Testament passage that states the doctrine more explicitly when we consider the biblical evidence for the traditional view of hell. For our purposes at the present, it is enough to say that the doctrine of eternal punishment is not as clearly stated in the Old Testament as it is in the New Testament. This is owing to the progressive nature of Scripture. Many doctrines that find a more full expression in the New Testament are only found in seed form in the Old Testament (e.g., the Trinity, the Christ, eternal punishment, etc.). What we can say regarding the word Sheol, is aptly summed up by Harry Buis:

The Old Testament clearly teaches a life after death, commonly in the form of and existence in Sheol, where good and evil alike share a similar dreary fate. However, there are also passages of inspired hope in a better life beyond death for the believer, a life of glorious fellowship with his God. Although there is in these passages no direct teaching with regard to the eternal punishment of the unbeliever, there is the beginning of a differentiation between the lot of the unbeliever and that of the believer. While the believer is rescued from Sheol, no such hope is expressed for the unbeliever.^[1]

In the New Testament, there are two Greek words that were commonly translated as “hell.” The first one is Hades, and this word roughly corresponds to the Hebrew word Sheol (in fact, Hades is the Greek translation of Sheol in the Septuagint). Like Sheol in the Old Testament, modern English translations have stopped translating Hades as “hell” and have simply transliterated it. There is one interesting use of the word Hades in Luke 16:23. This is in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). In this story, both the rich man and Lazarus die. Lazarus, because of the hardships of his life, was taken to “Abraham’s bosom,” which is a place of peace and bliss. The rich man, because he was wicked, was taken to Hades (the Authorized Version translates Hades as “hell” in this verse). What is interesting regarding this passage is that here we are presented with a scene in which in the afterlife, prior to the day of resurrection and final judgment, there are rewards for the righteous and torments for the wicked. This has eventually led to the development of the doctrine of the Intermediate State. This doctrine teaches that upon death, believers in Christ are immediately ushered into his presence to be with the Lord, while unbelievers are sent to Hades to remain in a state of torment until the Day of Judgment.^[2]

The second Greek word that is translated into English as “hell” is the word Gehenna. This word is a transliteration from Hebrew into Greek for the Valley of Hinnom. In the Old Testament, the Valley of Hinnom was a place south of Jerusalem where the wicked kings, Ahaz and Manasseh, practiced child sacrifice to the pagan god, Moloch (cf. 2 Chronicles 28:3; 33:6). By New Testament times, the Valle of Hinnom was used as the Jerusalem garbage dump. In order to consume all of the garbage and dead bodies that were deposited there, fires were kept continually burning. This perpetual burning is the image Jesus means to invoke when he says things such as, “And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell [Gehenna], where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.”^[3] Whereas the words Sheol and Hades represent the temporary residence of the dead (especially the unrighteous dead), Gehenna clearly denotes, from the context in which Jesus uses the word, the concept of eternal punishment for the wicked.

So, far from the concept of hell and eternal punishment “leaving” the bible based on a correct translation of words like Sheol and Hades (transliterating them instead of translating them as “hell”), this concept is abundantly clear in the word Jesus uses most frequently to connote eternal punishment, Gehenna. Furthermore, the doctrine of eternal punishment is more widely taught in Scripture than just in the places where the word “hell” is found. Let us now turn to a biblical survey of the doctrine of eternal punishment.

Next: Biblical Teaching on Eternal Punishment

Introduction

Q. 10. Will God suffer such disobedience and rebellion to go unpunished?

A. By no means; but is terribly displeased with our original as well as actual sins; and will punish them in his just judgment temporally and eternally, as he has declared, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”^[1]

