What, John is Not the Author?

While working on a paper, I came across a commentator that strongly argued that John was not likely the author of The Gospel According to John because this title was probably not a part of the original work.  He also argued that the book didn't contain any other indication of who the author could be.  I couldn't help but think about how this viewed seemed only to work in a bubble. 

Imagine a copy of the Gospel of John was dropped from an airplane into a tribe of remote people who had no other books of the Bible. Imagine that prior to the Gospel drop, they had never heard of Jesus, Christianity, or any other aspect associated with the Bible. Also imagine that the title was removed. It is impossible that they would identify the author as the disciple named "John." What reason would they have to do so when the only two “Johns” mentioned in the Gospel are John the Baptist who was killed and Peter’s father. They would have no reason what-so-ever to think Peter’s father wrote the account.

Now imagine the Gospel was dropped with the heading “According to John.” Would they draw the conclusion that John is the name of the beloved disciple? This is far more likely considering John 21:20-24. Verse 20 clearly identifies a man nearby as the disciple Jesus loved, who was reclining at the table in John 13. Peter asks Jesus about this nearby man and a brief discussion about the man transpires. Then verse 24 says, “This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written things, and we know that his testimony is true” (ESV). Given the title of the work, “According to John,” the tribe would likely only come to two possible conclusions. First, they would likely conclude that the beloved disciple wrote most if not all of the Gospel. Second, they would conclude that either, 1. John was the name of the beloved disciple, 2. John was the name of the editor that redacted the beloved disciple’s work and added the final few lines as a tribute; or 3. that John was the name of the beloved disciple who took notes which an editor or group of editors redacted, added a few lines at the end and named after him.

These two exercises demonstrate the significant evidence found in the of the title of the work. That being said, it is uncertain that this was the original title. However, Burge argues that the earliest Greek manuscripts known to us today do bare this title (1992, 40). In addition, these two exercises isolate the huge body of external evidence, which includes other works contained in the Bible as well as the writings of other people in the first and second centuries. Given this body of evidence, it is most likely that John was the name of the beloved disciple and did write all or nearly all the gospel that bares his name.

In light of the evidence, if the beloved disciple is John—as the external evidence demonstrates—but John is not the author of the Gospel of John as some scholars claim, a lie is present in the Book of John, seriously bringing question upon the credibility of the Gospel. However, there is substantial evidence (which is not discussed here) that supports that John is both the beloved disciple and the author of the Gospel of John.

Therefore, I have to conclude that John, the son of Zebedee, who was also the beloved disciple, is the same John who wrote the Fourth Gospel. 

__
Burge, Gary M. Interpreting the Fourth Gospel. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1992.

Theological Word: Hapax Legomena

Hapax Legomena is the technical way of identifying words that only appear once in a given writing.

It might be, for example, a word that only appears once in the New Testament, Old Testament, or maybe only once in all of Paul's work, or even in a specific book.  Obviously, we will find a higher persentage of hapax legomena if we only look at one of Paul's letters compared to examining all of the Greek in the New Testament in conjunction with the Septuagint (LXX), which is an early translation of the Hebrew Bible into the Koine Greek language used during the time of Jesus and the early Church.  The more limited the range, the greater the hapax legomena.  

It might seem silly that these words are significant, but at times they can raise interesting insight.  We might wonder why the author chose a specific less common word to express an idea.  Or it might be that the idea is wrapped up in the unique word itself.   This is especially true of words that only appear once in all of the Bible.

Hapax legomena might also raise translational challenges.  As one tries to understand how authors were using specific words, he or she can look at how the author used the word elsewhere.   Not so with hapax legomena. 

An example of a New Testament hapax legomena can be found in Matthew 17:27.  Here the word agkistron (translated 'hook') means a bent hook.  This is the only place this word is found in the New Testament.   Another example, much like the previous one, is agkos (translated 'arm') which means bent arm.  This word is found in Luke 2:28.  There are over 1,400 hapax legomena and most of them, like a bet hook, are of little concern to the meaning of the passage.

He is Alive! Confirmation on the Road to Emmaus

(And Exegetical Look at Luke 24:13-45)

INTRODUCTION

Jesus had been crucified. He was dead. Joseph of Arimathea had laid his beaten and lifeless body in a rock tomb. That was Friday. On Sunday, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the Mother of James, and other women went to tend to Jesus’ body. But when they arrived at the tomb, Jesus was not there. Instead, they encountered two angels proclaiming that Jesus had risen—he was alive! The angels reminded the ladies of what Jesus had told them, saying, “Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise” (Luke 24:6b-7, ESV)¹.

The women returned and reported these things to the eleven—Jesus’ closest disciples—and “to all the rest” (Luke 24:9b). But the most of the men thought these women were spinning wild stories and they chose not to believe them. Peter however, ran to the tomb and looked in, first seeing that the stone had been rolled away and then that the only contents remaining were the linen cloths that once wrapped Jesus’ body. He returned to the others and reported what he had seen. On the same day, two people (one unnamed and the other identified as Cleopas) were walking and discussing the various events concerning Jesus when a stranger appeared to them. As it turned out, they encountered the risen Lord on the road to Emmaus.

Volumes of been penned about the Emmaus encounter. Generations have dissected Luke’s account of Christ’s revelation of himself to these two witnesses. Some, it seems, have hunted for clues and codes beyond the most significant and obvious story, while others cannot even seem to accept that two people walking to a nearby town encountered the risen Jesus on the third day. Luke however, makes it very clear—Jesus is raised and he presented himself to these two witnesses on the road and in a home, as they were about to eat.

This post will closely examine the Emmaus road encounter as recorded in Luke 24:13-35. First, the passage will be summarized. Following the summation, and introduction of the author will be provided along with some background of the time and audience in which he was writing. Then the purpose of the book of Luke will be surveyed, and the context of the passage will be discussed. Once this foundation is laid, the content of Luke 24:13-35 will be the focus, starting with the most obvious message of the text: Jesus is alive! This and other aspects of the text will be offered by way of synthesis of the various ideas from the passage itself and commentaries on the passage. But this is not the ending point of the post. A practical application for today’s students of the Bible (the ultimate reason for study) will serve as the conclusion.

SUMMARY OF LUKE 24:13-16

On the same day the women saw the angels, Cleopas and an unnamed person were walking from Jerusalem to Emmaus, which is about seven miles from Jerusalem. (13, 18). They were talking about all the things that had recently happened, that is, likely the things concerning Jesus, to include his mighty works and teaching, his trial, his crucifixion, the report from the women about their experience with the angels at the tomb, and the men who found the tomb empty (14, 19-24). They had hoped Jesus was the one to redeem Israel (21). Just then, Jesus came near, likely from the direction of Jerusalem, but the two travelers were kept from recognizing him (15-16). He asked the two people what they had been discussing and they stopped walking and were visibly sad (17). Cleopas then responded, as if in shock or just wanting to push away the stranger, asking Jesus if he were a visitor that had not heard anything about what had been going on in and around Jerusalem (18). Jesus replied, “What things?” and they told him about the many things regarding Jesus and the women and the empty tomb and that it was, on that day, the third day since Jesus died (19-24). Jesus responded, calling them “foolish ones” and “slow of heart to believe” the prophets (25). He then began explaining how all of the Scriptures were about himself (26-27).

As they approached Emmaus, it seemed that Jesus was continuing on, but the two people encouraged Jesus to stay with them. It was almost evening so Jesus went in to stay with them (28-29). Sitting at the table, Jesus took the bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to the other two (30). At that moment their eyes were open and they recognized Jesus; then he vanished (31). The two started talking about it and they realized that their hearts burned while they were talking with Jesus on the road as he opened up the Scriptures to them (32). Although it was getting dark, they returned to Jerusalem that same night and met with the eleven and the others gathered around. The eleven told the two, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” (Luke 24:34). After this proclamation, the two reported what they had witnessed on the road and how they recognized Jesus as he was breaking the bread (33-35).

BACKGROUND

Who is the Author? According to Carson and Moo, “Most scholars agree that Luke and Acts were written by the same individual.”² The strongest support comes from Theophilus, or rather, the author’s introduction to Theophilus found in both Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1-2. Morris states, “Tradition unanimously affirms this author to be Luke.”³ While Morris, Carson, and Moo deal with the convincing proof that Luke is the author of the book that bares his name and its sequel, this post will agree with tradition for the sake of space.

Paul refers to Luke as a physician in his letter to the Colossians (4:14). Luke’s profession seems consistent with minor details of medical interest found throughout his writing. For example, when Luke discusses the fever of Peter’s mother-in-law, it is a “high fever” but Matthew and Mark only say it is a fever (Luke 4:38, Matthew 8:14, Mark 1:30). In addition, Luke appears to be a meticulous, detail-oriented man as he claimed to have “undertaken to compile a narrative” of the “eyewitnesses” and “followed all things closely for some time past” so that he could then “write an orderly account” for Theophilus in which Theophilus could have “certainty” concerning the things he had already been taught (Luke 1:1-4). While only speculation, it seems logical that this would require meeting eyewitnesses for interviews, likely reading anything else written about Jesus, listening to stories, and traveling to places where the events happened. Notes would likely be taken and organization would be necessary. And in fact, it is seen in portions of Acts that Luke was along with Paul and others on parts of Paul’s journeys.

In addition to his profession and likely mental capabilities, there is also a possibility that Luke was a Gentile Christian. This support comes from Colossians 4:10-14, where first Paul lists the names of those with him who were circumcised (Aristarchus, Mark, and Justus) and then lists others to include Luke. It can be assumed that, Luke, not being among the circumcised list, would be a Gentile. And being a companion of Paul, along with writing a positive book about Jesus in order to show Theophilus the truth of the things he had already learned, there is great cause to think that Luke believe the content of his two books and was a Christian. And for what it is worth, Foxe recorded in his Book of Martyrs that Luke was “hanged on an olive tree, by the idolatrous priest of Greece.”⁴

The Time and Audience. Just as much can be said about the scholarly work of the authorship of Luke, so too is the case of the date of its composition. Two strong hypotheses exist—one for authorship some time in the early 60’s and the other for a time between AD75-85.⁵ Either way, the time of authorship is sometime in the first century between 60 and 85, which is close enough in regard to the passage being examined in this post. Although the time of the passage itself takes place sometime between AD30 and 33, the most significant aspect of these dates is that many of the people identified in Luke would have still been alive at the time of its authorship. And as Luke set out to write a theological historical narrative of the accounts, his book would have been greatly challenged if it misrepresented the facts.

Luke lived in a mix of Jews and Gentiles and was likely writing for an audience of both. Carson and Moo speculate that even though Theophilus was the singular, primary audience, “it is almost certain that Luke had a wider reading public in view.”⁶ But given that Luke ties Jesus’ genealogy all the way back to Adam and assumes no Jewish tradition, it is likely that Luke was writing much more for the Gentiles than the Jews. In addition, much of Luke has a broader implication than just the Jewish people. And some of the cultural matters, such as including women in the narratives, suggest that Luke was writing from and to a culture other than the Jews. And if indeed Luke traveled with Paul, as this author believes, than it seems probably that Luke may have shared Paul’s desire to take the gospel to the Gentiles.

Purpose and Context. As already stated above, Luke’s purpose for his book was to provide and accurate account of the events of Jesus so Theophilus could have certainty in the things he was already taught. Considering the content of the book of Luke, it would seem that the things Theophilus was taught was likely the gospel of Jesus Christ and the way to salvation. The purpose of Chapter 24, of which the Emmaus road experience is a part, is to show that Christ has indeed risen and appeared to a variety of witnesses. It should be noted that of the three sections of this chapter (the angels’ declaration to the women, the Emmaus road experience, and Jesus’ appearance to the eleven and others) the Emmaus road event is the longest and vividly detailed.

