It is my contention that the biblical doctrine of Penal Substitution necessitates the biblical Doctrine of hell—hence the title of this post: “What God has joined together: A Case for Penal Substitution and the Necessity of Hell.”
Three reasons for my contention:
1. Human sin and a righteous God: Scripture presents God as loving and gracious and at the same time, righteous and holy. A loving and gracious God, in his righteousness and holiness, demands that human sin be punished.
2. Jesus Christ as Our Hilastērion: Paul says that “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement” (Rom. 3:25, TNIV, NRSV). Behind “a sacrifice of atonement” is the much contested Greek word hilastērion (“propitiation”[1] in KJV, ESV, HCSB, and “expiation”[2] in RSV, REB).
Paul and other NT writers would have had in mind a text like Leviticus 4:15, where a holy God established the sacrificial system of the OT to remind humanity of his holiness and their sinfulness and therefore the need to make atonement for their sins, with a penal understanding.
3. The Bible presents Hell as a Place of Punishment: Those who are in Christ, who have put their faith in him to save them, have been declared righteous because Jesus became their righteousness and therefore are now free from condemnation (Rom. 5:1; 2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 8:1).
However, those outside of Christ, who failed to trust him for their salvation, will be consigned to the lake of fire (Rev. 21:8), a place of eternal torment (Rev. 14:10-11).
Or to borrow a few words from the ever insightful C.S. Lewis:
In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell, is itself a question: “What are you asking God to do?” To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them? They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what He does. (The Problem of Pain, p. 116, emphasis mine)
Simply put: Penal Substitution, on the one hand, and the Necessity of Hell, on the other hand—therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.
HT: Nick
__________
Notes:
[1] George Ladd argues convincingly for hilastērion to be understood in a “propitiatory” manner (A New Testament Theology, 470-74).
[2] James D.G. Dunn argues convincingly for ”expiation” instead of “propitiation” (The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 213-16)
No argument here.
Jason,
Ah, good to have a sharp mind in agreement.
I am also in agreement.
Me three.
Brian L and Gary,
Good to have you guys in agreement.
It’s clear as bell to me. Scripture seems to make it obvious but people find ways around it.
Jeff
Jeff,
But not as “clear as bell” to those who share a diferent point of view on the matter.
basically…
TC-I don’t have a problem with “Hell” conceptually, but the elision of this a particular theory of the Atonement which is distorted at best and off the mark at worst is what I question. Levitical conception of sacrifice is not “penal,” it operates from the notion of exchange.
For an alternative reading and theological synthesis,which predates the Western one which shapes how most Christians in the West see the issue, listen to Fr. Thomas Hopko, Dean Emeritus of St. Vladimir’s Seminary, whose biblically and theologically astute and engaging.
http://ancientfaith.com/specials/hopko_lectures/understanding_the_cross_of_christ
Scott,
I don’t understand a reading of a text like Lev. 4:35 without a “penal” conception. Why the need to “make atonement on your behalf for the sin that you have committed, and you shall be forgiven” (NRSV)?
But even if we were to grant exchange, which is a given, Why such? Btw, even an NT Wright grants a “propiatory” reading of hilastērion.
TC writes:I don’t understand a reading of a text like Lev. 4:35 without a “penal” conception. Why the need to “make atonement on your behalf for the sin that you have committed, and you shall be forgiven” (NRSV)?
Yes, it can be termed “substitutionary” but that doesn’t mean it can be understood by means of the “penal” model. The sacrificial system cleasnes from sin so that the holy God can dwell with the people. The “penal” model has to do with a specific understanding of “why” beyond the “what”.
Scott,
Your “why” and “what” are needed. But your apparent answer to the “why” is only resultant: “so that the holy God can dwell with the people.”
But the Substitute was needed because a holy God required a payment for sin to effect the resultant relatioNship: “For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, no longer counting people’s sins against them. This is the wonderful message he has given us to tell others.” (2 Cor. 5:19, NLT).
Then,
“For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life.” (Rom. 5:10, NRSV)
What other conclusion must be drawn?
TC-
The logic of your assertions are firmly grounded in the theological lens (system) by which you connect the dots in understanding the biblical data. A cursory reading of historical theology that show that that there have been various ways Atonement theologies have been expounded.
Scott,
Yes, I’m quite aware of the various positions on the Atonement. I tend to sample all of them in the understand of the doctrine from a NT perspective, in its fuller development.
By the way, I thoroughly enjoyed that lecture. I’ve listened to it twice, but I was expecting a better treatment of the matter from a Pauline perspective.