For centuries, Christians have believed in a doctrine of hell, or eternal punishment. While there have always been alternate views regarding the fate of the wicked – annihilationism (or conditional immortality) and universal reconciliation (or universalism) – the orthodox position has always been that of eternal damnation and judgment of the unrighteous. Consider what the earliest church creeds taught on this subject. The Apostles’ Creed, believed to have originated around the 2^nd century A.D., says, “From thence He [referring to Jesus Christ] shall come to judge the living and the dead.” The Nicene Creed, dating from the early 4^th century, has similar language in it: “And He [again, referring to Jesus Christ] shall come again, with glory, to judge the living and the dead.” Finally, the Athanasian Creed, which although it is ascribed to Athanasius (293 – 373 A.D.) was not actually written by him and is dated to the 6^th century, echoes the previous two creeds when it says, “From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.” The Athanasian Creed goes on to say a little bit later the following: “And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.” The creed concludes by giving this dire warning: “This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved” (emphasis added). Each of these early church creeds clearly states that Jesus Christ shall return to judge the “living and the dead.” Although, the Apostles’ and the Nicene creeds do not explicitly state the doctrine of eternal judgment, it can be inferred from what it means to “judge the living and the dead.” Furthermore, what is implied in the earlier two creeds is stated explicitly in the Athanasian Creed.

Yet in recent times, the doctrine of hell has come under attack. In his book, Hell on Trial,^[2] Robert Peterson gives us some of the primary modern day critics of the orthodox view. From the agnostic or atheist camp is the late British philosopher and mathematician, Bertrand Russell, who believed (though he would not assert it dogmatically) that any form of life after death is unlikely. Another Englishman, philosopher of religion John Hick, falls into the Universalist camp (the view that everyone goes to heaven). Clark Pinnock, whose views have changed over the years, is currently an advocate of the view commonly called post-mortem evangelism – i.e., unbelievers get a second chance to believe after death. Finally, there is John Stott, who tentatively holds to the view of Annihiliationism. These four views – death is the end of all existence, Universalism, Post-Mortem Evangelism and Annihilationism – stand over against the traditional view of hell as a place of eternal punishment for the wicked that have rebelled against their Creator.

In this paper, we will offer a biblical defense of the traditional view of hell as eternal punishment. We will first begin by examining how the word “hell” is used in the bible. Next we will explore some of the main biblical passages used in support of the traditional view. Then we will consider some of the arguments used against the traditional view. Finally we will conclude by assessing these alternate views and seeing how they fail to account for the biblical data.

Next: The Biblical Words for “Hell”

But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect. (1 Peter 3:15)

This verse is the classic proof text for Christian apologetics as it calls all Christians to be prepared to make a defense, an απολογια, for our faith and to do so with gentleness and respect. However, I want to focus on the word “hope.” What is this “hope” for which we are to make a defense? If you’ve listened to any Christian sermons on “hope,” I’m sure you’ve all heard that the Christian concept of hope is different than the world’s concept of hope. Hope (Gk. ελπις) in the NT refers to a “confident expectation.” In other words, the thing hoped for has a confident expectation of being fulfilled. Worldly hope is more akin to wishing for something to take place, but not having any real confidence that it will actually take place (e.g., “I hope I win the lottery”).

So what is the Christian’s hope? Among the many places in the NT that talk about our hope, one such passage is found in Paul’s letter to the Romans:

For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we await for it with patience. (Romans 8:24-25)

Our hope, as Paul puts it, is the content of our salvation (“in this hope we are saved”), and the content of our hope is found one verse earlier: “And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies” (Romans 8:23). In this context, our hope is eschatological in that it awaits our future bodily resurrection, which itself is a fruit of our union with Christ.

Another great passage that describes our hope is found in Paul’s letter to the Colossians: “To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27). Here our hope is defined as “Christ is us.” Christ indwelling within the believer is our “confident expectation” of future glory.

One final passage that talks about the Christian’s hope — albeit by way of contrast — is 1 Thessalonians 4:13, which reads: “But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope.” Here Paul is saying that those who are not in Christ have no hope in this world when they die. It is at this point I want to begin my discussion of the reason for our hope.