The Emmaus road narrative is sandwiched between and account of the women, which the men did not believe, and Jesus’ climatic appearance to his group of disciples. In this context, the prospective of the two on the road serves as a bridge between the disbelief and the outright empirical testing of Christ’s resurrection. In the first panel (the story with the women), Jesus is not seen whatsoever. In the second, Jesus is seen but not recognized until the end. Here he must be heard and believed by faith more so than believed with the eyes. And finally, in the third panel, the disciples were able to touch and see Christ, and even witness him eat!

CONTENT

Jesus is Alive! As one reads Luke 24:13-35, it is easy to get sidetracked. Why were the two people restricted from recognizing Jesus? Was the breaking of the bread a communion service or just a meal, and why was Jesus serving it rather than the host? Where exactly did this event happen; can we pinpoint it on a map? Was the other witness Luke, or maybe Cleopas’ wife, or some other disciple? Why does Luke withhold the name of the second person? If the two disciples had not insisted on having Jesus stay, where would he have gone? Was Jesus presenting some kind of falsehood or lie by acting as if he was going on? All of these are interesting questions, but no other question from this text is worth anything if Luke’s most important and obvious point is not understood and accepted. The Lord is risen! Through the entire twenty-forth chapter, Luke is presenting accounts of Jesus’ resurrection, in detail, locations pointed out, witnesses named (mostly).

The Emmaus road account opens with two people discussing recent events, trying to make since of them. It is unknown why they were going to Emmaus, but it is possible that they lived there and were returning home from Passover as Culpepper and O’Day suggest.⁷ Regardless of their reason for travel, it is clear from verse 24 that these people were with the group that heard the account from the women. And they knew of Peter’s finding of an empty tomb; yet they did not remain in Jerusalem with the eleven and the rest of the disciples.

From the perspective of the two, a stranger came along side them. This stranger could see that they were carrying on a conversation and asked them about it. “The two disciples,” writes Geldenhuys, “would no doubt at first have felt offended at the obtrusiveness of the unknown Stranger, especially since they were talking so earnestly while they were walking and were so sorrowful and despondent.”⁸ But the stranger asks them another question; “What things?” he asks, showing that he genuinely is interested in the matter causing them such grief. And at this, these two confess their love of Jesus. They believed he was going to redeem Israel according to verse 21. Not knowing this man, they even take a risky position by placing blame for Jesus’ crucifixion on the Jews. To this Morris writes, “Notice that it is not the Romans but our chief priests and rulers who both delivered him up and crucified him. The reference to his being condemned to death implicates the Romans, but the chief blame is put squarely on the Jews.”⁹ They continue to express that this is not simply a matter of a prophet being put to death, but the one in which they had placed their hope.

A curious addition is the mention that this was the third day since Christ’s death. This would be of no value to the stranger unless they also told him what Jesus had taught and what the angles had reminded the women in verses 6-7: “that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise” (Luke 24:6b-7). It seems it must, at least at that moment, have been on the minds of these travelers. John Calvin argues, “For it is probable that he mentions the third day for no other reason that that the Lord had promised that after three days, he would rise again. When he afterwards relates that the women had not found the body, and that they had seen a vision of angels, and that what the women had said about the empty grave was likewise confirmed by the testimony of the men, the whole amounts to this, that Christ had risen. That the holy man, hesitating between faith and fear, employs what is adapted to nourish faith, and struggles against fear to the utmost of his power.”¹⁰

The stranger rebukes them for not trusting in what the Scriptures taught about the Messiah and the stranger begins to take them through the Law and Prophets showing them how these things were about him, about Jesus. As this was happening, the men experienced a burning within, according to verse 32, but this was still not enough for them to recognize Jesus. Verse 16 says, “But their eyes were kept from recognizing him” (Luke 24:16). Barclay argues that they were blinded and could not recognize Jesus because they were walking west toward the sunset and therefore blinded by the brilliance of the sun.¹¹ While Barclay attempts to focus on the how, Morris simply points out, “On this occasion the implication appears to be that the disciples were somehow prevented from recognizing Jesus. It was in God’s providence that only later should they come to know who he was. Perhaps Luke wants us to gather, as Ford suggests, ‘that we cannot see the risen Christ, although he be walking with us, unless he wills to disclose himself’.”¹² Once the three of them were inside and sharing bread, their eyes were opened and the recognized Jesus as their resurrected Lord. Duffield and Van Cleave see this scripture as pointing to the “uniqueness” of Christ’s resurrected body in that “it was not recognizable at times.”¹³ However, most commentators and theologians, even including Duffield and Van Cleave are in agreement with Driscoll and Breshears, who use verse 31, when the disciples’ eyes were opened to argue, “Jesus’ resurrected body was the same as his pre-resurrection body. His disciples recognized him as the same person who had been crucified.”¹⁴ The most important thing is not how or why the people on the road did not initially recognize Jesus, instead, it is that when they eventually did, Luke presents it as a proof of Jesus’ resurrection.

The reaction of the two disciples was so great that despite that evening was near, they absolutely had to go back to the eleven and others in Jerusalem and testify that Jesus has risen, he was alive and they had encountered him. Their conviction was overwhelming. This was not a specter or spirit they walked and talked with. It was not a vision that broke bread and gave it to them. It was the alive and physical Jesus. These two witnesses were excited to tell others and Luke used this event to convince his audience that Jesus was and is alive.

Jesus Revealed Himself. While the primary point of the passage, the most significant aspect that should be preached above all else, is that Jesus is risen, there are some other significant aspects of this passage worth investigation. The first is that Jesus revealed himself. The two people were walking together when Jesus came upon them. Verse 15 says he “drew near and went with them” (Luke 24:15b). He asked them the first question. He could have chosen not to reveal himself. He could have chosen not to ask them the first question. Instead, he not only chose to reveal himself to the two travelers, he chose to use them as witnesses to others.

The Reaction of the Witnesses. The next point worth a brief mention is the reaction of the two people once they recognized Jesus. Jesus had just handed them bread and this in some way helped them recognize him (Luke 24:35). But then he vanished. At that moment, the two quickly reflected on their encounter with him on the road; however, they did not remain in discussion about the past for very long. That very hour, they went back to their friends to testify that they had encountered Jesus. This was an event that must be shared. And just as they had shared what they understood about Christ with a man they believed was a stranger, their initial reaction was to share their experiences and encounters with this stranger.

Who Were These Witnesses? Luke names one of the witnesses, Cleopas, lending more credibility to the account as Culpepper an O’Day point out.¹⁵ Many commentators have offered different speculation as to the identities of the unidentified traveling companion in route to Emmaus. Some, including Morris, say the unnamed person was Luke because the detail is so vivid.¹⁶ Another suggestion is that the other traveler is the wife of Cleopas. Still another idea from liberal arguments is that the particular witness no longer would testify that he saw the risen Christ so Luke left him unnamed. However, if this were the case, why would Luke include the account at all? There is the possibility that these two where the two disciples mentioned in Mark 16:12-13, but in that account, the rest did not believe the two disciples. How could these be the same accounts with such a discrepancy? In any case, it is significant to see that Cleopas is mentioned nowhere else in the Bible. The other person is not even named. These two are likely regular people; and although there is no solid indication of such, most commentators address them both as men. In light of the larger point, it might be best to let the unnamed disciple remain unidentified as Luke intended.

Breaking the Bread. Some commentators, especially of much older publications, cast a light of communion upon the breaking of bread in this text. This author believes Morris best addresses this aspect of the text, writing,

Bread was commonly broken at the prayer of thanksgiving before a meal. Some have seen here a reference to the breaking of bread in the communion service, but this seems far-fetched. It would have been a very curious communion service, broken off in the opening action and as far as we can see never completed. And it would have been quite out of place. In any case the two were not present at the Last Supper (cf. 22:14; Mark 14:17) so they could not have recalled Jesus’ actions then.¹⁷

However, there may have been something significant about the breaking of bread or it may have simply been the timing because Luke 24:35 says, “Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was know to them in the breaking of the bread.”¹⁸ There is also the possibility that the disciples were present at another meal with Jesus or that something else unique to Jesus—maybe a mannerism—had something to do with their eyes being opened. However, this author is inclined to think that it was in the teaching of Jesus, which may have culminated at that moment, to a point where faith came through hearing.

APPLICATION FOR TODAY

While there is much to examine in this vivid text, it is important that the primary point Luke presents is addressed. Without seeing this point, the other points will offer nothing of value. Christ revealed himself to two travelers on the road after he had been crucified and buried. It was on the third day, just as he had promised. Jesus is alive, indeed!

As present day readers examine this passage of Luke 24, they, like the travelers, are faced with the decision to examine both the Old and New Testament Scriptures, see the accounts of Jesus, and answer the question, Is he the Savior? Readers must ask themselves if they believe if Jesus is risen? Are the accounts of the witnesses true? The travelers on the road were contemplating the testimony of the women and the report that Peter found the tomb empty. As they were contemplating, Jesus met them on the road. While it may not be that Jesus will physically manifest himself to those contemplating Christ, he does meet us where we are to reveal himself to us. He opens our eyes. The remaining question then, is will we believe; and if so, will we share our encounters with Jesus with others?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Calvin, John. Calvin's Commentaries. Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Vol. XVII. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2009.

Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids,

Michigan: Zondervan, 2005.

Crossway Bibles. ESV Study Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Bibles,

2008.

Culpepper, R. Alan, and Gail R. O'Day. The New Interpreter's Bible. The Gospel of Luke, the

Gospel of John. Volume IX. Nashville, Tenn: Abingdon, 1995.

Driscoll, Mark, and Gerry Breshears. Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe. Wheaton, Ill:

Crossway, 2010.

Duffield, Guy P., and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave. Foundations of Pentecostal Theology. Los

Angles, Calif: Foursquare Media, 2008.

Foxe, John. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Edited by William Byron. Accordance 9.1.1. OakTree

Software, Inc, Version 1.4.

Geldenhuys, Norval. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. The Gospel of

Luke. Grand Rapids (Mich.): W.B. Eerdmans, 1979.

Morris, Leon. Luke. Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2008.

___

1  Unless otherwise noted, all scripture references in this post are taken from the ESV. Crossway Bibles, ESV Study Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Bibles, 2008).

2  D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005), 203.

3 Leon Morris, Luke (Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2008), 19.

4 John Foxe, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, Edited by William Byron (Accordance 9.1.1. OakTree Software, Inc, Version 1.4), Ch I, xiv.

5 Another argument places the authorship sometime in the early second century, but the evidence is not convincing and therefore will exclude this date hypothesis from this post.

6 Carson, 210.

7 Alan R. Culpepper and Gail R. O'Day, The New Interpreter's Bible. The Gospel of Luke, the Gospel of John. Volume IX (Nashville, Tenn: Abingdon, 1995), 476.

8 Norval Geldenhuys, The New International Commentary On the New Testament. The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids (Mich.): W.B. Eerdmans, 1979), 633.

9 Morris, 356.

10 John Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries, Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke, Vol. XVII (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2009), 358.

11 William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke, The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975), 294-295.

12 Morris, 356.

13 Guy P. Duffield and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (Los Angles, Calif: Foursquare Media, 2008), 203.

14 Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears, Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2010), 289.

15 Culpepper, 477.

16 Morris, 355.

17 Morris, 358-359.

18 Italics added for emphasis. 


*The painting by Carl Heinrich Bloch is in the public domain.
This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.   

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Conclusion)

[This review is a review in parts.  If you are just joining this review, start with "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)."] 

