His holiness is so pure that he cannot forgive without punishing.1
Stan Mast, Calvinist Preacher
Some Christian denominations, such as Calvinists and Evangelicals, rigidly adhere to Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA), asserting that God’s holiness demands a rigid punishment for sin. And when I say rigid, I mean melting your skin in everlasting flames of fire… As a Jewish person, this doctrine always struck me as dubious.
Human wrath is often cruel and merciless, intended to be destructive, whereas “God’s wrath,” a biblical term describing God’s punishments of Israel, was always measured and temporary, intended to be corrective and constructive.
Consider a courtroom: at court, the judge is the one to define what is just. Similarly, God is not subject to any external rules and is the ultimate arbiter—He creates the rules. This isn’t just about God’s ability to punish sin; it’s about His sovereign choice to either punish or forgive. If human judges possess this discretion, why wouldn’t God, with infinitely greater authority and wisdom, have the same latitude?
Initially, as a new believer in Christ from a Jewish background, I dismissed this odd duck as some misunderstanding or flawed preaching not to be taken seriously. However, my education in Bible college and seminary2 introduced me once again to this perspective. And no, it wasn’t to correct it; it was to promote it.
“Why God punishes sin…The primary reason is that God’s righteousness demands it so that he might be glorified in the universe that he has created”3
Wayne Grudem, reformed theologian
“He cannot merely forgive or remit sin without punishing it… Sin left unpunished would leave God’s economy out of order.”4
Millard Erickson, reformed theologian
These quotes are philosophical arguments, not theological ones. This begs the question: did these theologians discern from the Bible the narrative that God cannot forgive sin without punishing it first, or is this an external philosophical rationalization they’ve impressed upon the text (and us)? Not that there is anything wrong with philosophy—if you use it correctly.
Calvin and Luther’s PSA greatly promoted the idea, but it didn’t start it. It was probably Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109). Anselm was infamously credited with the theology of “satisfaction,” or the idea that God’s honor needed repair because of human sin, the kind of repair that could not be satisfied by mere forgiveness of sin but by a very hot and painful punishment. Yes, we’re talking about your skin melting—just like the Nazis did to my family members—but for a billion years. Only that kind of punishment will serve justice, or at least so they believe. Otherwise? God can’t forgive you.
Nah, it would be entirely inappropriate for the evangelical movement and Calvinists to rely on Medieval theologians for their understanding of God, sin, and salvation. After all, they love to say “Sola Scriptura!” “Scriptures alone!”
Yeah, right…
This contradiction hasn’t stopped my Evangelical and Calvinist friends from persistently arguing that divine justice demands God must burn us in fire for a billion years for our imperfections. Their logic is that God’s inability to forgive without punishment stems from a commitment to justice. Justice, of all things, is their argument for why our Loving Father must boil us in lava for a billion years!
If God is our Father and we’re His children, then it’s as if they are telling us:
“My brother, Dad can’t forgive us unless He first takes His belt out and whips us for 7 hours. Only afterward, then He can forgive us.”
Or, as Erickson puts it,
“But, we must ask, is sin really serious if God can forgive without requiring some form of penalty or punishment?”
(p. 838)
Seriously?!
This line of reasoning implies that forgiveness undermines the seriousness of sin.
Isn’t the essence of forgiveness recognizing the gravity of the offense and choosing mercy over retribution? Jesus Himself emphasized radical forgiveness, urging us to forgive “up to seventy times seven” (Matt. 18:21-22). And no, He didn’t say we must first retaliate before we may forgive. Insisting that forgiven sins are not serious sins runs counter to the teachings of our Savior:
She has poured perfume on my feet. Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown. But whoever has been forgiven little loves little. Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”
(Luke 7:46-48)
Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
Luke 6:37
Paul, like Jesus, thought the same,
Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.
Eph. 4:32
Forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.
Col. 3:13
Speaking of serious sins, do you know what is a really really really serious sin? Misrepresenting God’s nature and character. Exodus 20:7 and Deuteronomy 5:11 warn against taking God’s name in vain. Misrepresenting His character surely falls within this prohibition. Ironically, those most fervent in their advocacy of a punitive God might be committing one of the gravest sins by distorting His true nature:
“Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”
Forgiveness is a profound act that acknowledges the seriousness of sin while choosing to extend grace. To assert otherwise is to misunderstand the very nature of God’s love and justice as revealed in Scripture. So, to conclude: No. To forgive someone doesn’t mean you first have to hurt them. Forgiveness entails a cost to you while the other party is set free.
Say we had a fight, and I offended you, but you chose to forgive me; it means I am set free—for free—while you absorbed the emotional cost. In the case of the parable of the Prodigal Son, forgiveness costs the father a significant portion of his wealth and emotional pain. He absorbs the loss to himself. If this father symbolizes God, then it would be inaccurate to assert that God had to abuse and torture Jesus in order to extend forgiveness to us, as often suggested by Calvinists and many Evangelicals. God didn’t resort to retaliation as a means of forgiveness; rather, He absorbed the cost to offer it.
And no, this does not negate His wrath.
Now, let’s talk about how all this affected the thinking of Western Christians.
Western retribution vs. Ancient Near Eastern reconciliation…
In the Western world, particularly within the modern judicial system, Christians often view justice as synonymous with retribution. This perspective, deeply ingrained in Western cultural consciousness, equates justice with the dispensation of punishment, where the scales are balanced through the penalizing of the wrongdoer. As my American Christian friend Rob Bright, an attorney with experience in criminal defense, told me:
“I’m an attorney who does some criminal defense. In our criminal justice system in the US, punishment for the offense is 95% of the concept of justice, with concepts like restitution being an afterthought, and restoration of relationship basically not even being in consideration.”