The Christian’s hope is a future event. It is tied to the fact that through faith, we are united to Christ in his life and in his death. It is the expectation of life eternal in the new heavens and the new earth in redeemed bodies in fellowship with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. It is not a hope shared by all, unfortunately. Worldly hope is not a confident expectation, but an unsubstantiated wish of better things to come.

Death, as many say, is the great equalizer. All people will eventually die; that is a given. Yet despite that fact, many people live their lives with a sense of purpose; that their lives aren’t inherently meaningless — a chasing after the wind — and that what they do matters in the grand scheme of things. Yet, if you’re not a Christian, what grounds this hope? Ultimately, nothing. Life for the unbeliever is ultimately an exercise in vain wish fulfillment. Maybe there’s a life after death and maybe not. More than likely, we’re all just eventual ‘worm food.’ For the one who rejects God and rejects salvation in Christ, all that is left for you is futile exercise of trying to make meaning in the meaningless of life in this universe.

Consider this quote from one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century:

That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built. (Bertrand Russell)

If Russell is correct, then we might as well echo the words of the Apostle Paul when he says, “If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die’” (1 Corinthians 15:32). The only ‘rational’ response to Russell’s worldview of hopelessness is a life of pure hedonism ending with a shotgun in the mouth. To sweat and toil to make a ‘better world’ and to bring ‘meaning’ to life is the most futile of exercises if Russel is correct.

And if you think to find hope in the religions of the world (Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) think again. All of the world’s religions ultimately reduce to ethics, and if you’re banking on having done enough good in this life to earn the afterlife, you really don’t know yourself that well. None of us pass our own moral standards much less the moral standards of the world religions (e.g., Ten Commandments, Golden Rule, etc.). Again, quoting from the Apostle Paul, “Remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Ephesians 2:12).

The only true hope in this world — one that replaces wish fulfillment with confident expectation — is found in Christ. It is found in recognizing our sin before a holy God, repenting of that sin and embracing his provision for salvation in Christ alone through faith.

Just as they say “believing in something doesn’t make it true,” so we can say that “disbelieving in something doesn’t make it untrue.” Rejecting God and rejecting his salvation in Christ doesn’t make Christianity untrue. If the bible is to be believed, then after we all die, we will face the final judgment (Hebrews 9:27). Death is not the end, but only those who die in Christ have hope for a better life to come.

Soli Deo Gloria!

The first question that might come to mind when addressing this topic is what is the eternal decree of God? The Confession gives us as good a definition of the eternal decree of God as any when it says:

God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (WCF III.1)

The wonderful thing about the Westminster Confession of Faith is that is says much in a few words. Each word is precisely and carefully chosen. Let’s unpack some of these words.

The first thing WCF III.1 says is that God’s decree is eternal (“God, from all eternity…”). The plan of God was not something he came up with one ‘day’ while he was bored in heaven. The plan of God is something that is, and has been, part of his eternal will. The decree to create the heavens and the earth was part of God’s plan from all eternity. There was never a moment in which the decree wasn’t in God’s mind.

Secondly, the eternal decree is a product of God’s “most wise and holy” will. In other words, it emanates from his own mind. God did not consult with the angels (they weren’t created yet) or with any other rational, intelligent being. The eternal decree, as a product of God’s most wise and holy will, is itself wise and holy. Every detail of the decree reflects the wisdom of God and fulfills his holy purposes.

Thirdly, the eternal decree was accomplished in a manner that preserves God’s freedom and immutability (“freely and unchangeably”). Unlike some pantheistic philosophies and theologies in which everything that exists necessarily emanates from God (or the One), in Christianity, the eternal decree is something that is freely enacted by God. The eternal decree doesn’t fulfill some lack in God’s nature, but rather, God exercises his autonomy through the decree. Moreover, he does so unchangeably. In other words, there is no change or diminution of God’s essential nature in the eternal decree.