I've finished the book and my chapter-by-chapter review of Rob Bell's newest book, Love Wins.  It feels like it has been a long journey, one that I now wish I had not set out on.  It started when I watched a video of Bell promoting his book.  Here's the video again:

I was intrigued, but then I stared thinking about how many people in my past would regularly bring up one of Bell's other books, especially Velvet Elvis.  I remember watching as words Bell said in Velvet Elvis would be repeated, often with the echoing voice not even aware from where the information came.  (I think I may have even done this a time or two.)  But the challenge was that those of us repeating Bell never took the time to research the information, we just repeated it as fact.  We thought Rob Bell was cool and therefore must be right.  And looking back, I can see how what was often reverberated could have been a subtle twist on good information, skewing it to the point that it skipped beyond correct into the realm of just another twisted idea.  And this is not just information on the latest music or directions to the subway station; this is information about God.  This is information we must pray to get right!  So with that in mind, I decided to read Bell's newest book, Love Wins and chronicle my journey. And as I have been on this journey, I have already heard multiple people echo ideas from Love Wins.  I have received encouraging e-mails and positive comments, and I have also received the opposite.  I've seen people both stand to support and attack to tear down Rob Bell--not his book or ideas, but the man himself.  (And that's not really too productive, and yet that's the direction part of this conclusion must go.)  I have no doubt that Bell will have an impact upon the American Church, for good and bad, for a long time to come.

What I found in Love Wins was more than 280 question marks.  The book is only 198 pages and much of each page is consumed by blank space and large margins.  I also found claims and counter claims.  And I discovered an angry Rob Bell.  From his book, he is clearly mad at the Church.  He's critical of the Bride of Christ, but he makes his criticisms in such a way that he appeals to others who are also mad at the Church.   From what he as written, he can't seem to understand or see why Jesus loves the Church.  So it seems to me that Love Wins is not looking for God's way, but his own, so Bell can define what the Bible says and shape God into a god that he's comfortable with.  

In the promotional video Bell asks if Gandhi is in hell.  He asks if we can know for sure and if it is a person's duty to tell others.  I find this interesting because Bell apparently feels that it is his duty (through the publication of his book) to tell his readers that we can't know where Gandhi is at the moment, but eventually he, like all people, will ultimately end up redeemed and in heaven.  This appears an awful lot like universalism with Christ being the mechanism through which this happens.

Another idea I found rather pervasive throughout the book is the sugar-coating of hell.  It's a state of mind or an attitude or even the way a victim feels, but it's not an everlasting punishment according to Bell.  It can't be according to his argument or nobody would like God.  But in my opinion, that's really not how we should approach something so serious as God or hell.

Bell often seems to offer only partial information.  There were places where he neglected a Greek word in his argument and it seems he often neglected the entire body and context of Scripture.  If anything, it seems that Bell appeals to emotion and anecdotal examples.  He builds a great argument through his very artistic writing style, but his argument usually starts on the wrong foundation.  I found this rather problematic.

I kept waiting for Bell to answer some of his own questions.  I was expecting him to act as an expert on "heaven and hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived," but in the end I didn't see it.  I saw lots of questions and much criticism directed toward other Christians and what they are doing.  I saw a man thinking out loud, and that is fine except his thoughts are finding their way in to places they aught not go until the thoughts have been fully developed.

All-in-all, I feel Bell failed to deliver on the claims he made about this book.  And for that reason (among others addressed through out this chapter-by-chapter review), I would not recommend his book, Love Wins to anyone. My recommendation for anybody wanting to understand more about heaven and hell is the Bible.  Pick it up and starting reading.  It is THE SOURCE, not Rob Bell, not Bryan Catherman, not SaltyBeliever.com.  Go to the source.  Spend lots of time there.  Read, study, learn, enjoy, and know God better.  Love God more!  That is the journey worth a lifetime. 

If you're still with me though this lengthy review, thanks.  May God bless you abundantly.

* I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book, Love Wins.

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 8)

[This review is a review in parts.  If you are just joining this review, start with "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)."] 

"And so we arrive at the last chapter," writes Bell, "The end is here" (193).  He continues: "We've explored a fairly vast expanse of topics, from heaven to hell to God, Jesus, joy, violence, and the good news that is better than that, among other things" (193).

Here, at the very end of a book so full of questions, so full of stinging criticism of how most people understand Christianity, we find a chapter that does not fit.  Rob Bell offers his story, that is, his testimony.  He also shares the Good News of Jesus, but it seems to run counter to many claims he has made or implied.  Was this chapter written by one author while the previous chapters were written by another?  (This chapter is even assembled into paragraphs more so than any other chapter.)

First, Bell shares the story of the night as a young boy, he knelt beside his bed and said a prayer. "With my parents on either side of me," writes Bell," I invited Jesus into my heart. I told God that I believe that I was a sinner and that Jesus came to save me and I wanted to be a Christian" (193).  He knows that something happened in him.  He argues that this was real, not something to please his parents or a desire for a religious experience.  I applaud the opening of the chapter.  It seems honest and real.  But I can't help but wonder if this event is not unlike the prayers and events Bell seems critical of in earlier chapters.

I wish Bell would have explained his thoughts of his prayer.  Saved?  From what or who?  Repent?  And what does (or did) Bell understand of what it is to be a sinner?  What specifically happened in him?  And how did this change his life? 

Next, Bell writes of Jesus in such a way that one might think of it as a the opening of good ol' fashioned alter call.  He writes,

Jesus invites us to trust that the love we fear is too good to be true is actually good enough to be true.  It's written in one of John's letters in the scriptures that 'what we will be has not yet been made know.'  Jesus invites us to become, to be drawn into his love as it shapes us and forms us and takes over every square inch of our lives.  Jesus calls us to repent, to have our minds and hearts transformed so that we see everything differently.  It will require a death, a humbling, a leaving behind of the old mind, and at that same time it will require opening up, loosening our hold, and letting go, so that we can receive, expand, find, hear, see, and enjoy" (196). 

Then comes something that seems so counter to the rest of the book.  Through multiple chapters Bell worked to demonstrate that heaven and hell were in the same place, a state of mind, and that people could one day leave the state of hell and enter the state of heaven. Remember his take on the parable of the Prodigal Son?  Bell has argued against the idea of and in and out of heaven.  Yet, now Bell is saying it is important to trust Jesus, right now.  He reminds his readers of the the five foolish wedding attendants who are unprepared.  He talks about the guy who buries his treasure instead of doing something with it.  He shows that the Bible uses ideas such as "thrown outside into darkness," and the idea that the goats are sent away, to a different place than the sheep (196).  Bell also shares the parable of the weeds and wheat that grew along side each other until the harvest and at the harvest, the weeds were "tied up in bundles to be burned" (196-197).   Now it seems that there is an in and an out.  There is something more significant than enjoying the party or choosing to be miserable.  This doesn't sound like the universalism Bell seems to promote. This seems contradictory until one hits the next paragraph.

The reason it is important to accept Jesus invitation now, according to Bell, is that we don't want to miss out on the "rewards and celebrations and opportunities" of now (197).  Bell never indicates that there will be a time (even in the afterlife) when it will be too late to accept Jesus, just that we'll miss out longer than we have to.  It's strange however, Bell draws a contrast of future time when he looks at God's judgement, but he doesn't want to admit that there is judgement.  He doesn't think it's fair of an infinite God to punish a person for eternity for the sins of just a speck of a lifetime (and therefore does not believe that God would do this), but he is concerned that in the scope of infinity, one might miss out on a few days of reward and celebration?  If one can accept Jesus at anytime, what's a few days?  Bell is trying to say this is urgent, but his idea doesn't seem to match his words.

And then the book ends.  That's it.  That's what Rob Bell has to say about "heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived."

The thing that hit me as I read this last chapter is that Rob Bell is a product of everything he seems so critical of.  He shares his story in the last chapter. He said a prayer, with specific words.  He felt he had to repent.  He asked to be saved by Jesus.  And he believed that this changed something deep inside him.  He has grown up in in the community of believers, of which most of them he does not care for.  He says God is love and that is why Jesus came.  He says Jesus is longing to redeem all people, even thought he seems to neglect the cross and many aspects of who Jesus is.

Through this last chapter, it is clear the Rob Bell has a passion for others.  He is calling them to enjoy the reward and celebration offered through Jesus.  But I'm still left wondering if he has completed the objective he claims to have set out with this book.  Has he really explained heaven and hell as the Bible does?  Has he really addressed the fate of every person who has ever lived?  I'm still left unsure.  The final chapter did not provide answers to the many, many questions Bell offered in the book. For a conclusion, it didn't seem to conclude anything.


Up next, "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Conclusion)."

* I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book, Love Wins.

Blue Like Jazz and Other Stuff

There is this book by a guy named Donald Miller that is now going to be a movie.  Here's the trailer:

Not only has this book been significant in the life of Don Miller, this book as been instrumental in the lives of many Christians.  I can say it was for me.  But the more I look back on my life--where I was when I first read the book--the more I wonder about what the commentary of Blue Like Jazz is actually saying and what it was actually saying to me.

I remember a time in my life when I held in my mind a picture of what the Church was, or what I thought it was.  This picture was greatly tainted by my own life.  My observations were colored by confusion, anger, and who knows what else.  I believed my problem as not with Jesus, but instead with the Church.  I looked at the Church that I saw and it didn't fit within my definition of cool or anything worth much of my time.  I didn't like the music I heard on the radio.  The people seemed to annoy me.  And I really didn't like the sermons I heard that said I might have something wrong with me or that God was something I didn't want him to be.  I held some kind of grudge against the Church, the very Bride of Christ.  You see, I didn't understand that Jesus loves the Church.  I was like the guy who tells his friend, "I like hanging out with you, but I can't stand your wife." 

Like so many other people, when I read Blue Like Jazz, it was as if I found a like-minded person that gave me permission to continue feeling the the way I was.  But the funny thing is I was only reading what I wanted to read.  I was finding agreement with what I liked and tossing out the rest, and I don't believe I was alone in this practice of selective reading.  And I'm sure I was not alone in my frustration and anger toward the Church.

As the years have gone by, I've starting realizing that it's not about me.  Nothing is about me.  It's about Jesus, and he loves the Church.  Seeing this, I've started to understand God's people and I've started to see some good in what I once was so bitter toward.  There are lots of good intentions in the Church.  There is lots of love in the Church.  It's easy to have patience with people and love them when the grudge is lifted and forgotten.  It's easy to find freedom in Christ and in his love and passion and community.  He's the head of this thing we call Church.  He describes the Church (and that includes all believers) as his bride, so to know Jesus is to understand what he sees in his bride and why he has so much love for the Church.  And as we let go of the self and our desire to run counter to the Jesus and his Church, we actually discover ourselves and the person Jesus is calling us to be.  And we see why Jesus loves the Church as much as he does.

Today, I know a guy who is angry at the Church.  I see that there has always been people who are angry at the Church, and I believe there always will be angry people in my life. I hope so because at the point that I don't see angry people, there is a good chance that I've enclosed a safety bubble around me and that's not what God as called us to do.  So I am thankful for this angry guy.  I also hope that one day he won't be angry anymore.  

For angry people, the Church people can't seem to do anything right and it seems I can't seem to say anything my angry friend is willing to hear.  He is angry.  I get that.  He likes the commentaries that run counter to what the Church tends to think.  I too used to like those commentaries.  He likes fighting with God's people.  I used to be a fighter.  He likes fighting with me.  And I see myself in him.  I often think it's people like my friend, and even the me of my past, that so quickly gravitate to books like Blue Like Jazz.  Why?

Might it be that in these kinds of books we find permission to continue placing our definitions and desires in a position of higher righteousness than the Church?  Or maybe we go beyond the Church and we even like to place ourselves over God?  But please don't get me wrong, I am not saying that this was Miller's intention.  (He offers some insight into his own intentions for writing the book in the video below.)  It is just that with books like his, we can pluck out the cool stuff we like and gloss over the stuff we don't.  For example, I've met people over the years who love Blue Like Jazz and have seemed to define their Christianity as a Lone Ranger experience.  But if they were to turn to Chapter 12 of Miller's book, they would find that Miller is encouraging his readers to find a church and go to it, to become part of its community. I wonder if the movie will be like the book in this regard?

