An article titled, “Why do I face the consequences of Adam’s sin when I did not eat the fruit?” on the popular Reformed website “GotQuestions” reads:
The Bible says, “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12). It was through Adam that sin entered the world. When Adam sinned, he immediately died spiritually—his relationship with God was broken—and he also began dying physically—his body began the process of growing old and dying. From that point on, every person born has inherited Adam’s sin nature and suffered the same consequences of spiritual and physical death.
GotQuestions website
The Augustinian-Calvinist view posits that Adam and Eve experienced “spiritual death”—eternal alienation from God as a result of their sin. However, if you read the above passage carefully, you may have noticed the sudden yet subtle introduction of two ideas or doctrines:
- “When Adam sinned, he immediately died spiritually.”
- “His relationship with God was broken.“
According to the author, Adam “died spiritually,” and his relationship with God was “broken.” In other words, according to the Augustinian-Calvinist view, because Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, you, I, and everyone else is spiritually dead (damned to hellfire even before we took our first breath), and God is too upset with us to have any relationship with us. This is not merely my conclusion but the deductive conclusion and conventional view of those adhering to hellfire theology. For example, according to ‘creation.com,’ which is recognized as a fundamentalist Evangelical website:
The Bible is clear: we are all born in sin. Therefore, our default destination due to original sin is hell and not heaven.
creation.com
Did Adam “immediately die spiritually”?
The statement “immediately die spiritually” is ambiguous and missing any context. It is often interpreted as Adam becoming ‘totally depraved’ and destined for eternal damnation in hellfire. Yet, the text does not say a thing to suggest this interpretation; it seems to be a conclusion derived from the Augustinian-Calvinist theological standpoint, specifically the TULIP doctrine. If you were to compare it with the biblical text of Genesis 3, you would find no mention of being “spiritually dead.” There are consequences for their sin, but none of which are “spiritual death.”
Concerning physical mortality, Adam and Eve once had access to the Tree of Life, which granted them an unparalleled, invaluable, and inequivalent source of vitality. However, once they consumed the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, God aligned with His earlier warning, “In the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17), which He did by revoking their access to the Tree of Life: “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever” (Genesis 3:22).
So, as Genesis 3:22 (and Revelation 2:7) clearly suggests, “to live forever” results from eating from the Tree of Life rather than being an inherent trait. The Tree of Life becoming no longer available to humanity is the only kind of death the biblical text suggests. Nothing else.
Was Adam’s relationship with God broken?
If God cannot even look at sinners, it implies that He cannot be near them. If God is unable to be near sinners, it suggests that He hates them. If this is true, then the argument that God must send all sinners—all of humanity—to hellfire is validated. As the renowned Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul stated:
We always say the Cliché, “God Hates the sin, but he loves the sinner.” That’s nonsense! The Bible speaks of Him abhorring us, and that we’re loathsome in His sight, and He can’t stand to even look at us!
R.C. Sproul
To assess the claims that “Adam’s relationship with God was broken” and that God “can’t stand to even look at us,” one must simply compare these statements with the accounts given in the Scriptures. Should it be the case that Adam and Eve’s bond with God was severed by their sin, one would anticipate the text to reflect this. Yet, not only does the narrative not suggest such a severance, but it indicates the contrary.
According to the biblical account, Adam and Eve fled in shame. It was not God who “couldn’t even look at them.” They were the ones who “hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God,” as described in Genesis 3:8. There is no suggestion that God could not look at them or that He withdrew His presence. On the contrary, following their sin, God actively sought them out (Genesis 3:9). He approached them and made garments to cover their shame (Genesis 3:21). Would Sproul suggest God did all that with His eyes closed? I beg to differ: God’s actions contrast sharply with human tendencies to hate, judge, ostracize, and shame sinners; God, instead, draws near to sinners and provides for their needs, covers their shame, and forgives their sin, demonstrating His commitment to restoration rather than alienation.