Having taken care of some of these preliminary remarks, we now come to the content of the eternal decree of God: “God…did…ordain whatsoever comes to pass.” So, in short, what is the eternal decree of God? It is the eternal plan that accounts for everything. Every millisecond in the history of the universe falls under God’s eternal decree. Every detail of every event in history comes to pass according to God’s eternal decree. Stated in another way, there is nothing that lies outside of God’s eternal decree. As theologian R. C. Sproul likes to say, “There are no rouge molecules in God’s universe.”

Scripture bears this out:

• The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of his heart to all generations. (Psalm 33:11)
• In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will. (Ephesians 1:11)
• So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath. (Hebrews 6:17)

On the surface, most Christians don’t have a problem with saying that God ordains “whatsoever comes to pass.” But the problems arise when that statement is taken to its logical conclusion. If God ordains everything, then this means everything. This includes the good as well as the evil that we find in the world. God ordained the creation and fall of Satan and Adam and Eve. He ordained the rise of Pharaoh and his subjugation of the Hebrew people. He ordained the fall and collapse of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. He ordained the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. He ordained the rise of the Third Reich and the Nazi holocaust. He ordained the terrorist attacks on 9/11/01. He ordains all things!

Most Christians, when pressed with these challenges, either fold because they have no real answers or they offer up the answer that evil is the result of man’s free will and that God allows these things to happen because he allows man to exercise his free will. That’s a fair answer, but it doesn’t do complete justice to the biblical passages offered above. The evil in this world is not merely the result of God’s permissive will. In other words, these things do not occur by bare permission. This renders God as a passive observer who lets his creation run its course. That’s not how the bible depicts God. Consider these two statements:

1. It was part of God’s eternal decree that the events of 9/11/01 take place
2. God allowed the events of 9/11/01 to take place

The force of the first statement is completely absent from the second. In the first statement, God is active, in the second, he is passive. I believe that the second statement, while it answers the objections of the critics, does so in a way that is not faithful to the biblical witness. It attempts to get God “off the hook” for evil. What it ends up doing as a result is turning God into a cosmic fix-it man trying to make some good out of the evil he allows to occur. If one considers the implications of this, it becomes apparent that evil is ultimately meaningless. It is this view of God, I submit, that is vulnerable to the Problem of Evil attacks because if God doesn’t ordain the evil that takes place, then it is random and meaningless. If we take the view offered in the first statement, then evil has a “most wise and holy” purpose because God ordains everything according to his “most wise and holy” will.

Now the Confession does qualify the statement that God “ordains whatsoever comes to pass” in two ways:

1. Yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin
2. Nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established

The bible is quite explicit that God is not the author of sin (cf. Psalm 5:4; James 1:13-14; 1 John 1:5; Habakkuk 1:13). Furthermore, the bible is clear that many of the things that happen according to God’s eternal decree happen through the agency of secondary causes. What do I mean by “secondary causes?” The best way to think of secondary causes is to think in terms if direct and indirect causality. Suppose I threw a ball and the ball broke a window. The ball is directly responsible for breaking the window and I am indirectly responsible because I threw the ball. Stated another way, I am the primary cause of the broken window because I threw the ball, but the ball is the secondary cause of the broken window. If I intended to break the window, I could have used any number of secondary causes to accomplish that end. I could throw a ball, a rock, hit it with a stick or use my own hand.

What are the secondary causes that God uses to accomplish his eternal decree? According to the Confession, the secondary causes are the will of man and the laws of nature. Another way of saying this is that God ordains not only the ends, but the means as well. This is a vitally important distinction to make. It answers the question how can God not be responsible for the events of 9/11/01 if he ordained that it come to pass. God ordained the end (the terrorist attack on 9/11/01) as well as the means (the sinful acts of the 9/11 terrorists). The bible presents this tension all throughout its pages: God is completely sovereign and ordains all that comes to pass, but man is responsible for his sinful thoughts and actions. The classic statement from Joseph in Genesis 50:20 comes to mind, “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.” Joseph’s brothers had purely evil intentions in selling Joseph into slavery, but God’s good and perfect will was accomplished in their evil act. Other verses bear this out as well (e.g., Matthew 17:12; Acts 2:23; Acts 4:27-28; John 19:11; Proverbs 16:33).