I am thankful for this book.  It was right where I needed it, when I needed it.  But it's just one book.  It's not some masterpiece of theology or philosophy.   It's just the well written thoughts of one ordinary guy.  For me, I found it was only the start of a journey that led me back to God.  It got me thinking.  Now I daily meet God on the road as I read his Word.  Long since reading Miller's book, I've come to find a reunification with my Heavenly Father and the community he has for his people and the commission he has given us all.  I've put aside the bitterness and anger.  I'm no longer jaded with Christianity or the Church; now I only reserve the feeling of 'jaded' for politics.  I hope Blue Like Jazz is this way for other readers too, but I fear for many, it is the end. . . the place where one stops.  It is license and nothing more. 

I confess, I'm kind of excited for this movie.  Maybe not for the movie itself (because books are always better than the films), but for the conversations this may bring into the light.  I'm thrilled for more opportunities to talk about the life that Jesus offers us, even if we are not granted the control to define or shape it.  I'm excited to point people on a journey of discovery, well beyond the jaded feeling this book helps brings to the surface, which likely the movie will do as well. 

It is an interesting book and it will likely be an interesting movie.  Donald Miller is also the author of Through Painted Deserts, To Own a Dragon, Searching for God Knows What, and A Thousand Miles in a Million Years. 

*I have no monetary connection to this book; however, I have written for and supported Burnside Writers Collective, a website with a connection to Don Miller and his friends.  

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 7)

[This review is a review in parts.  If you are just joining this review, start with "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)."] 

The book is wrapping up.  All those questions, it seems, will either be answered in the last two chapters or they will be left unanswered.  The funnel is getting narrow and at some point everything needs to flow through.

Rob Bell's seventh chapter is titled, "The Good News is Better Than That."  Going into the chapter, I was unsure if the Good News is better than the previous six chapters or better something new this chapter would present to its readers. 

As I started the chapter, I found it thought provoking and enjoyable.  Bell starts with a story of a woman who cuts herself (this idea is not enjoyable, but the point Bell is making is good).  She dates men that hit her.  Her life is hard and her understanding of love is a twisted mess.  She's not really sure what love is so it is very difficult for her to understand the unconditional love God offers to her.  She is faced with a choice between two realities--two stories.  Her's or God's.

To understand how we see ourselves juxtaposed against how God sees us, Bell shifts to the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15.  Most of us know the story, but Bell presents it in a way that I have never seen before.  He demonstrates that both the brothers have a story to tell.  The story is their perspective of reality.  They each tell their own story through warped lenses.

The younger son feels worthless as he comes home with his tail between his legs.  He sees himself no more worthy than a hired hand on his father's property, if he's lucky.  But the father has another story to tell about this son.  It's a much different story.  And the same is true of the older brother.  Bell, seeing the contrast between what the boys believe about themselves and what the father has to say about them, says they have a choice to make.  Which story will they believe? Bell writes,

"The younger son has to decide whose version of his story he's going to trust: his or his father's.  One in which he is no longer worthy to be called a son or one in which he's a robe-, ring-, and sandal-wearing son who was dead but is alive again, who was lost but has now been found.  There are two versions of his story.  His. And his father's" (165-166). 

What insight!  As many times as I have read and studied this parable, I had never compared the two stories presented in each son. I've always seen only two stories when really there are four.

But then things start to get squirrely. Bell uses this story to make his point about hell.


A parable is often Jesus' method of explaining something in a way that is memorable and easy to relate to.  It is safe because people will either see a story about a farmer or virgins or brothers; or, if they are given sight, they will see a story about something so much more significant.  But trouble comes when a student of the Bible tries to make the parable say more than Jesus intended for it to say.  At times, we push parables too far.  This seems like one of those times.

Following this discussion of how we see our selves in these two stories, Bell says, "The difference between the two stories is, after all, the difference between heaven . . . and hell" (169).  For the next few pages, the question marks are put away and some serious statements about hell come out using this parable as a launching pad.

Bell writes, "Now most images and understandings people have of heaven and hell are conceived in terms of separation" (169).  He goes on to provide some examples of these distinctions.  Up and down. Two places far apart from each other.  Here and over there.  Interestingly, Bell fails to include the biblical parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke Chapter 16, where there is a great chasm fixed between one man and the other (Luke 16:26).  Lazarus is at Abraham's side (or Abraham's bosom) and the rich man is in Hades. Separation.

In arguing against the idea of a separation (to include the image Jesus provides in his parable about Lazarus and the rich man), Bell writes,

"This makes what Jesus does in his story about the man with two sons particularly compelling. Jesus puts the older brother right there at the party, but refusing to trust the father's version of his story.  Refusing to join in the celebration.  Hell is being at the party. That's what make is so hellish.  It's not an image of separation, but one of integration.  In this story, heaven and hell are within each other, intertwined, interwoven, bumping up against each other" (169-170). 

As I read Bell's argument, I have to wonder if this specific teaching was the purpose of Jesus' parable.  I also wonder how this understanding of the parable fits within the rest of Jesus' teaching.  I highly recommend reading the parable of the prodigal son again, but read in in light of the entire chapter.  Could it be that this parable--coming right after two other parables about being lost and found--has something to do with the father's love more so than having to do with heaven and hell?  And how does Bell's reading of the prodigal son parable line up with the parable of Lazarus and the rich man found in the very next chapter of Luke?  I leave this for you to examine.

Bell argues that "we create hell whenever we fail to trust God's retelling of our story" (173).  "Hell," he writes, "is our refusal to trust God's retelling of our story" (170).

Are we really so powerful as to create hell?  Do we really have that much control over God?  The problem here, is that there are many people who feel that they understand God's love and God's justice better than God does. Maybe this is why the book has such an appeal with people--it allows them to feel justified in remaining in the driver's seat.

Bell then shifts to God's justice, or better put, to our understanding of God's justice.  An example is given that if one has not accepted God in his lifetime and then dies in a car crash, God would have no choice but to send this person to an eternal conscious state of torment in hell.  Bells says this god would instantly be different, like flipping a switch, and Bell can't accept that God might be like this.  He argues that this would be unacceptable behavior for an earthly father implying that it is unaccetable for our Heavenly Father (174).  Bell questions how a loving God who goes to extraordinary lengths to have a relationship with his creation could become so different and so mean in an instant (170-177).  Does Rob Bell refuse to believe that this could be God.  Is that option off the table?  Or might it be that the understand of God before the car crash is not correct?  Could Bell be unwilling to realize that God is who God is regardless of how Bell wants to create him?  Maybe it could be that God's understanding of his story is so much better than our understanding, that we have a choice to accept God's story or our own.  Bell continues, "Because if something is wrong with your God, if your God is loving one second and cruel the next, if your God will punish people for all eternity for sins committed in a few short years, no amount of clever marketing or compelling language or good music or great coffee will be able to disguise what one, true glaring, untenable unacceptable, awful reality" (175).

Standing on this foundation, the chapter moves through a series of statements.  Still, no questions.  Bell argues that God is about love, God is love.  Interestingly, throughout most of this argument, God is made out to be void of justice.  (Which if we argue away justice, there can be no grace.)  Here is no balance.

He continually says "We shape our God, and then our God shapes us" (182, 183, and 184).  I'm not sure I understand this statement.  Bell seems to be implying that we actually can shape our God, but this only leaves me thinking about idol making and I'm not comfortable with that.

In addition, Bell spends a few pages attacking the Church again, or at least those among the Church who operate and believe differently than does Bell.  He swings at those who present the gospel as a  way "just to get into heaven" (179).  Of these people he says, "An entrance understanding of the gospel rarely creates good art.  Or innovation.  Or a number of other things.  It's a cheap view of the world, because it's a cheap view of God.  It's a shriveled imagination.  It's the gospel of goats" (179-180).  He also attacks the understanding that "you're not doing enough" and he harps on ministry that leads to exhaustion and burnout.  Yes, most of these statements are true in many ways; the gospel is more and better.  Many would agree with Bell about some of his criticism of the Church today and some of these misunderstandings about the gospel; but the interesting thing is this:  Bell fails to realize that he too is taking a stand, making a claim, and presenting a gospel.  His position has its flaws and problems just as much as any other that he has problems with, maybe even more.  But he doesn't seem to see this.  Directed at them, he writes, "For some, the highest from of allegiance to their God is to attack, defame, and slander others who don't articulate matters of faith as they do" (183).  Is this not a fair statement for Bell as well? 
 
Throughout this chapter Bell makes some "very clear" statements, as he puts it (182).  Good statements.  "We do not need to be rescued from God.  God is the one who rescues us from death, sin, and destruction.  God is the rescuer" (182).   Bell says the God forgives us "Before we could be good enough or right enough, before we could even believe in the right things" (189).  On another page we find the statement, "It's only when you lose your life that you find it, Jesus says" (190).  And, "Jesus meets and redeems us in all the ways we have it together and in all the ways we don't, in all the times we proudly display for the world our goodness, greatness, and rightness, and in all of the ways we fall flat on our faces" (190).  The challenge however, is that through this chapter and most of the previous chapters, these statements are mixed with some rather problematic claims, assumptions, and passive allusions.  There's a twist.  We hear things that sound good, right, biblical, and we almost miss the twist.  The next thing we know, we miss that there is a father running to his son, happy he has come home.  Instead, we see a story of heaven and hell hanging out at a party together.


Up next, "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 8)," the final chapter.

* I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book, Love Wins.
** Photo of son running to his father is by Sherif Salama and is registered under a creative commons license.

Francis Chan on Hell and Humility

Francis Chan is working on his newest book, Erasing Hell.  It could be a response to Rob Bell's book, Love Wins, but that may not actually be the case.  Hell, it seems, tends to be a topic of conversation inside and outside the Church lately.  In one of his promotional videos, Chan discusses the importance of having the humility to sit under the magnitude, authority, and truth of Scripture.  And he's right.

As I watch this video, I realize that at times I could certainly stand to have some humility.  But I also realize that as we are lumps of clay telling other lumps of clay about the Potter, we can and should do so boldly, with confidence derived from the Word of God.  Acts 13 shows Barnabas and Paul speaking boldly to the Jews in Antioch in Pisidia (specifically Acts 13:46).  And again, Barnabas and Paul spoke the Word of God "boldly for the Lord" in Iconium (Acts 14:3, ESV).  Peter and John, ordinary men, were seen as bold, having been with Jesus (Acts 4:13ff).

But please don't get me wrong; I feel Chan is representing this kind of boldness in his video.  It takes boldness to say, "Hey, we need to approach this with some humility to submit to a God that's bigger than ourselves." That being said, there are many who feel that saying an idea may be wrong because it does not line up with the biblical teaching is a bad thing.  Some may feel that this is what Chan is saying.  But I don't think that's Chan's point.  These days, some will defend their claim by arguing that the counter-claim maker is not humble.  Some may desire that all ideas dwell equally in a state of coexistence and that's also not Chan's claim.  Chan is rightly claiming that we need to make a careful study of the entire Word of God and then submit ourselves to its teaching.  This is the humility Chan seems to be getting at. This is the humility we should all desire to seek.

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 6)

[This review is a review in parts.  If you are just joining this review, start with "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)."] 

Bell opens his chapter, "There are Rocks Everywhere," with some seemingly strange stories of people encountering Jesus in supernatural ways.  Rooms filled with peaceful feelings and white light kind of stuff.  He admits that these sound bizarre, but while he often hears accounts the that seem so unexplainable, he recognizes that many are very real.  In an effort to understand what these strange stories have to do with Jesus, Bells shifts gears and discusses a rock that Moses strikes to get water for his people.  In the provisions of that rock, Paul claims we can see Christ (1 Corinthians 10:4, although Bell only gives the chapter).