Furthermore, Genesis 3:22 reveals that Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden, not from God’s presence. This distinction becomes clear in Genesis 4, where God continues to engage directly with Adam and Eve’s family even outside the Garden. This continuity of relationship underscores that expulsion from the Garden did not equate to abandonment by God, affirming that physical separation from a specific place does not sever the Divine connection.
As a flawed human, I cannot earn salvation through my own limited and finite efforts; that’s why salvation MUST be a gift of grace freely given by God through Christ’s sacrificial death. This, however, does not imply that God hates me for my imperfections and errors. The Augustinian-Calvinist notion that sinners are beyond God’s reach, that God despises them, or that He cannot even look at people simply because they are not perfect contradicts both the Old and New Testaments. God’s interactions throughout scripture demonstrate His ongoing engagement with imperfect humanity, underscoring His enduring love and universal accessibility of His grace to all from the very beginning.
God may despise sin, but He also knows our mistakes contribute to character development. The key lies in recognizing our faults and striving to improve. My understanding of the Bible leads me to believe that God pays more attention to our efforts to overcome our inclination to evil on earth than to the sins themselves.
Consider David: he made many mistakes and faced numerous corrections. He endured the earthly consequences of his actions, yet he continually sought to amend his behavior, demonstrated genuine remorse, and consistently worshipped God. This reflects a profound spiritual journey, not a sin-free existence.
There’s a common misconception that accepting Jesus into your heart and being baptized magically transforms us into sinless beings like Jesus. However, we remain human, and sin persists. Paul himself confessed to being the “worst of sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15), highlighting our ongoing human flaws. The crucial difference is that Jesus covers our sins. Embracing Jesus doesn’t make us sinless; it liberates us from the fear of being hated or alienated by God, allowing us to live in grace, not perfection.
Despite being great sinners with significant flaws, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David maintained very intimate relationships with God. This demonstrates that divine intimacy is not restricted to the sinless. Furthermore, God’s love for sinners is so profound that He chose to dwell among an entire nation of sinners, as illustrated in Leviticus 16:16, where God continuously made His dwelling among Israel, even in their impurity:
The tent of meeting, which is among them in the midst of their uncleanness.
Leviticus 16:16
This underscores that God does not shy away from sinners, and His presence is not withheld from those who are imperfect, emphasizing His commitment to be with His people despite their flaws.
Jesus taught us to view God as our ultimate Father. What loving parent would hate their children and wish to torture and burn them for their flaws? On the contrary, good and loving parents desire to redeem, teach, repair, discipline, and restore their children, not destroy them.
The overarching theme in both the prophetic writings of the Old Testament and the New Testament is that God, incarnated as a human in Jesus, came to Earth specifically to seek out and extend love to sinners. This divine mission is vividly depicted through Jesus’ actions, as He spent much of His time on Earth engaging with sinners, often sharing meals and offering blessings to them. This is highlighted in several biblical passages, such as Matthew 9:10-17, Mark 2:15-22, and Luke 5:29-39, where Jesus is shown not shunning but rather actively seeking the company of those considered impure or unworthy by religious standards, thereby emphasizing God’s inclusive love and mercy.
In contrast to an angry, hateful God who hates sinners and wants nothing but to punch us all in the mouth and into damnation, Jesus spoke of God as loving, caring, forgiving, full of compassion, and protective (Matthew 23:37). A Father who’s not only able to look at His sinful children but makes an effort to reach out to them, to deliver and redeem them from their own sin.
Isaiah 59:2 and Habakkuk 1:13
Still, those cheering for the Augustinian-Calvinist theology will point to two Old Testament verses:
Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrongdoing.
Habakkuk 1:13
Your iniquities have separated you from your God.
Isaiah 59:2
Concerning Habakkuk, the key to understanding Habakkuk’s complaint is found in the Hebrew parallelism of the poetry. “To look on” is parallel with “tolerate.” Habakkuk points to God’s holiness and says, “You are too holy to ignore. No way you can accept this evil in your nation.” Or “You are too good to ignore the evil being done.” This is a figure of speech and not a literal claim by Habakkuk that God’s physical eyes can’t look in the direction of evil people. Otherwise, this will contradict the book of Job, where God seems to be communicating with Satan.