That last clause bears closer scrutiny (“Nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established”). What is the Confession trying to say at this point? Namely this: It is the eternal decree of God that actually establishes the liberty and contingency of second causes. It is because of the eternal decree of God that we have the world in which we live. It is because of the eternal decree of God that we are the people we are. God’s eternal decree upholds the universe as it is and ensures that it continues to operate as it does. Much of this spills over into the doctrine of providence, but providence (God’s governance and sustaining of creation) flows from the eternal decree. The important thing to keep in mind is the fact that God ordains the ends as well as the means.

Next: What is the Basis for God’s Eternal Decree?

Soli Deo Gloria!

Let me first state that I am not a Calvinist because of John Calvin. Up until recently (and much to my chagrin) I haven’t even read John Calvin. Last summer I began reading Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion for the first time, and I only got through book #1. I am a Calvinist because I’ve read other Calvinists who have expounded the particular doctrines of Calvinism in a forceful and cogent manner and I found their arguments compelling especially when I examined them in light of Scripture. Secondly, while I happily claim the label “Calvinist” for myself, I do so only for expedience. I am not a disciple of John Calvin, and I’m sure John Calvin wouldn’t want me to be a disciple of his. If pressed for a more accurate title, I say I’m a proponent of the Doctrines of Grace, or I’m a proponent of Reformed Theology. Calvin was one of the leading figures in the formulation of Reformed Theology, or the Doctrines of Grace. However, because those teachings have gone under the name of Calvinism, I use that title because it is so identified with those doctrines.

Now onto the five reasons why I am a Calvinist (in no particular order):

1. I hold a high view of the sovereignty of God
2. I hold a high view of the fallenness of man
3. I hold a high view of an effective salvation
4. I hold a high view of the inspiration of Scripture
5. I hold a high view of the necessity and sufficiency of divine grace

Let’s examine each reason a little more closely.

The Sovereignty of God. Calvinism has a high view of the sovereignty of God. Let us first define what that means. To say “God is sovereign,” is to say that “God is in control of everything.” Most Christians would agree with that statement, however, while most Christians would agree with that statement, they would disagree with the logical conclusions of that statement. What do I mean by that? Theologically speaking, Christianity can be broken down into two basic camps: Monergists and Synergists. Monergists are those who believe that God works alone in salvation. In fact, that’s what the root of the word “monergism” means, “to work alone.” Synergists believe that God “works together” with man in salvation. In other words, God gets the ball rolling, but man makes the crucial final decision in salvation. What does any of this have to do with the sovereignty of God? Plenty! Synergism necessarily exalts the free will of man. In order for synergism to work, man must have an autonomous free will. But as we shall see when we examine the second point, man does not have an autonomous free will. Man is a creature, and as such, his will is subject to God’s sovereignty. If God is sovereign – i.e., he has complete control over everything – doesn’t that also include the free choices of man? In other words, could man make a choice that 1) God doesn’t know about in advance, and 2) could in any way, shape or form be outside God’s sovereign decree? God’s sovereign decree, which governs everything, covers man’s free choices as well as everything else. If man is autonomous, then God is not sovereign because there would be something outside of the sovereign will of God; which is patently absurd.

