A God of Wrath or Love?
Perhaps start by reading the abbreviated or short summary version of the full article below. Then you may want to listen to the Podcast below (AI generated from the full article - so cool!) — although obviously you can review the material in any order. To read the full article, which takes about 15-20 minutes, click here. You can download a .pdf version of the full article at the bottom of the online full article.
Is Salvation a Transaction?
Many Christians have been told salvation is a simple formula: Admit you're a sinner, repent, believe in Jesus' sacrifice—and bam!—you're saved from eternal hellfire. But how do you know if you really believe? Can belief be forced? If faith isn’t a switch we can flip, does doubt mean rejection? Christianity should not feel like a high-stakes cosmic guessing game.
Fear vs. Love: How We See God
Jonathan Edwards famously preached about “sinners in the hands of an angry God.” That image has haunted Christianity, making God seem like a wrathful judge eager to punish. But what if that’s not who God is at all? Albert Einstein asked, “Is the universe a friendly place?” That question matters because how we see God shapes how we live—either in fear or in trust.
A transactional relationship with God—one built on fear—inevitably leads to anxiety and spiritual insecurity. Running from the faith could feel like what is needed for one’s sanity. But the Bible portrays a different God, one of steadfast love and faithfulness: “God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.” (1 John 4:16). This is a God who doesn’t demand perfection but offers restoration.
Substitutionary Atonement Theology
A common teaching, known as substitutionary atonement, claims Jesus had to die to satisfy God's justice. But wait—doesn’t God set the rules? If He must punish sin, can He really forgive unconditionally? Early Christians didn’t see Jesus’ death as appeasing divine wrath. Instead, they saw it as the ultimate revelation of love—a God who steps into human suffering, not one who demands payment.
The truth is, sin is often a symptom of suffering, not just rule-breaking. And certainly sin has its own natural consequences. But what heals suffering? Not punishment, but restoration. Jesus didn’t come to condemn; he came to heal.
Did Jesus have Anything to say about Atonement Theology?
Yes he did! Directly. You probably recall the most important sermon in the life of Jesus: The Sermon on the Mount. Throughout the sermon, Jesus was challenging the Jewish law and the Hebrew scriptures - “scripture says, but I say.” The Hebrew scripture was not big on mercy - it was all about justice and rendering the appropriate punishment. Atonement, the concept of making sure that the punishment is at least equal to the sin, was important Jewish theology. The appropriate debt or price for the offense had to be paid. The Hebrew scripture in Deuteronomy 19:21 states: "Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." Jesus clearly stands against this atonement theology, "You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also" (Matthew 5:38-39).
Atonement would be about slapping the guy back—unless you could find someone else that would take the slap for you—that would be substitutionary atonement. It's a tit-for-tat, quid pro quo, zero-sum game. But just to make sure that the crowd understood that atonement theology was not the heart of God, Jesus doubled-down with several other examples of offering mercy instead of atonement: "And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you" (Matthew 5:40-42). How is it possible that atonement still is a core principle of Christian theology, even though Jesus clearly tried to change it?
Mercy Not Sacrifice
Ancient cultures believed gods demanded sacrifices—sometimes even human ones—to stay in their favor. If there is not enough rain for the crops, the narrative was that angry gods needed a sacrifice to appease them. One of the most striking examples of the early sacrificial mindset in the Bible is the story of Abraham and Isaac, where God supposedly asked Abraham to kill his son Isaac (Genesis 22:1-14). Does that sound like something a God of infinite love really would do?
Nevertheless, temple sacrifice and the sacrificial culture was rampant in Jesus’ time. A huge part of the economy in Jerusalem centered around Temple sacrifice - it was good for business! Sacrifice was the water they swam in. So when we see verses in the Bible that talk about “sacrifice,” or “ransom,” or “paying the price” — Of course! The sacrifice of animals was the Jewish culture and metaphorically the mindset. But here’s the game-changer: The early Christians believed that the debt that needed to be paid — the atonement — was to the devil - NOT to God! That was the narrative of Christians until the eleventh century.
Anselm of Canterbury (11th century) reshaped atonement theology, arguing that humanity owed a debt—not to the devil (as earlier Christians believed), but to God. This is a crucial point that somehow gets left out of our Christian history: a debt owed to God was not the accepted narrative until the eleventh century. This led to the “penal” substitutionary atonement theory, later supercharged by John Calvin, who made divine justice seem like a harsh legal system requiring “punitive” suffering as payment. In other words, mere tit-for-tat atonement wasn’t terrifying enough. So instead of an "eye for an eye," or a "slap for a slap," penal justice is about ten slaps to punish for the one slap. Or in the case of "eternal" punishment, you get slapped for an eternity to pay the price for the one slap. Crazy, huh?