Isaiah 59:2
When taken out of context, “Your iniquities have separated you from your God” does sound like God is separated from mankind due to sin. For example, according to Paul Washer:
God is morally perfect and separated from all evil. It is impossible for Him to take pleasure in sin or remain in fellowship with those who practice unrighteousness…. According to Isaiah 59:2, how does sin affect God’s relationship with man? Can God have fellowship with the wicked?
Paul Washer
Another example comes from the popular Calvinist website ‘GotQuestions.’ The opening statement answering the question “What are the consequences of sin?” reads:
Eternal separation from God: “But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear.” (Isaiah 59:2)
GotQuestions
Context, context, context
Isaiah 59:2, however, has nothing to do with “eternal separation from God.” This is another classic example of eisegesis and of taking a verse out of context.
First, the status of individual salvation cannot be drawn theologically from the state of affairs between the nation of Israel and God. Israel was a nation of sinners before and after Isaiah, yet it maintained a national relationship with God. Isaiah 59 is a national rebuke, not an individual being scolded by God. Individuals with eternal souls can theoretically be eternally separated from God in hellfire, not nations.
Second, the “separation” Isaiah writes about has absolutely nothing to do with eternity but reflects a temporary withdrawal of physical protection and blessings over Israel. According to Deuteronomy, God holds back His earthly blessings and physical protection from Israel when they fail to walk in His ways.
Third, the very existence of these verses proves the exact opposite of “separation,” as an active conversation takes place between the God of Israel and Israel. This shows that the “separation” is not a complete cut-off; otherwise, God wouldn’t have communicated at all.
Fourth, Isaiah, an Israelite himself, wrote, “For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty” (Isaiah 6:5). Not only did Isaiah — a sinner — see God, but the fact that God communicated through a prophet who is a sinner himself is a proof against the Calvinistic interpretation of Isaiah 59:2.
The true meaning of Isaiah 59:2
The context of Isaiah 59:2 is that God is answering Israel’s inquiry about why His blessings and protection have vanished. Israel has sinned before God, and in response, does God disappear? On the contrary, God is actively pursuing Israel through His prophets, communicating with them, and explaining the consequences of their sins. This has nothing to do with “eternal separation in hellfire.” If anything, it points in the opposite direction: the discipline and restoration of a loving Parent.
In chapter 59, Isaiah explains to Israel that their hope for help and protection from evil (previous verse) is denied because they misbehave. Remember, God already warned Israel in Deuteronomy 28 – if you do not behave, God will not protect you from evil. That is the sense in which Israel is “separated” from God. He is unwilling to rescue and protect them from earthly evil (59:1).
Thus, Isaiah 59:2 has nothing to do with an individual’s spiritual/eternal condition or hellfire. Isaiah speaks merely about a temporary, physical, and natural consequence for his nation due to their actions. If God were to cut off Israel completely, they would cease to be His chosen nation and disappear long ago. However, God promised Israel, “The Lord your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you” (Deuteronomy 31:6-8).
Consider the Prodigal Son (Luke 15). He departed from his father’s safeguard and endured the repercussions. However, this does not imply that his father ceased to be his parent. On the contrary, his father awaited his return daily, watching from outside his estate. It is we who distance ourselves, not God.
But What About God’s Holiness?
Psalm 99:5 proclaims, “He is holy.” Does that mean God can’t stand to look at us?
In contemporary language, the term “holy” often conjures images of angelic figures in white robes with halos above their heads, epitomizing purity, innocence, or perfection. Yet, in Biblical Hebrew, “holy” means being “set apart,” emphasizing distinction and uniqueness. This uniqueness does not imply that what is not holy is evil. For instance, God sanctified the seventh day as holy, not due to any deficiency in the other days, but to dedicate it to a special purpose. God is also set apart from all other deities for various reasons, but more than anything—because He is the Creator.