The Fallenness of Man. Calvinism also holds to a radical view of man’s fallenness. This, like the sovereignty of God, also receives lip service from the majority of Christians. Most Christians profess the radical fallenness of man, but ignorantly deny its consequences. The bible makes quite clear (e.g., Romans 8:7; 1 Corinthians 2:14; and other places) that man, in his natural state (i.e., his fallen state) cannot please God and will not come to God. Calvinists, such as Jonathan Edwards and others, refer to this fallen state of man as his moral inability. Moral inability means sinful man lacks the desire to choose the things of God. He has the natural ability to choose God (nothing is coercing him to not choose God), but his desire is to be autonomous from God. Sinful man’s moral inability is wonderfully illustrated in Jesus’ parable of the ten minas (Luke 19), when the citizens of the king say, “We do not want this man to reign over us” (Luke 19:14). Any theology that denies man’s radical fallenness (i.e., that the fall effects man to the core of his being) isn’t faithful to the teaching of Scripture on this matter. Man in his fallen state is, as Augustine of Hippo said all these centuries ago, non posse non peccare, or “not able to not sin.” Yet there are those who want to give to fallen man a sliver of moral ability. They argue that if man cannot freely choose God, then salvation is meaningless. They come up with doctrines like prevenient grace to say that God grants a type of grace to all men that puts him in a neutral position as to his will so that he can choose to respond, or not respond, to the offer of the gospel. That’s a nice theory, but there is nothing in all of Scripture that speaks of a prevenient grace! Plus it completely ignores the Bible’s own description of our fallen state. Man is dead in sin and trespasses (Ephesians 2:1), he is a slave to sin (Romans 6:17) and he is at enmity with God (Romans 8:7). However, those who reject Calvinism want to say that man is only terminally ill, not dead; somewhat free, not a slave; and somewhat open, not completely hostile to God. That’s fine to believe that, but it’s not in the Bible.

An Effective Salvation. Another things Calvinism teaches is an effective salvation. What I mean by that is that the death of Christ upon the cross secured an actual salvation for those whom it was intended. This is the heart of the doctrine of Limited, or Definite, Atonement. Jesus Christ died to save his people from their sin. This is what Scripture explicitly teaches when Jesus himself says, “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” (John 10:11). When you look at the nature of Christ’s atoning work on the cross, you see that his work was a propitiatory work; it appeased the wrath of God for our sin. It was also an expiatory work; it removed the guilt that our sin incurred. The work of Christ was also a reconciling work; it brought reconciliation between God as the offended party and man as the offending party. Finally, Christ’s work was a redeeming work; it bought his people back from slavery to sin and death. All of these aspects of Christ’s saving work speak of it as effective. Because it was an effective salvation, it must necessarily be a definitive, or particular, salvation – Christ did not die for all men, but only for some men; namely, his sheep. In contrast, those who oppose Calvinism assert that Christ died for all men, and in so doing they limit the effectiveness of the atonement. Christ didn’t actually save anyone, but makes all men savable. This concept is foreign to Scripture. Yet Synergists must redefine the atonement because if they say Christ died for all men and they hold to the orthodox view of the atonement, they become, in essence, full universalists. Yet the Bible is quite clear that not all men will be saved, so the nature of the atonement is changed to fit in with the notion that Christ died for all. However, a careful examination of passages that, on the surface, seem to teach a universal application to the death of Christ (e.g., 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:2) will yield that the universalists misinterpret these passages.

The Inspiration of Scripture. Here is another thing that most Christians would agree with, but in the final analysis seems to be lacking in those who deny Calvinism. Now I know that’s a pretty bold statement to make, but it bears up under scrutiny. The Calvinist allows Scripture to speak for itself, and thus the Calvinist holds to some doctrines that are not popular to a human point of view. I submit that it is the Synergists who interpret Scripture through the grid of their humanist understanding that gets them into exegetical trouble. If Scripture truly is the very word of God (and it is), then it must inform our theology, not the reverse. Scripture is pretty clear on the sovereignty of God, the fallenness of man and the effectiveness of Christ’s saving work. Yet the Synergist must exalt the autonomy of man, deny his radical fallenness and assert that Christ died to make all men savable in order to make sense of their theology. The fact of the matter is that none of these things are supported in Scripture, so they are read into Scripture; which is the very opposite of letting Scripture speak for itself. It is synergism and its denial of these doctrines that is the logical stepping stone toward theological liberalism. If you deny the sovereignty of God, exalt the autonomy of man and make the work of Christ universal, you are well on your way to theological liberalism, which just takes synergism to its logical conclusion.

