Does the “Infinite Offense” Argument Make Sense?

I was at church Sunday. The preacher was doing an explicitly evangelistic sermon. Overall, I thought the message and delivery was solid. However, in the middle of it, he shared an argument that I have heard many times, but never really struck me as particularly compelling. Perhaps it is just me. I will completely paraphrase what he said, because I did not write anything down. It was something like the following:

“So how can God just send us to hell for eternity? Doesn’t seem fair, right? Well… consider this. Suppose you sinned against a rock, if such a thing were possible. What sort of punishment would be appropriate? Not much of anything, right? It’s a rock. Or suppose you sin against a neighbor. This will be take a lot more seriously, because a person is much more than a rock. Now suppose you sin against the President. What would happen then? You might actually be executed. Now consider this… if you sin against a completely holy and infinite God, how much greater is this offense. It is an infinite offense and so deserves an infinite punishment. God is completely fair.”

There are some arguments that I find more compelling than others. However, arguments built around an inherently subjective thing such as “fairness” are especially problematic. When I was young, and my sister was two years younger than me, my parents would give us “an allowance”— some spending money. They gave me the exact same amount as they gave her. They told me this was fair because… they were giving me the same amount as her. My response was “No,” it is unfair. When I am 11 years old, for example, my sister is receiving the same amount as I. However, that is more than what I received when I was 9. In fact, since we started receiving allowance at the same time, she started getting allowance when she was two years young than me. Clearly not fair, right? Well… it is not that clear. Fairness is pretty subjective. The argument crumbles pretty much as soon as one says, “Nuh-uh. That does not make sense to me.”

The infinite offense argument is taking a small truth— mistreatment of an inanimate object is treated less severely than against an animate object, and lesser still than against a human— and extending it to God who is (for any practical purposes) infinite.

However, many of us would balk at this. First, when one tries to pull out High School math, it cuts both ways. After all, if the one offended is infinitely “big” then the offender is infinitesimally “small.” If that is the case, does that make the offense infinite or infinitesimal. If fact, does that make ANY possible punishment infinite or infinitesimal, fair or unfair?

Playing around with the math essentially means nothing. It is a way to obscure issues, with the hope that at the end people will be comfortable with eternal punishment.

I would be surprised if that argument has worked on anyone. God, frankly, has never been fair. I don’t mean this in a bad way at all. God’s mercy has always been greater than His justice. Our hope is built on God’s “unfairness.”

I think there are ultimately three further things to note about this argument:

#1. The Bible does not really tell us much about Hell. It is pretty clear it is a real place (at least real destination). It is pretty clear that NO ONE should want it to be one’s destination. Much of what is popularly taught about Hell is speculative. Speculation is fine… but one should be careful not to build one’s theology on mere speculation.

#2. The Bible does not give details about Hell for a reason, I believe. It is not, and never has been, the reason for following Christ as our act of worship. Guessing about the nature of Hell, and using it as a foundational aspect of the Gospel presentation is suspect. I know wonderful people who would argue exactly the opposite. Hell is important and vital for people to “wrap their head around.” Perhaps they are right. Generally, I don’t really think it is true.

#3. Perhaps the biggest point for me, however is that I think the problem comes from being stuck in one metaphor for too long. The Western church has fallen in love with the Righteous Judge metaphor of God. That leads to a lot of arguments on whether God is really righteous or fair. In my mind, since the Bible makes it clear that God is Righteous but unjust (showing mercy when mercy is not deserved), the metaphor does tend to break down when it is extended too far. A stronger metaphor from the Bible is God as Adoptive Father. This is one especially promoted by Jesus and has a strong place in the rest of the New Testament. The Parable of the Prodigal Son (“The Gospel within the Gospel”). Even God as a Good Shepherd overlaps with this metaphor as one who seeks to rescue FROM Hell, rather than sends TO Hell.

So, did I help people come to terms with the issue of fairness? Absolutely not. That is for each to wrestle with as they see fit. However, I believe we should focus less on the “fairness of God sending people to Hell” and more on the “unfairness of God drawing people to Himself as a loving Father.”