In this discussion, an interesting thing has happened in Bells' presentation.  It seems he is shifting away from the radical and shocking approach and slipping into a soft teaching style about Jesus.  It starts on page 144, just past the line that marks the coming of a new section.  There are almost no question marks for four pages!  Bell is starting to make a claim, a proclamation.  He's telling, not asking.  And it is not far from what most Christian preachers and teachers would preach and teach on any given Sunday.  And then on page 150 there's another line, a clear indicator of the end of the section.  What could possibly follow what Bell calls the "Jesus story" (150)?

Within only a two sentences, Bell moves back to what many may see as universalism.  Bell writes, "Within this proper, larger understanding of just what the Jesus story even is, we see that Jesus himself, again and again, demonstrates how seriously he takes his role in saving and rescuing and redeeming not just everything, but everybody" (150-151).  He uses a verse from John 12 that states that all people will be drawn to Jesus and then makes a point to say, "All people, to himself" (151).

But there is, mixed in, some good in this first part of the chapter.  Jesus is for everybody, every culture, every people, as Bell argues.  Clearly Bell wants people to see that they need Jesus.  He has a strong desire for all to find him, now.  But there's also some mixed indications that Rob Bell is not pleased with some of the Church's behavior.  He writes,

"When people use the word 'Jesus,' then, it's important for us to ask who they're talking about.  Are they referring to a token of tribal membership, a tamed, domesticated Jesus who waves the flag and promotes whatever values they have decided their nation needs to return to?  Are they referring to the supposed source of the imperial impulse of their group, which wants to conquer other groups 'in the name of Jesus'? Are they referring to the logo or slogan of their political, economic, or military system through which they sanctify their greed and lust for power?" (156).  

He challenges the 'them' Christians about which he passive-aggressively writes.  And the challenge is not off based, it's just that there are strong hints that Bell is angry at any within Christianity that don't look like him and his flavor.  In this chapter (and others) we can see that Bell loves the lost and wants to see people turn to Jesus, but for those tribes, cultures, families, and individuals that have turned to Christ but still maintain was might be considered an immature understanding of the gospel, Bell offers very little love or compassion.  Instead, throughout the book, these people seem to be on his hit list. He appears unwilling to extent any grace to this group of Christians.  So he draws a contrast, showing this reader how he defines what a church that follows Jesus looks like.  He continues,

"Jesus is both near and intimate and personal, and big and wide and transcendent.  One of the many things people in a church do, then, is name, honor, and orient themselves round this mystery.  A church is a community of people who enact specific rituals and create specific experiences to keep this word alive in their own hearts, a gathering of believers who help provide language and symbols and experiences for this mystery" (156).

With the argument he is presenting, Bell discusses these rituals and continually states that nobody is excluded from the need of Jesus.  The extent of that need however, is unclear considering his chapter on hell (Chapter 3).  Does everybody need Jesus to avoid a longer time in a purgatory-style hell, or is there some other reason?  The question about why everybody needs Jesus goes unanswered in favor of the idea that Jesus is for everybody and he will eventually get them all. 

And then, on page 158, there's another section dividing line.  Following the line, 158 pages into the book, is a question that most the readers are likely asking.  After a 157 pages, Bell has asked how the premise that's printed on the cover of his book relates to Jesus.  He asks, "So how does any of this explanation of who Jesus is and what he's doing connect with heaven, hell, and the fate of every single person who has ever lived?" (158).  But before I continue, I have to wonder what Bell means by "this explanation"? Is he referring to the previous page, section, chapter, or even the previous 157 pages?  And about "what he is doing"? Does this refer to saving everybody or something else?

With the exception of Bell's hint that worship in names other than Jesus could still be worshiping Jesus, Bell provides a pretty explanation of Jesus.  Unfortunately, he doesn't answer the question.  He says nothing about how 'who Jesus is' and 'what he is doing' relates to heaven or hell.  He only focuses on the idea that Jesus is for everybody.   And that's where the chapter ends.

I had very little notes written in the margins and between the sentences. This chapter is one that a Christian can read and say, "Ah, that's nice," without really seeing any glaring differences about what they know and love about Jesus.  Bell seems to be cooling off after the previous few chapters. However, for those who only spend 2 hours a week in Church and nothing more (that's only 4 and a half days communing with God), and maybe for those that spend no time in church, no time reading the Bible, and no time praying but claim to be 'spiritual,' one might feel differently.  And maybe it is this person that Bell had in mind while writing Chapter 6.   
   

Up next, "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 7)."

* I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book, Love Wins.

Don't Neglect Salvation? Hebrews 2 & 3

Hebrews 2:2-3 provides a warning against neglecting such a great salvation, that is, neglecting the great message the author and his readers have heard, which is being introduced in the previous chapter of Hebrews. This is the message of the gospel and the author of Hebrews says, “don’t overlook it.” The word the ESV translates as ‘neglecting’ comes from the Greek word amelesantes (a transliteration), which is derived from ameleo (also a transliteration). Strong’s states that its meaning is to neglect, make light of, ignore, and even be negligent of (Strongs 2001, 1590). The word appears four times in the New Testament—in Matthew 22:5, 1 Timothy 4:14, Hebrews 2:3, and again in Hebrews 8:9.

In 1 Timothy 4:14, the warning is to avoid neglecting the gift that was given to the reader. In Hebrews 8:9 the neglect or ignorance was God’s approach to the people of the exodus who did not continue in his covenant. Matthew 22:5 however, seems to shed some light on the Hebrews 2:3 passage where there is a picture of a neglectful attitude toward salvation. In this passage, Jesus shares a parable of a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. Everything was ready, but when the servants went out with the invitation, the people paid them no attention—the messengers were rejected, turned away, treated poorly, and in some cases even killed. The king was angered by this reaction so he sent his troops to kill those who murdered his messengers and then he had their cities burned. Eventually, the king sent his messengers into the streets to invite anybody the messengers could find.

The author of Hebrews is cautioning his readers not to neglect this message for he knows the consequences are grave. But he is not acting as if he has received this invitation and that is the end of it. He includes himself in the warning saying, “We must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it” (Hebrews 2:1, ESV). It seems that paying much closer attention is to understand the details. And it also seems that we need to follow this warning to the extent that the author takes it, later writing, “Take care, brothers, lest there be any of you of an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called ‘today,’ that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin” (Hebrews 3:12-3, ESV). Paying much closer attention would appear to be an ongoing thing; and being an ongoing thing, it seems that neglecting the message of salvation and the blessing that come from it is a very serious matter.

This warning in Hebrews 3:12, is a warning to be cautious and even avoid having an unbelieving heart. This unbelieving heart the author warns about, it seems, is evil and can cause one to fall away from, or even rebel against the Living God. In verse 13, the reader is encouraged to exhort one another daily to avoid the hardening of the heart caused by sin. Genesis 8:21 says, “ the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (ESV) and Deuteronomy 11:6 warns “Take care lest your heart be deceived, and you turn aside and serve other gods and worship them” (ESV). Therefore, it seems that the default or natural desire of the human heart is toward this hardened state, and this hardness causes our faith in, and love for God to be less than our 'all' as Deuteronomy 6, 10, 13, and 30 instruct (which Jesus teaches as recorded in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.)

Hebrews 3:13 shows that the way to avoid this frightful hardening is to engage in daily exhortation with, and among other Christian believers of the living God. (In light of Hebrews 1 and 2, this faith should be in Jesus, to be more specific.) It is a daily effort in study, prayer, discussion, openness, honesty, and accountability with the other believers that fights the natural desire of the ever-hardening, sinful heart. This will hopefully help the reader follow the instruction of Hebrews 3:14 to “hold our original confidence firm to the end” (ESV).

In addition, this message was written to believers so while it could be a discussion about completely forfeiting salvation after one is regenerated (or born again), it is a strong possibly that is is about missing out on the many good things God has for his people.

While verses 12 and 13 are counted in Chapter 3, they seem to fit better heading into Chapter 4 because the call to take courage and keep the heart soft and faithful is compared to God’s people who stepped in faith to leave Egypt but eventually sinned by turning from God. They eventually took their faith and placed it elsewhere, in other words, they allowed their hearts to return to the default hardness and unbelief of all God was doing for them. While they still counted themselves as God's people, they did not trust that he had their best interests in mind. The result of this sin was a prohibition of the blessings and rest found in the Promised Land. The author continues to compare rest (or lack thereof) to the condition of the heart, and those with no rest had hard hearts. The author is encouraging the readers (then and now) to take caution and avoid the same pitfalls of those who did not remain completely faithful to the end.

___
Strong, James, John R. Kohlenberger, James A. Swanson, and James Strong. The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001.

Word Study: Parakletos

I've always been a champion of reading and studying from multiple translations of the Bible.  But as I'm learning Koine Greek and studying the New Testament in the original language, I've come to believe this even more.  Because words in one language tend not to translate perfectly into another, looking at how multiple translation teams handled specific words helps us see the complexity of the word.  (And if you don't know the original languages, there are a number of resources--in print, on-line, and computer software) to make this much easier.

Recent research and study on John's understanding of the Holy Spirit led me to a word study of Parakletos.  I ran across its use a few times and felt it was worth deeper study.  (I've excluded  the technical study of the word's construction.)  

Parakletos appears only five times in the New Testament—four times in the Gospel of John and once in First John (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7; 1 John 2:1). Incidentally, it makes no appearance in the LXX, the first translation of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) into Koine Greek. Köstenberger states, “The translation of this term has proved particularly difficult, since there does not seem to be an exact equivalent in the English language” (1999, 157). Most English Bible translations seem to handle the word differently. For example, the English Standard Version (ESV) uses the word “Helper” in all of the Gospel accounts and uses and “Advocate” in John’s epistle. The American Standard Version (ASV) uses “Comforter” in the Gospel uses, and “ Advocate” in the letter. The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) uses “Counselor” in the Gospel, and once again, “Advocate” is used in First John; and the same is true for the King James Version (KJV). The New International Version (NIV) also selected “Counselor” in the Gospel and simply says “one” in the Epistle. “Helper” is the choice for the New American Standard Bible (NASB) except in the Letter, where “ Advocate” is the selected word. The New English Translation (NET) uses “Advocate” for every occurrence, as does the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and the New Living Translation (NLT). But which English translation should be considered best?

Turning to dictionaries and lexicons a variety of meanings are presented. Perschbacher defines parakletos as, “one called or sent for to assist another; an advocate, one who pleads the cause of another, [. . .] one present to render various beneficial service, and thus, the Paraclete, whose influence and operation were to compensate for the departure of Christ himself” (1990, 308.) Strong defines the word as, “counselor, intercessor, helper, one who encourages and comforts; in the NT it refers exclusively to the Holy Spirit and to Jesus Christ” (2001, 3884).

Köstenberger feels that the best translation is “helping Presence” because it “captures the importance of the term better than any others” (1999, 157). His reasons are three fold: because this translation best mirrors Jesus’ earthly ministry, it best outlines the Spirit’s functions as outlined in John 14-16, and it seems to avoid the legal concepts other words get marred down in. (1999, 157). The challenge in simply accepting Köstenberger’s translation however is that it brings in theology with the translation—something that might stretch beyond the necessary theological under-girding that is inherent with most biblical translations.

When read in context, the use of “Advocate” in 1 John 2:1 seem to make good sense. But it may not be the correct idea in the Gospel of John. But for what reason should the same work be translated differently in two different works? Likely because it has no perfect match in the English. That being said, I wonder if two English words might do a better job at capturing the meaning? Maybe Helping Comforter or Comforting Helper? Helping Counselor?