The Necessity and Sufficiency of Divine Grace. Last, but not least, Calvinism exalts both the necessity and sufficiency of divine grace in salvation. I submit it is this fact alone that explains the difference between Calvinists and non-Calvinists, or between monergists and synergists. All synergists – whether they be Evangelicals, Wesleyan Arminians, or Roman Catholics – argue that divine grace is necessary for salvation, what they, in effect, deny is its sufficiency. This is the core of the slogans of the Reformation – Sola Sctiptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus, and Soli Deo Gloria. No Christian would argue that Scripture or faith or grace or Christ is necessary, but the word sola attests to the complete sufficiency of these things. Roman Catholics explicitly deny the sufficiency of these things, whereas Protestant Synergists implicitly deny them. This is why many Reformed accuse Arminians of “crossing the Tiber” back to Rome; Arminian theology is really no different than Catholic theology when it comes to salvation. However, when one examines Scripture, one sees that divine grace is both necessary and sufficient to save the soul. The Apostle Paul says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9). When Paul says “it is the gift of God,” he is referring to all that precedes the “it.” Salvation by grace through faith is the gift of God; the faith to believe is as much a gift as the salvation by grace. This is all done so at no one may boast. This is a problem all Synergists have. If salvation is a joint work between God and man, then man has room to boast. Yet man has no room to boast according to the Bible. Salvation is completely and thoroughly a work of God alone.

Okay, I’ve given my top five reasons for why I am a Calvinist. I recognize that some of the things I’ve said may rub some the wrong way. I also realize that some will disagree with most of what I said. My intention was not to be overly polemic or to rankle feathers, but rather to lay out my reasons for why I hold to the doctrine commonly referred to as Calvinism. If my remarks appear somewhat caustic, it is because I recognize that the differences between Monergists and Synergists goes to the core of the gospel.

With that said, I welcome any and all comments as long as they are civil and on point.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Here’s an excerpt:

The Louvre Museum has 8.5 million visitors per year. This blog was viewed about 86,000 times in 2011. If it were an exhibit at the Louvre Museum, it would take about 4 days for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.

Q. 27. Wherein did Christ’s humiliation consist?

A. Christ’s humiliation consisted in his being born, and that in a low condition, made under the law, undergoing the miseries of this life, the wrath of God, and the cursed death of the cross; in being buried, and continuing under the power of death for a time.

Well, it feels like an eternity (actually, it’s only been six months) since I’ve last written on the Westminster Shorter Catechism, so let’s pick up where we left off. The last article completed the section in the Catechism that looked at the three-fold office of Christ as Prophet, Priest and King. In this question and the next, we will look at the work of Christ through the motif of his humiliation and exaltation.

The concept of Christ’s humiliation and exaltation is a common way to view the comprehensive work of Christ. A key passage that describes the life and work of Christ as one of humiliation and exaltation is the Carmen Christi passage in Philippians 2:5-11:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Notice in this passage how Paul describes Christ’s humiliation through the means of emptying himself, taking on the form of a servant by assuming a human nature, and being obedient to the point of death. Christ humbles himself in this manner. Then after his death on the cross, God begins to exalt his Son to the highest place of authority in the universe.

This motif of humiliation and exaltation is also found in the Apostle’s Creed when it says of the Son:

1. He was born of the virgin Mary
2. Suffered under Pontius Pilate
3. Was crucified, dead and buried
4. He descended into hell
5. He rose from the dead
6. Ascended into heaven
7. Sits at the Father’s right hand
8. Will return to judge

Before discussing the aspects of Christ’s humiliation, let us define what “humiliation” means. To humiliate can be defined as “to cause a person a painful loss of pride, self-respect, or dignity.” It comes from the Latin root humiliare, which means “to humble.” When applied to Christ, we see that his humiliation consists in his voluntarily descending from his lofty position as the Son of God and participating in the incarnation. As Paul noted above, this involved a laying aside of his divine prerogatives and a condescending to enter into his fallen creation.