Peter Gentry, Professor of Old Testament, examined the usage of the word “holy” in the Hebrew Scriptures and concluded:
The basic meaning of the word is ‘consecrated’ or ‘devoted.’ In the Scripture, it operates within the context of covenant relationships and expresses commitment.
Peter J. Gentry
If God’s holiness meant He hated sinners or “could not bear to look at sinners,” then it follows that God cannot be in the presence of sinners, thereby condemning them to eternal judgment and separation. But this view is clearly contradicted by the different manifestations of God throughout the scriptures, the promises of the scriptures, and the very manifestation of the Son of God who came to live among sinners. Furthermore, if God is omnipresent, He is always present in the fallen world. The universe continues to exist because the Creator’s presence preserves it.
Because God is distinct and unique (holy), the places He inhabits must also be. Just as a surgical room must be sterilized and maintained free of contaminants to be suitable for operations, so too, God’s dwelling place in the camp of Israel needed to be cleansed and made holy again after becoming defiled. In biblical times, this purification involved using the blood of offerings, symbolically serving as a form of spiritual antiseptic.
Unlike the restrictive religious “holiness” that kept religious people at bay, Jesus, who was also holy, did not isolate himself from sinners. Instead, he engaged with them directly—touching, loving, and caring for them. This illustrates that God’s holiness does not inhibit His ability to have a relationship with sinners; rather, it highlights His unique love for them, a love so profound that it was the very reason for Him to become one of us. This truth challenges the notion that God despises sinners, cannot bear to look at them, or have to damn them to eternal torture in hellfire due to their inherited finite and limited nature or their imperfection.
But Doesn’t God Hate Sinners?
You hate all who do wrong.
Psalm 5:5
Marco from Reading, Pennsylvania, wrote to ask pastor John Piper: “Pastor John, what do you make of the saying, ‘God loves the sinner, but hates the sin?’” John Piper’s answer included a quotation of Psalm 5:5 as well as the following statement:
It is just not true to give the impression that God doesn’t hate sinners by saying, ‘he loves the sinner and hates the sin.’ He does hate sinners.
John Piper
Likewise, pastor Mark Driscoll preached to his congregation the same motif:
The Bible speaks of God not just hating sin but sinners… Psalm 5:5, “You,” speaking of God, “hate all evildoers.” God doesn’t just hate what you do. He hates who you are!
Mark Driscoll
In the same way, Reformed Baptist pastor David Platt wrote:
Does God hate sinners? Listen closely to Psalm 5:5-6: “The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; You hate all who do wrong.“
David Platt
The ECT’s logic in quoting Psalm 5:5-6 goes something like this:
- Those who sin are sinners.
- Everyone sins.
- God hates sinners.
- God must separate Himself from sinners.
- Therefore, God hates everyone and must condemn all to hellfire.
Practically speaking, fundamentalist preachers believe that every cute newborn, every sweet toddler, and every child playing in your neighborhood’s park—are all sinners condemned to hellfire as God hates them.
On the surface, Psalm 5 seems to contradict verses like John 3:16, which states, “For God so loved the world.” In “World,” John speaks about the people in it, not the waters and soil. John essentially says, “For God so loved the sinners.”
So, is there a conflict between Psalm 5 and John 3:16?
Psalm 5:5
Biblical Hebrew has a limited vocabulary, so many Hebrew words carry a broad range of meanings, varying according to context. Moreover, the meanings of words often evolve over time.
To fully grasp the message of Psalm 5:5, it’s crucial first to understand its context. Hebraist scholar Mitchell Dahood interprets Psalm 5 as a “repudiation of false gods when one was accused of idolatry.” In a similar vein, VanGemeren, Professor Emeritus of Old Testament and Semitic Languages, views Psalm 5 as God’s self-distinction from other deities, asserting that “whereas other religions brought together good and evil at the level of the gods, God had revealed that evil exists apart from him.”
Thus, with this context in mind, more accurate than ‘God hates everyone’ will be to conclude that God hates idol worshippers. Remember, the pagans around ancient Israel would not only steal office pens and lie about how lovely you looked in your new evening dress tonight; they would burn their babies in the fire as a sacrifice for their idols. The pagans were cruel and evil. So, it is they, in this context, that God hates.