However, this view of justice is a relatively modern construct and differs markedly from the concept of justice in Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) societies, including those reflected in biblical narratives and today’s Judaism. In these societies, justice was less about retribution and more about restoring order, peace, and, most importantly, reconciliation.
Consider the biblical injunction to “love your neighbor as yourself,” a principle that echoes throughout the scriptures. This commandment encapsulates the essence of ANE justice—it’s about harmonious coexistence and the prevention of harm to others. When harm does occur, the goal isn’t to exact punishment for its own sake but to mend the breach and restore the relationship.
Take, for example, the biblical approach to premarital sex. In the modern church, this act is often condemned as a sin simply because it is prohibited, with the emphasis placed on the sinfulness of the act itself. Yet, if we look at the Old Testament law, the “punishment” for premarital sex is not a sacrifice or a public display of repentance but rather marriage, provided the couple is willing and able. This law seems to prioritize the stability of the family unit and the well-being of any potential children.
In this light, the biblical concept of justice is not about retribution but about reconciliation and restoration. It’s about correcting wrongs in a way that repairs relationships, not about inflicting pain for the sake of satisfaction. This is a form of justice that is motivated by love and compassion, not vindictiveness.
God’s Justice is not the Western Justice
The Western view of justice, characterized by retribution and punishment, was significantly influenced by the Western perception of God as an angry judge, dispensing wrath in a manner akin to Hollywood’s dramatized depictions of vengeance. This portrayal emphasizes a God whose wrath is ignited by transgressions, seeking to impose punitive measures that align with our modern cinematic narratives of justice. Such a view can overshadow the multifaceted nature of divine wrath, which, in its essence, is not about vindictive retribution but rather a righteous response aimed at correction and the restoration of order. The Western lens, tinted by images of an implacable judge meting out wrathful punishment, may distort the more nuanced biblical concept of God’s wrath as a means to bring about repentance and reconcile the fallen.
What purpose does God’s wrath serve in regard to revenge? Isaiah 1:24-26 sheds light on this matter:
Therefore the Lord, the Lord Almighty, the Mighty One of Israel, declares: ‘Ah! I will vent my wrath on my foes and avenge myself on my enemies. I will turn my hand against you; I will thoroughly purge away your dross and remove all your impurities. I will restore your leaders as in days of old, your rulers as at the beginning. Afterward, you will be called the City of Righteousness, the Faithful City.’
Isaiah 1:24-26
When God executes vengeance and unleashes His wrath, He does not seek to crush, annihilate, or devastate but rather restores and purifies. The intention behind God’s wrath and vengeance is to guide people on the right path, not to condemn them. This is why we should resist the urge to seek revenge ourselves and instead trust God to handle it. Human revenge is often fuelled by emotional rage, whereas divine vengeance aims to restore the transgressor.
God’s judgment, when understood through the lens of mercy, is a transformative force that combines justice with compassion. Divine Mercy offers hope, redemption, and forgiveness, allowing us to learn from our mistakes and grow spiritually. By viewing God’s judgment as an opportunity for spiritual growth, we can better appreciate the nurturing aspect of divine judgment and strive to become more compassionate and spiritually attuned individuals. God’s judgment is not about hurting you, but about exposing the truth so the issue can be treated and you can be cured. The purpose of God’s judgment is to correct people, not to condemn them.
The biblical principle of “an eye for an eye,” frequently invoked as an exemplar of retributive justice, is, in fact, a directive for proportionality, constraining restitution rather than prescribing punitive retribution. It serves to prevent a cycle of escalating vengeance, where each party incrementally intensifies their retaliation.
In the biblical context, when an individual repents and changes their ways, justice is served through the restoration of order and the renewal of relationships. Punishment beyond this—especially when motivated by a desire for revenge—is contrary to the spirit of biblical justice. Missing to see this will pervert our view of God’s justice.
This understanding of justice is sometimes obscured in translation. Hebrew conceptions of justice were more akin to disputes resolved in civil courts rather than criminal courts, focusing on the relationships between individuals rather than the state’s imposition of penalties.
Jesus’ teachings on justice align with this restorative perspective. His parables, such as the persistent widow seeking justice, emphasize relief from oppression and the restoration of peace rather than punishment for wrongdoing. The Parable of the Prodigal Son is perhaps the best example of all.
In conclusion, the biblical concept of justice is a far cry from the punitive model prevalent in the Western world, which often portrays God as an angry judge eager to burn us in hell for a billion years “to serve justice.” God’s justice restores and heals rather than burns and hurts. It makes peace and harmony rather than war and retaliates. This understanding challenges the common portrayal of a wrathful deity seeking to burn us, sinners, for an eternity for the sake of his “just” pleasure, suggesting instead a God who desires reconciliation and healing.
As we engage with ancient texts and seek to apply their principles today, it’s crucial to understand and embrace this holistic, restorative approach to justice, reflecting a God who is more interested in mending relationships than in exacting endless retribution.
Related article: What is hell?
I invite you to check out my new books, as well as my new micro-book series (very short books)! Click to see the list. (A book about Hell included.)
- https://cepreaching.org/commentary/2015-11-02/hebrews-924-28 ↩︎
- My BA is from Israel College of the Bible (ONE FOR ISRAEL’s Bible College), my MA is from Liberty University, and my doctorate is from Dallas Theological Seminary. BA and doctorate at Calvinistic seminaries, and Liberty is an evangelical Baptist with reformed theology. ↩︎
- Wayne Grudem, “Systematic Theology,” 509 ↩︎
- Millard Erickson, “Christian Theology,” 815 ↩︎