Now the Westminster Shorter Catechism lists six aspects of Christ’s humiliation. We will discuss them briefly.

The first aspect of Christ’s humiliation that is mentioned is that of “being born, and that in a low condition.” For the eternal Son of God to take on human flesh is the ultimate act of humiliation. The One through whom the Father created all things stepped down from the Father’s right hand and entered into his creation with the same physical limitations that we all have, save sin. Paul says it best in his second letter to the Corinthians when he writes, “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for our sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich” (2 Corinthians 8:9). Jesus Christ was infinitely rich, yet he laid all that aside to become poor for our sakes. He did not count equality with God as something to be grasped, but he took on the form of a servant; he was born into this world to the Virgin Mary, a peasant girl from the house of David and lived a life of no repute as a carpenter’s son.

Secondly, he was “made under the law.” The Divine Lawgiver puts himself under the commands and the judgments of the law. Jesus subjected himself to obedience under the law. He did this because he was our representative; our covenant head. Though he himself was without sin, he became representatively guilty and was subject to the judgment of the law. His was a vicarious punishment under the law, even though he perfectly fulfilled every aspect of the law of God.

Thirdly, Jesus “underwent the miseries of this life.” By that the Catechism means to teach that Christ experienced the full panorama of human experience. He was despised and rejected by the Jewish leaders, he experienced the life of a vagabond with no home to call his own, he experienced hunger, thirst, sorrow and weariness, and most importantly he was tempted in all the ways a human being can be tempted (and even some that are unique to his being the Son of God). The miseries of this life aren’t only limited to his sufferings on the cross, but to his entire life traversing through this vale of tears.

Fourthly, he suffered the wrath of God in our place. This is the heart of the atonement. Jesus Christ substituted himself for the people God had given to him and suffered the wrath of God due their sin. The eternal Son of God who in his pre-incarnate state was “in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:18) suffered the divine displeasure of the Father. It is hard to put this in words because it is hard to fully comprehend this point. For all eternity, there was a perfect communion between Father and Son, and then on the cross, that communion was in some way disrupted as the Son took upon himself all of our sin and faced the full fury of God’s wrath in our place. He himself was not was not worthy of God’s wrath. In fact, Jesus was sinless and perfect, yet he humiliated himself by taking our punishment upon himself.

Fifthly and sixthly, Jesus was humiliated by suffering the death on a cross, being buried and continuing under the power of death for a time. The death on a cross was, according to Jewish law, a cursed death. Paul in Galatians quotes from the OT when he writes, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us – for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree’” (Galatians 3:13; citing Deuteronomy 21:23). The One who has the power of life in himself subjected himself to death. Furthermore, that death was confirmed by his burial and remaining in the tomb for three days. In other words, to remove all doubt as to his death, Christ was buried and sealed in a tomb. Death had won a temporary victory over Christ, but in the end, the victory was Christ’s.

What’s the point of the humiliation of Christ? What should we take away from this? How does it affect our lives? The humiliation of Christ shows the lengths that Christ went to redeem us from our sin. The chasm between the creature and the Creator is an unbridgeable chasm from our side. All of human religion is an attempt for the finite to reach the infinite. Yet, like the Tower of Babel, no man-made structure will ever reach the heights of heaven. The infinite gulf between God and man can only be crossed by God himself, and this is precisely what he did in the incarnation. As is so eloquently stated by the Apostle John in the prologue to his gospel, the One who was God and was with God in the beginning is the One who came down and “dwelt among us.” Literally, John says he “tabernacled with us,” i.e., he pitched his tent among us. That Christ traversed this infinite distance should move us to praise and worship. Christ stepped in our place and did what we could not do so that we could enjoy a restored relationship with our Creator.

Soli Deo Gloria!