Regardless of the best translation, I can say this with certainty: if I bring my theological ideas into the translation, I am not as comfortable with Köstenberger’s “helping presence.” If we are to believe that the Holy Spirit is a person (as Jesus is), and is engaged in a function (also as Jesus is), then only using the idea of “Presence” seems to introduce ideas that may be worse than only using the the idea of an Advocate.  Indeed, the Holy Spirit has come to be present with us; but "Presence" opens the door for ideas such as a force or energy, which is an incorrect way to view the Holy Spirit. 

___
Köstenberger, Andreas J. Encountering John: The Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2002.
Perschbacher, Wesley J. The New Analytical Greek Lexicon. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1990.
Strong, James, John R. Kohlenberger, James A. Swanson, and James Strong. The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001.

Eternity is a Long Time

There is an idea cropping up among some Christians that I think is worth some discussion.  It's a thought that the biblical concept of eternity is not actually an idea of forever, or a time without end.  Just recently in fact, I read a statement by a controversial author that actually argued that eternity is not a concept found in the Bible.  And these arguments are almost always centered on the doctrine of hell.

Now, to be fair, this is not the same argument as annihilationism.  Annihilationism is the idea that God is merciful and allows a person in hell to eventually be snuffed out rather than suffering forever, enduring eternal flames and being eaten by the worm that never dies (Isaiah 66:24, Matthew 25:41, Mark 9:48 for example).  The person is just no more, completely consumed by fire and the worm, and is eventually without suffering.  Dr. Clark Pinnock was a champion of this view.

But this recent argument is not annihilationism.  No, this other argument addresses the idea that eternity is not really forever, but maybe just for a long time, implying that there is something after the punishment.  And both annihilationism and this other argument are based in the stand that God is not worth worshiping if he is willing to punish his enemies without end.

But before this 'eternity is not forever' conversation runs wild, there are at least a couple problems we should examine. 

First, if eternity does not apply to hell because eternity is not a biblical concept, than neither can it apply to heaven.  It's just that simple.

Second, eternity is a biblical concept.  Those who argue against it might discuss the New Testament Greek word aion without having considered another New Testament Greek word, aionios. 

Let's start with aion.  According to Strong, aion means, "properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future): — age, course, eternal, (for) ever(-more), (n-)ever, (beginning of the , while the) world (began, without end).  And Thayer says it can be both an age and "an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity," among other things.  Here are the New Testament passages where the word aion appears (some are in the negated form often translated as 'never'): Matthew 12:32; 13:22, 39–40, 49; 24:3; 28:20; Mark 3:29; 4:19; 10:30; Luke 1:33, 55, 70; 16:8; 18:30; 20:34–35; John 4:14; 6:51, 58; 8:35, 51–52; 9:32; 10:28; 11:26; 12:34; 13:8; 14:16; Acts 3:21; 15:18; Rom 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 12:2; 16:27; 1 Corinthians 1:20; 2:6–8; 3:18; 8:13; 10:11; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 9:9; 11:31; Gal 1:4–5; Ephesians 1:21; 2:2, 7; 3:9, 11, 21; Philippians 4:20; Colossians 1:26; 1 Timothy 1:17; 6:17; 2 Timothy 4:10, 18; Titus 2:12; Hebrews 1:2, 8; 5:6; 6:5, 20; 7:17, 21, 24, 28; 9:26; 11:3; 13:8, 21; 1 Peter 1:25; 4:11; 5:11; 2 Peter 3:18; 1 John 2:17; 2 John 1:2; Jude 1:13, 25; Revelation 1:6, 18; 4:9–10; 5:13; 7:12; 10:6; 11:15; 14:11; 15:7; 19:3; 20:10; and 22:5.  Look at these passages and note the context and translational use.

But wait, there's that other word that gets completely neglected when people want to downgrade eternity, especially an eternity in hell.  The word is aionios. Aionios has that has the eternal, forever, time marching on without end aspect.  Regarding this word, Strong says it means, "perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well): — eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began)."  But you don't have to know Greek to see this.  Look at where this word appears in the New Testament, and notice its context, usage, and English translation: Matthew 18:8; 19:16, 29; 25:41, 46; Mark 3:29; 10:17, 30; Luke 10:25; 16:9; 18:18, 30; John 3:15–16, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40, 47, 54, 68; 10:28; 12:25, 50; 17:2–3; Acts 13:46, 48; Romans 2:7; 5:21; 6:22–23; 16:25–26; 2 Corinthians 4:17–5:1; Galatians 6:8; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; 2:16; 1 Timothy 1:16; 6:12, 16; 2 Timothy 1:9; 2:10; Titus 1:2; 3:7; Philemon 1:15; Hebrews 5:9; 6:2; 9:12, 14–15; 13:20; 1 Peter 5:10; 2 Peter 1:11; 1 John 1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11, 13, 20; Jude 1:7, 21; and Revelation 14:6.  Aion and aionios are not the same word and they each carry their own meaning.  Notice that these two different words appear in the same books by the same authors.  Sometimes they appear in the same paragraphs, and in a couple cases, even in the same sentence! (See Mark 10:30 and Luke 18:30 for example).

It is easy to understand why someone would want to think of hell as something temporary, but this is not what the Bible claims.  And what value is a god that we create with doctrines we control?  Certainly it is the God of the Bible that saves, not one of our own making. And God has reveled in his own Word to us that both heaven AND hell have an aspect of eternity, forever, time marching on without end, regardless of how we would otherwise want to think of it.

When I Teach Heresy

I co-teach an adult class on Sunday mornings that is presently dealing with the Synoptic Gospels from an exegetical perspective.  I'd like to think it's a good class, and both myself and the other teacher work hard to challenge the students while also rightly teaching the Word of God.  But I would be grossly fooling myself if I believed that I always get it right.

On this particular Sunday, I was given Matthew 10:17-42 and the subsequent parallel passages found in the Synoptics.  This text is larger than the selections we typically teach in the 30 to 40 minutes we have for class, depending on how fast the students trickle in.   Throughout the week, I had been reading and re-reading the passage, as well as looking at it in the Greek.  My Greek skills are certainly not fantastic, so this large text was a lot of work.  And I had prayed for illumination and understanding. 

On Saturday morning, sitting before my computer, books and Bibles open on the desk, I started feeling the magnitude of teaching God's Word.  Visions of standing before God to give an account of my teaching often weigh heavily upon me as I prepare to teach.  I think about verses like Hebrews 13:17 and James 3:1.  It was even worse on this day because there was just so much material; therefore, I opted to deal with the passage in themes.  

Approaching the text thematically, rather than working through it line by line would help me with the limited time but it would also mean that some of the verses that did not greatly impact the themes would get far less attention.  Even still, I carefully read through each verse and paragraph seeking to understand. Again, I prayed for guidance and understanding.  Occasionally I would deal with a word study as specific questions came up.  And then I examined some commentaries to see if I was on track or if maybe I had missed the mark.  (I go here last, but this often means I return to my study for more and then another return to the commentaries.)  I tried to prepare for potential questions that might be asked, especially considering there are a variety of study Bibles used by the students ranging from the NIV Study Bible to the ESV Study Bible to the Ryrie Study Bible, and these always seem to bring up a wide range of questions and comments.  But as it turns out, I did not prepare well for the questions that came at me about Matthew 10:28.

When I looked at verse 28 during my preparation, I noticed that Jesus was saying to fear 'him' (or 'the one'; ton, transliterated from the Greek) who is able to destroy the body and soul in gehenna.  I made a note that in this specific passage the ton does not seem to be clearly identified.  There seems to be some ambiguity.  I questioned if this was God who the Twelve (Jesus' specific audience at the time) should fear because he has the ability to kill and then destroy the soul, or if it was the devil.  Then I wondered how either of these ideas worked in light of the next few sentences about God placing such a high value on his children, even knowing the number of hairs on their head (Matthew 10:29-31).  I was thinking about 1 Peter 5:8 which reads, "Be sober-minded; be watchful.  Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour" (ESV).  Looking at just verse 28, it seemed that the ambiguity might be pointing to the adversary.

But having already spent a few hours on this lesson and still having much to do, I decided to move on.  I wish I hadn't because a systematic study as well as additional work with the specific passage may have yielded different ideas.  Then, to make matters more complicated, I misread the commentary I was looking at when taking my ideas to the scholars.  Yes, Carson's discussion has something about Satan, but in rereading it, I now see that while Satan is powerful, only God can ultimately destroy souls (understood from a systematic approach and clearly outlined by Carson).  It is clear now that I was skimming through the commentary on the passages that were not the primary focus of the class. For the texts I wanted to deal with in class, I was consulting multiple commentaries.  And I was using four different translations.  For those verses, I was putting in the work; for the others, it is apparent I didn't give them proper attention.

One of the students using the NIV quickly pointed out that this translation reads, "the One," with the One (ton) being capitalized.  The NIV--notorious for removing any ambiguity and filling in the gaps--might have actually better prepared me had I noticed the capitalized One as I was looking at the passage in a parallel format with other translations.  But I missed it, likely pressing on toward other verses.  And during class, I couldn't remember the extent of the ambiguity.  Then I heard, "My study Bible says. . . ."  Sadly, I grew defensive.  Over eight hours of study and work for the 30-minute lesson suddenly went down the drain as the class shutdown. 

The lesson I take away from this experience (and hope others may learn from my mistake) is this:  All teachers are heretics on some level.  We are never going to get it right every time.  I once had a professor that would end most of his classes by saying, "Well, that's probably enough heresy for today."  But this is not an excuse to try less.  We should not hide behind the reality that we will fumble the ball.  If anything, it should push us teachers of God's Word to work even harder and pray all the more.  We are obligated to teach God's word well.  It is my prayer that God will fill me even more so my teaching will actually not be from me, but instead from his outpouring to his class.

And that's probably enough heresy for one blog post.


*Painting, "Jun Hus at the Stake" is in the public domain.

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 5)

[This review is a review in parts.  If you are just joining this review, start with "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)."] 

If you've ever seen old video footage from a bomber squadron just after the the payload has dropped and the bombardier doors are closing, you get a gimps of a unique feeling in the brief moment before the bombs explode.  The planes are now turning back and the bombs are out of their control.  The crew is probably hoping the bombs find their target; but in reality, they are more likely hoping to get safely home and put another bombing run behind them.  Still, in that moment, the bombs haven't yet unleashed their intended destruction.  Chapter 5 of Rob Bell's book Love Wins feels like that moment.

Bell has made his theological bombing run for over half the book now.  The target--his understanding of Christianity and the Church's understanding of heaven and hell.  The Church is looking skyward as Bell's bombs are coming right for them.  The payload doors are closing now.  Bell is arcing his plane around and heading back to the safety of home.  Another bombing run is almost complete.  This is Chapter 5.  I can imagine that if Bell and I were discussing this over a cup of coffee, he might argue that he wasn't dropping bombs, only asking questions.  However, the way his questions come across, he's really only painting flowers and "Love Wins" on the nosecones of his deadly payload.  The truth however, is that there is no amount of paint that can change the purpose of his explosives.

Chapter 5, titled "Dying to Live," is fairly flat after the previous three chapters.  It seems as if Bell is letting his readers take a few minutes to rest.  He knows he has been unloading his theology and now needs to turn a corner and head for safety.

The focus of this chapter is the gospel of Jesus and the reconciliation God with his creation.  He asks, "When Jesus died on the cross, was it the end of the sacrificial system or was it the reconciling of all things?" (126).  While this is not an either or proposition, Bell takes his argument in the direction of reconciliation (which is fine).  He points out that reconciliation required Jesus' death AND the resurrection.  And this is the model Bell uses to demonstrate that new life comes through death.  God is "rescuing all of creation" (134).  Very few Christians would read this chapter and feel like bombs were falling.  In fact, it's a fairly safe chapter.  It's not likely one to be discussed in reviews or on the promotion circuit.  There are far fewer questions (although still enough to keep the question mark well employed).