But does that viewpoint align with the teachings and the life of Jesus? If Jesus told us to forgive seventy times seven (Matthew 18:22), to love your enemies (Matthew 5:44), and to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:38-39), wouldn’t a God of infinite love do the same? The atonement mindset certainly influenced biblical times, but Jesus shattered it. He said, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." (Matthew 9:13) He challenged religious systems that demanded blood, teaching instead about grace, inclusion, forgiveness and radical love. His parables, such as the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32), emphasized radical grace over rigid fairness, showing that God is more concerned with reunion and restoration than retribution. In fact, Jesus never used harsh words with sinners - check it out! He only got frustrated with those who thought they were not sinners.
What About Hell?
Many imagine hell as eternal torture, but is that what scripture actually teaches? Jesus’ word for hell, Gehenna, referred to a literal garbage dump outside and isolated from the safety and community of the gates of Jerusalem. It was where fires burned trash—a powerful metaphor for destruction and self-inflicted separation, not divine eternal torture. Jesus loved to teach through metaphor and parables, using vivid imagery and relatable stories to convey deep truths: 'I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world' (Matthew 13:34-35).
Jesus wasn’t giving a geography lesson on the afterlife; he was using a vivid, real-world image to illustrate the self-destructive consequences of rejecting love and embracing separation. Just as people could physically walk into Gehenna and experience its filth and decay, Jesus warned of the spiritual equivalent—choosing a path that leads to inner ruin and self-imposed exile from the safety of God’s love. Jesus was not talking about some future geographic place to burn, but about the choices we are making here and now.
Church traditions have long debated hell. Some, like C.S. Lewis, saw it as voluntary exile after death, where people remain out of their own separation because they refuse love. In his book, The Great Divorce, Lewis shared that at any time, even after death, anyone can return to God. The Catholic notion of purgatory echoes this sentiment. Martin Luther opposed the concept of purgatory, which is why some say was a big reason he wanted to separate the Apocryphal books from the Bible, because these books offered some support for the concept. It is also why a second chance after death is not typically a Protestant belief.
If there is a hell after death, it makes sense that self-imposed separation from God metaphorically would be hell, but that it also would be a choice. Choosing isolation and loneliness sure sounds like hell, even if it does not involve actual fire and brimstone. But once someone truly experiences infinite love and connection, why would they choose to continue remaining separated?
Many have been frightened by the words of the famous evangelist Billy Graham and other evangelicals, who end sermons with the fear-invoking question, “If you died tonight, do you know where you would go?” Indeed, fear is an effective motivator. If Romans 8:38-39 says nothing, not even death, can separate us from God’s love—why do we assume death is the deadline for grace? Making a decision to “accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior” to stay out of hell is not doing it out of love—but out of fear, which builds a faith rooted in fear. A faith rooted in fear breeds fear. The long-term emotional toll of this type of "salvation-at-gun-point” decision can be devastating.
If it were true that death is the final belief deadline to follow Jesus, wouldn’t the Bible make it unmistakably clear, given the eternal consequences? Geez, for something so horrible like the concept of eternal hell and punishment, one would think the Bible would devote at least a full chapter to the subject. I mean, we get entire books about how to build a temple, but on this topic? Crickets. Go ahead - try to pull up even a single verse in scripture that clearly says that death is the last chance.
Justice: Punishment or Restoration?
Does eternal punishment for a finite life of mistakes sound like justice—or like divine overkill? Jesus’ teachings suggest God’s justice is about healing, not revenge. Approximately two-thirds of the Gospel message is about grace, forgiveness, and restoration. What if instead of seeing God as a cosmic judge keeping score, we saw Him as relentless love, meeting us in our struggles and inviting us into loving safety and wholeness?
The idea of retributive justice—punishment for the sake of balance—is not God’s justice. God’s justice is restorative: repairing what is broken, healing what is wounded, and seeking reconciliation. Jesus’ ministry embodied this restorative approach, as he healed the sick, forgave sins, and embraced outcasts (Luke 5:31-32). Paul describes salvation as reconciliation with God, emphasizing that through Christ, all things are being restored to unity with Him (2 Corinthians 5:18-19).
Faith Beyond Fear
Nobody knows what happens after we die. No one has a backstage pass. But for centuries, theologians have used fear to control people. What if Christianity was never meant to be about fire insurance? What if it was always about love—beginning, middle, and end – the Alpha and the Omega?
If God is truly love, then our response shouldn’t be fear but gratitude. No loopholes. No fine print. Just love. And that’s Good News worth embracing.