But this isn’t even the main problem with how Psalm 5:5-6 is being misused.
The Biblical Meaning of “Hate”
Much like “love,” the English word “hate” has become heavily loaded with strong emotional connotations in contemporary language. “Hate,” often used to express extremely strong emotions, is usually associated with images of violence, wrath, death, and anger. In biblical Hebrew, however, “hate” means something else altogether.
Regrettably, preachers often misinterpret ancient Hebrew (and Greek) terms when reading a translation in their native languages, applying modern perspectives and interpretations. This misinterpretation can occur accidentally, but at times, it might also stem from a desire to support a pre-existing theological agenda.
SANE = To avoid, reject, and ignore
The Hebrew word translated to “hate” is SANE. The Hebrew Bible frequently uses SANE as a synonym for ‘reject,’ ‘avoid,’ ‘deny,’ or ‘ignore.’ If you don’t trust my Hebrew skills as a native Hebrew speaker, then allow me to point you over to the Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible, where ‘SANE ’ is explained as something one avoids:
The pictograph is a picture of a thorn, then is a picture of seed. Combined, these mean “thorn seed.” The thorn, (the seed of a plant with small sharp points) causes one to turn in directions to avoid them.
Hate as reject: In Romans 9:10-13, Paul clearly uses “hate” in a matter of election. God elected Jacob yet rejected (SANE/hated) Esau. “Esau I have hated” is not about God wishing for Esau a violent and painful death but about God rejecting Esau and electing Jacob instead.
Thus, biblically speaking, to hate someone is to reject or avoid them—to deny your attention, election, intimacy, or blessings from them. If a woman hates her husband, she turns indifferent, pushes him away, avoids him, and leaves him. On the other hand, if she still cares for him — loves him — she will get angry and fight loudly and emotionally. You go to battle over the things you cherish most but avoid associating with those you hate and are apathetic about.
Hate as ignore/avoid: Paul’s understanding of “hate” is also why Paul says, “No one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body.” (Ephesians 5:29). We all know people who emotionally hate their body or parts of it. I emotionally hated mine when I was a fat kid with zits on my face. But as we just established, biblical hate is not about emotions or feelings of detestation. Paul was saying that no one ignores their body. We indeed drink water when we are thirsty and don’t avoid going to the toilet when our body tells us to (even if emotionally we “hate” ourselves).
The understanding that to ‘hate’ means to reject, ignore, or avoid is the only way the words of Jesus would make any sense:
If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.
Luke 14:26
Love would not demand that you “hate” (in the modern emotional sense of the word) others or your family because that would contradict Jesus’ commandment to love even our enemies. So clearly, to “hate” your family must mean we have to choose him over them, not loathe and despise them.
As a Jew, I had to experience Luke 14:26 when my Jewish mother first found out I believed in Jesus. When she demanded I stop believing and reject Jesus, I had to reject her plea, choosing Christ instead.
In the same way, we should read Psalm 5:5-6. God rejects the evildoers—the idols and those who worship them. God’s rejection of idols stems from their influence in leading Israel to commit heinous acts, such as the burning of their children.
To conclude, from a biblical standpoint, when you reject, avoid, or ignore someone, you SANE (“hate”) them. Therefore, God may “hate” in the sense of withdrawing blessings and protection from people, rejecting their appeals, or avoiding them. However, God loves even the greatest of sinners (1 Timothy 1:15).
Conclusion
God did not create humanity exactly like Himself—all-knowing, all-wise, immortal—but rather as limited and finite beings. In other words, there is a vast gap between God’s perfection and infallibility and humanity’s fallibility, limited abilities, restricted knowledge, and need for survival. Yet, fundamentalism/ECT insists that God must subject us to eternal torturous punishment because of the very gap between how He is and how He made us. How can that be considered sensible? How is it just and ethical? Clearly, it is not.
This article was a copy-paste from my new book on hell: HELL: A Jewish Perspective on a Christian Doctrine
