Timothy Keller on Hell: A Response to The Reason for God
Pastor Tan Thai
This article analyzes and responds to chapter 5 of Timothy Keller's 'The Reason for God,' specifically addressing the topic of hell and God's love. Author Mako Nagasawa agrees with some of Keller's arguments but contends that the penal substitution theory of atonement Keller relies on creates serious theological contradictions. Instead, Nagasawa proposes the medical-ontological theory of atonement, accepted by the earliest church, as a more accurate framework for understanding hell and salvation.
The article begins by summarizing three common objections Timothy Keller addresses in chapter 5 of 'The Reason for God': (1) Western culture rejects a God with an objective moral standard; (2) a God of judgment cannot simultaneously be a God of love; (3) a loving God would not allow hell to exist. The author appreciates how Keller questions the emotionalism of Western culture since the Enlightenment and argues that true love must be accompanied by wrath when the beloved is harmed.
However, author Mako Nagasawa identifies an internal contradiction in Keller's argument: Keller relies on Calvin's penal substitution theory in chapter 12 while simultaneously drawing on C.S. Lewis's view in chapter 5 that hell is self-imposed rather than God-inflicted. These two positions are mutually incompatible. If penal substitution is true, then hell must be a retributive punishment inflicted by God, not a voluntary choice. Furthermore, if Jesus absorbed the punishment for our sins on the cross, then the resurrection plays no real role in salvation, which contradicts Scripture (1 Corinthians 15:17; Romans 4:25).
Nagasawa introduces the medical-ontological theory of atonement, which was the understanding of the earliest church and was maintained for over a thousand years before Calvin proposed penal substitution in the sixteenth century. According to this theory, Jesus incarnated to take on corrupted and diseased human nature (John 1:14; Romans 7:21), struggled throughout his life to overcome sinful flesh (Luke 2:52; Hebrews 5:7), and through his death and resurrection destroyed corruption and provided a new, purified humanity to all who receive him. Therefore, the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and giving of the Holy Spirit are all saving events connected to the one saving person, Jesus.
Regarding hell, the author argues that under the medical model, hell is not a place of retributive punishment but a state in which people refuse to allow God to heal their sinful nature. The image of fire in Scripture describes not destruction but refinement (Malachi 3:2-3; Psalm 66:10; 1 Corinthians 3:12-15). Hell is the condition of those who have conditioned themselves to be addicted to something other than God, to the point where God's refining love becomes torment for them. Hell is therefore both 'the wrath of God' in the sense that He is against the corruption at the heart of each person, and 'the love of God' in the sense that He never abandons anyone and continues to call out to them.
The article concludes with Nagasawa offering alternative answers to the three original objections, grounded in the medical rather than legal paradigm. He argues that this approach not only resolves the contradictions in Keller's argument but also provides a more coherent understanding of God's consistency, the meaning of salvation, and the true biblical nature of hell. The author also references the Garden of Eden narrative (Genesis 2:8-17) as the perfect explanation for humanity's tendency to want to define good and evil for itself, and invites readers to further explore these theological themes.