Bell seems to shift away from his early arguments and starts to come back to sharing the gospel as most preachers would.  For example, he writes,

Jesus talks about death and rebirth constantly, his and ours.  He calls us to let go, turn away, renounce, confess, repent, and leave behind the old ways.  He talks of the life that will come from his own death, and he promises that life will flow to use in thousands of small ways as we die to our egos, our pride, our need to be right, our self-sufficiency, our rebellion, and our stubborn insistence that we deserve to get our way.  When we cling with white knuckles to our sins and our hostility, we're like a tree that won't let it's leaves go.  There can't be a spring if we're still stuck in the fall" (136). 

What Christian would disagree with this statement?  This is the gospel.  Chapter 5 is fairly easy to read and enjoyable.  But wait a minute. . . .  Between this chapter and the last there are falling bombs.  Unanswered questions are still suspended in the air.  Is this chapter Bell's way of moving away from those questions?  Is this his way of saying he's not going to answer any of the questions he has presented?  Is he now headed home, not looking to see which bombs hit the mark?

I'm looking for some answers.  Can we let go of our metaphorical leaves at some point after we've been found fruitless, hacked down, and cast into the fire? (Matthew 3:10; Luke 3:9, 13:6-9; John 15:2-6.)  Can spring come somewhere in the eternal punishment of hell?   If at some post-life point, we decide to turn to God, from hell, can we go to the great new city and be with our creator as his child?  At some point will God force those clinging dead leaves to drop them so they can finally see spring?  Will everybody eventually let go of leaves, all people, because that's what God wants?  These are only a few unanswered question bombs from previous chapters.  Are we moving on?  Is this presentation of the gospel, although very important, actually being employed to move away from the explosives?  Is Bell using the gospel as a smoke screen? (See, a question can be a bomb.)

Not long ago I attended a clinical presentation about family dynamics.  A question and answer time was reserved for the end.  The first question was a practical, real, applicable question about a specific aspect of dealing with extreme verbal child abuse.  The speaker, an expert in the field, seemed to squirm and then froze as the question was being presented. He looked stumped and slightly afraid, but after an a moment it was obvious that his mind was going into overdrive as he was formulating an answer. After an awkward amount of time he spoke.  We were all on the edge of our seats waiting to hear what this expert would say.  His answer:  "What to you think?"

The crowd quickly turned on the expert. One man raised his hand and asked, "So, is this really just a question and question time?"  We were there to find some answers, from an expert, not just witness him asking more questions.  And if this man's position was to say that we can't know or that there are no answers (like Bell's defense), why offer the presentation in the first place? Why waste everybody's time? Or was it a ploy for the ability to stand as a star in front of a crowd or maybe make a few bucks?  (See, more bombs hidden as questions.) 

On Ash Wednesday I watched a man ask a question of a conflicted Catholic Priest (who is employed as a Catholic Chaplain/Priest but lives counter to his employment and doesn't seem to want to offer Catholic rites to Catholics).  The inquiring man, clearly not a Catholic, asked, "What does the ash on the forehead represent; what's it for?"  A fair question.  The priest looked confused or unwilling to answer.  The man, really wanting to learn something about Catholicism and Ash Wednesday dug some more:  "What does it mean?"  Then the priest answered, "What does it mean to you?" 

There may have been a recent time in Christianity when it was vogue or hip to ask questions without actually seeking answers; but it's time for answers.  People are looking for answers; and if they're not, they are just asking endless questions in an attempt to be cool. Even worse, they keep asking questions because they are unwilling to accept the Truth.

When I think about about both of these examples, I can't help but think that Bell is doing the same thing.  The dust jacket of Love Wins presents Bell as an expert.  Publishing a book about a specific topic generally shouts, "I'm an expert on this topic. I know something and want to tell you about it. I have some answers."  But I keep finding myself wondering if Bell is going to provide any tangible information or continue to hide behind the question mark, followed by an easy, agreeable chapter?  Is he going to get back to the payload this book came to deliver or is he flying away without looking back?
   

Up next, "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 6)."

* I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book, Love Wins.
**Photo of dead leaves taken by Flickr.com user Antaean (Ricky) and is registered under a Creative Commons License.

The Gospel!

As I'm writing this, it's Good Friday.  Tonight and on Sunday morning, churches all over the world will come together to remember the ultimate victory of Jesus.  Pastors will share the gospel story and invite the lost, the broken, the hurting, and even the rebels, to join with God as a citizen of his Kingdom.  And that is good.

But is this where it ends?  Dare I say, no; this is where it begins!

The good news of the gospel is so, so much more than forgiveness.  It's so much more than membership and grace.  It's a victorious, ultimate, unbelievable transformation.

Whether you are a member of the Kingdom or not, I highly encourage you to watch this video.  Be compelled to something more, something amazing. 

May God bless you today, and may you join with him in what he has in store for you. May you be transformed!

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 4)

[This review is a review in parts.  If you are just joining this review, start with "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)."]

At this point, I have two confessions.  First, I put the book down after Chapter Three for a while.  I was feeling frustrated that I set out on this journey through Bell's book.  Second, I have now completed the book, having read the remaining chapters during a flight across the country.  This is not to say that the review from this point forward will not capture my thoughts and impressions as I was reading each chapter.  I've been taking notes and recording my thoughts in the margins and in the bizarre spaces between each paragraph that make the book seem as if were intended to be one long blog post rather than a bound book.  I guess now I'm thankful for the abnormal formatting.

The title of Chapter Four asks, "Does God Get What God Wants?"

But first, Bell opens the chapter with jabs at doctrinal statements found on other church websites.  It is clear that he is in disagreement with their approach of sharing their beliefs on what he feels should be a welcoming, seeker-friendly website.  (Interestingly, while Bell defends his own ideas saying, "[Christian faith] is a deep, wide, diverse, stream that's been flowing for thousands of years, carrying a staggering variety of voices, perspectives, and experiences" (x-xi), he seems for forget to leave room for these other churches.  Is the stream only so wide and so diverse that other churches are only accepted if their ideas are flowing the way Rob Bell wants? It does seem so.

Chapter Four is about universalism, and thus far, if any chapter has demonstrated that Bell has beliefs in the universalism camp, it's this one.  (I realize that outside of the book, Bell has been declaring that he is not a universalist, but there are aspects of this chapter that would argue otherwise.)   Here, Bell discusses universalism--that is, his views of universalism, specifically two views.  The first is that heaven is "a universal hugfest where everybody eventually ends up around the heavenly campfire singing 'Kumbaya,' with Jesus playing guitar" (105).  Through jabbing questions, he implies that this is incorrect and nobody would want this anyway.  The second view is that a person has rejected God so much so that he or she is no longer human; thus all humans go to heaven but all non-humans do not. But this implies that there are people that are not human and that kind of implies an us verses them. Then he argues that these are long standing and traditional views starting with the early Christian church (107).  But while Bell argues against these views (or I should say, he asks loaded questions of them), he conveniently never takes a position for himself.  He doesn't ever seem to suggest a correct answer; he only questions the ideas for which which he doesn't care for or agree.  And in the way he questions, he seems to takes a stand against these views, much like his approach to the other Christian's websites.   

Back to the question of the chapter title:  "Does God Get What God Wants?"  The bulk of this chapter--and I might argue much of the books thus far--hinges on a verse in First Timothy 2.  Bell quotes it as, "God wants all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth" (97).  The passage itself comes from First Timothy 2:3-4 and this translation looks very similar to the NIV version.  The ESV translates the verses as, "This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:3-4, ESV).  Bell's argument goes like this: If God wants something and doesn't get it, he's not powerful and therefore not a good God.  However, Bell argues, God does indeed get everything he wants and therefore everybody WILL be saved and have a knowledge of the truth. . . eventually.  And if Bell's way of thinking about this is not correct, according to his own argument, then God must be a failure.

To support his understanding of this specific Scripture, Bell looks at some other verses (citing only the chapters from where they come).  First he looks at Isaiah 45, Malachi 2, Acts 17, and Romans 11, to argue "What we have in common--regardless of our tribe, language, customs, beliefs, or religion--outweighs our differences.  This is why God wants 'all people to be saved'" (99).   Then using other Scripture, Bell works to show his readers that the Bible says everybody will be saved.  Many of the Scriptures are interpreted with questionable methods.  Here's the list of Scriptures Bell uses to support his unrealistic view that everybody will be saved.  I highly recommend you turn to each of these chapters and read them yourself, in their entirety. 

Psalm 65 -- "all people will come" to God (99)
Ezekiel 36 -- "The nations will know that I am the Lord" (99)
Isaiah 52 -- "All the ends of the earth will see the salvation of our God" (99)
Zephaniah 3 -- "Then I will purify the lips of the peoples, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve him shoulder to shoulder"
Philippians 2 -- "Every knee should bow . . . and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (99)
Psalm 22 -- "All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him." (100)
Psalm 22 -- "All the rich of the earth will beast and worship; all who do down to the dust will kneel before him--" (100)

Shifting to the idea that God does not fail, Rob uses Psalm 22 to say, "So everybody who dies will kneel before God, and 'future generations will be told about the Lord. They will proclaim his righteousness, declaring to a people yet unborn: He has done it!'" (100).  Following this passage, Bell again says that God does not fail and it is this idea that the prophets were affirming.  They turned to this theme again and again (100).  To support this claim, Bell turns to more chapters. Again, I suggest these chapters be read in their entirety.

Job 23 -- "Who can oppose God?  He does whatever he pleases" (100)
Job 42 -- "I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted" (100)
Isaiah 46 and 25 -- "Surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save nor his ear too dull to hear?" (101)
Jeremiah 32 -- "Nothing is too hard for you" (101)

Then Bell shifts to God's purpose and love by looking at these chapters.

Psalm 145 -- "is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made" (101)
Psalm 30 -- "lasts only a moment, but his favor lasts a lifetime" (101)
Psalm 145 -- "is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love" (101)
Philippians 2 -- "it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose" (101)
Luke 15 -- God never ever gives up until everything is found (101-102)

After sharing his understanding of these passages, Bell rhetorically asks,

"Will 'all the ends of the earth' come, as God has decided, or will only some? Will all feast as it's promised in Psalm 22, or only a few?  Will everybody be given a new heart, or only a limited number of people? Will God, in the end, settle, saying: 'Well, I tried, I gave it my best shot, and sometimes you just have to be okay with failure'?  Will God shrug God-sized shoulders and say, 'You can't always get what you want?'" (103).

These questions seem to lead to a specific answer, and that answer looks a lot like universalism.  But before we come to a definitive answer for any of these questions, it might be helpful to look at some other Scriptures. While there is intense debate on both sides of this argument (as well as the one regarding how much free will man may have) it may be valuable to at at least look at these chapters and verses and ask how they compare to the presentation Bell has provided.  I realize that different interpretations will lead to different answers (a strong reason for good exegesis and hermeneutical  practices).  If all are saved in the end, why are these Scriptures in the Bible?  Look at Daniel 12:2; Matthew 18:8, 25:42-46; John 5:29; Romans 14:12; Ephesians 2:8-9, 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9; Jude 7; and Revelation 14:11.  Also, I realize that a universalist may argue that even though everybody ends up in heaven in the end, the reason for accepting Jesus now is to receive the blessing that he provides now.  But still, is that the only reason then for Matthew 28:18-20?

Another thing one should do before forming conclusions from this chapter is look at the passage that drives it-- First Timothy 2:3-4.  The critical aspect of this argument depends on the words "wants" or "desires" (from the NIV or ESV translation.) and 'all people.'  'Want' or 'desire' is translated from the Greek word thelō, which means, to choose or prefer, wish, will, desire, intend, to have, to be inclined to, to be disposed to, to purpose, to resolve to, to love, and Thayer even says it could be "to seize with the mind" or to "have in mind." Obviously in the English language, when we have a word with such a wide range of meaning, context is very important.  This is true in the Greek too.  (To get a good idea of this word, here are all the places thelō, or its negation appear in the New Testament: Matt 1:19; 2:18; 5:40, 42; 7:12; 8:2–3; 9:13; 11:14; 12:7, 38; 13:28; 14:5; 15:28, 32; 16:24–25; 17:4, 12; 18:23, 30; 19:17, 21; 20:14–15, 21, 26–27, 32; 21:29; 22:3; 23:4, 37; 26:15, 17, 39; 27:15, 17, 21, 34, 43; Mark 1:40–41; 3:13; 6:19, 22, 25–26, 48; 7:24; 8:34–35; 9:13, 30, 35; 10:35–36, 43–44, 51; 12:38; 14:7, 12, 36; 15:9, 12; Luke 1:62; 4:6; 5:12–13, 39; 6:31; 8:20; 9:23–24, 54; 10:24, 29; 12:49; 13:31, 34; 14:28; 15:28; 16:26; 18:4, 13, 41; 19:14, 27; 20:46; 22:9; 23:8, 20; John 1:43; 3:8; 5:6, 21, 35; 6:11, 21, 67; 7:1, 17, 44; 8:44; 9:27; 12:21; 15:7; 16:19; 17:24; 21:18, 22–23; Acts 2:12; 7:28, 39; 10:10; 14:13; 16:3; 17:18; 18:21; 19:33; 24:27; 25:9; 26:5; Rom 1:13; 7:15–16, 18–21; 9:16, 18, 22; 11:25; 13:3; 16:19; 1 Cor 4:19, 21; 7:7, 32, 36, 39; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:3; 12:1, 18; 14:5, 19, 35; 15:38; 16:7; 2 Cor 1:8; 5:4; 8:10–11; 11:12; 12:6, 20; Gal 1:7; 4:9, 17, 20–21; 5:17; 6:12–13; Phil 2:13; Col 1:27; 2:1, 18; 1 Th 2:18; 4:13; 2 Th 3:10; 1 Tim 1:7; 2:4; 5:11; 2 Tim 3:12; Philem 1:14; Heb 10:5, 8; 12:17; 13:18; James 2:20; 4:15; 1 Pet 3:10, 17; 2 Pet 3:5; 3 John 1:13; Rev 2:21; 11:5–6; 22:17.)

What does Paul mean in his letter to Timothy when he says God 'desires' or 'wants'? And what is meant by 'all people'? It seems this passage may have been written in the same light as John 3:16 and 2 Corinthians 5:14-15.  How should we understand God's desires in light of John 6:40 which reads, "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day" (ESV)?  As the Timothy passage is examined, one must ask if 'wants' is the same as 'wills' or 'decrees.'  Can God have a desire for his people that does not come to pass?  Did God have a desire for Adam and Eve to avoid the forbidden fruit?  I believe the answer is yes.  And when man does not do what God wants or desires, who has failed, man or God?  Does God desire that little Rwandan kids get their limbs cut off by their parents' enemies?  Does God desire that women be raped?  The answer is no!  But according to Bell's argument, if God doesn't get what he desires, God has failed.  The Bible teaches that man has failed and has acted against God's desires.  The definition for this is sin.

Also, 'all people' might be in reference to every person throughout all of time, or it could be in reference to all kinds of people, every tribe, tongue, age, sex, and nation.  Either way, it is reasonable that God would like to see everybody turn back to him and profess their submission and love for their Creator even though the sin nature, depravity, or even free will could keep some from doing so.  In light of what the meta-narrative of the Bible teaches, it seems that  salvation is universal in its availability, but this availability does not necessarily suggest that it is automatic or guaranteed that all will be saved. 

Towards the end of the chapter, Bell sets up his safety net, first asking,

 "[W]e read in these last chapters of Revelation that the gates of that city in the new world will 'never shut.' That's a small detail, and it's important we don't get too hung up on the details and specific images because it's possible to treat something so literally that it becomes less true in the process.  But gates, gates are for keeping people in and keeping people out.  If the gates are never shut, then people are free to come and go. 

Can God bring proper, lasting justice, banishing certain actions--and the people who do them--from the new creation while at the same time allowing and waiting and hoping for the possibility of the reconciliation of those very same people?  Keeping the gates, in essence, open?  Will everyone eventually be reconciled to God or will there be those who cling to their version of their story, insisting on their right to be their own little god ruling their own little miserable kingdom?" (115).

Immediately following this he asks, "Will everybody be saved or will some perish apart from God forever because of their choices?" (115).  Then in a rare moment that exists hardly anywhere else in the Love Wins, Rob Bell tires to answer his own questions.  He writes, "Those are questions, or more accurately, those are tensions we are free to leave fully intact.  We don't need to resolve them or answer them because we can't, and so we simply respect them, creating space for the freedom love requires" (115).  Um, Mr. Bell, didn't you just argue that God does in fact get what God wants?  And according to the way you understand First Timothy 2:3-4, doesn't God want everybody to be saved?  So based on the argument you've constructed, won't everybody be saved in the end, eventually?  Everybody will be in the new creation as God wills; isn't that what you argued?  Doesn't it seem more like your universalist answer is, 'Yes, everybody will be saved, nobody will perish apart from God forever because of their choices'?  The answer Bell provides for his own question seems to run counter to the entire chapter.    

Personally, for a book "About heaven and hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived" I find Bell's attempt to provide answers a bit lacking.  This answer says nothing about the fate of anybody and therefore suggests that Bell has failed to deal with the basic premise that his books claims to address. According to Bell, the fate of every person who ever lived is, 'I don't know. We can't know. Don't worry about it, but leave room for love,'

Can I have my money back?

Up next, "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 5)."

* I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book, Love Wins.

Sproul and Carson Discuss Exegesis

RC Sproul discusses the practice of good exegesis with Don Carson, possibly the leading living New Testament scholar in the world.

"What is exegesis?" you ask.  They get into that in this video, among other things, and it's certainly worth the time to watch.  They also cover some good practices and some bad methods for biblical interpretation.

RC Sproul and D.A. Carson on the topic of proper exegesis.

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 3)

[This review is a review in parts.  If you are just joining this review, start with "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)."] 

Rob Bell explores his thoughts about hell in the third chapter of his book, Love Wins.  With a part of this chapter he challenges the traditional Christian view of a place of punishment, sorrow, and anguish, and it also seems that he is laying the ground work for a future argument about the everlasting aspects of the biblical hell.  But Bell also uses this chapter to present an idea of hell on earth, maybe something like his ideas of heaven on earth. However, this twisted idea of hell that Bell shares speaks against the Gospel of Christ and against the biblical idea of hell; it is a heretical argument and a tragic concept with the potential for epic devastation, a message which no Christian preacher should ever suggest, preach, or teach.

Bell argues that hell on earth is for victims. 

How can this be good news?

(At this point, I realize that readers who love and support Bell and his book will be tempted to stop reading this review, and that's okay.  But it is my hope that those readers remember arguments that they themselves might have made.  "Don't pass judgment," they might have argued, "and don't form an opinion until you've read the book."  Some also argued that I would have to get to the end of the book to see the entire picture.  So if this is you, I hope you continue reading this review.  I hope you are willing to see it through to the end. I invite comments and questions via e-mail or in person.  Please feel free to contact me. And I realize I have just leveled some serious claims about Bell's ideas; so Mr. Bell, I invite you to contact me to discuss your ideas so I can better understand. Come out to Salt Lake so we can discuss this over a cup of coffee.)

In this chapter, Bell shares some of his observations and experiences he has had as a pastor--a trip to Rwanda, a time sitting with a rape victim, a question from a boy about his father who had just committed suicide, the look of a cocaine addict, the ripples of a marital affair, and a cruel dead man.

When Bell was in Rwanda, he witnessed many teenagers missing hands and legs.  They were victims of brutal treatment, forced upon them by no fault of their own. Bell says this was a tactic of a person's enemy.  Cutting off your enemy's hand or leg leaves a brutal reminder of what you did to him.  He is reminded of you every time he looks at his child.  To this, Bells says, "Do I believe in a literal hell?  Of course. Those aren't metaphorical missing arms and legs" (71).

Bell also asks if his readers have ever sat with a woman as she described what it was like when she was raped.  In another question he asks, "How does a person describe what it's like to hear a five-year-old boy whose father has just committed suicide ask, 'When is daddy coming home?'" (71).   

But here's the problem with these examples.  In the common vernacular, one might suggest that a hot stone massage is "heavenly" or maybe it's a piece of chocolate cake the warrants such a high description.  I even remember once buying a honey-baked ham from a company called Heavenly Ham, but I really don't think I bought a ham from heaven, not even heaven on earth.  This is metaphorical hyperbole.  Heaven is the greatest thing one can think of so we use it to describe great things, as if to say there is nothing better.  But in reality, the biblical heaven is not a hot stone massage or a piece of cake or a ham or even the commercial building where I bought the ham.  That's not what these kinds of statements are attempting to say.  We use the word and idea of hell in much the same way.  Hell is the worst thing we can think of so we make statements like, "War is hell."  We want to dramatically declare that it just doesn't get any worse than this.  So in that usage, armless, legless boys and rape victims and mothers who hear very difficult questions could easily say, "This is hell;" but that would not be the hell described in the bible.

What these horrific examples demonstrate is sin, or rather, the effects of sin.  See, the teens in Rwanda and the raped woman are the victims of sinful acts thrust upon them.  These are examples of sin in motion, the sin of humans; it's sin in the fallen world in which we live.  However, in the model Bell gives us, Abel would have been in hell during the few moments while Cain was murdering him (Genesis 4).  Stephen would have been in hell as he was being stoned to death, despite that the Bible says that he saw the heavens opened, and the Son of Man was standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7).  In this model, it seems that the early Saints were passing into a hell on earth while Saul was ravishing the Church (Acts 8).

And let us take a look at a parable Jesus shared about a rich man who died and was in Hades. (Bell also examines this parable, but for a much different reason.)  Luke 16:19-31 tells us a parable of this unnamed rich man and a poor begger named Lazarus.  Lazarus sat out side the rich man's gates starving.  Dogs licked Lazurus' sores, while the rich man did nothing for him.  In the parable, Lazarus ends up in heaven while the rich man ends up in hell.  There is a chasm between the two that does not allow anyone to pass from one place to the other (Luke 16:26).  But looking through the paradigm Rob Bell is giving us, it seems that before the two died, Lazarus was in hell, not the rich man.

In this parable, the dead rich man calls out to Abraham (who is with Lazarus) for mercy, but Abraham reminds the suffering man, "Child, remember that you in your lifetime received the good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish" (Luke 16:25, ESV).  And even later, the rich man begs that his brothers be warned so that they may repent (Luke 16:30) and avoid this . . . this what?  The rich man says "agony." Agony for what?  Could it be punishment?  But punishment for what?  His sin.  Maybe for neglecting the poor; maybe neglecting Jesus as Jesus discussed in Matthew 25 (another passage Bell examines for entirely different purposes in the previous chapter about heaven).  Doesn't this make sense in light of Romans 6:23 which states that the wages of sin is death?  Doesn't this make the gospel, that is, that Christ created a bridge across this chasm, seem like amazing news!  The painting that was so frightful to Bell is the bridge, and the reason it is a cross is because that is how Jesus made the bridge.

As I thought about those Rwandan teens, I couldn't help but think about the people inflicting "hell" upon these children.  They may have actually lived rather well, like the rich man.  And what about the rapist? And what about the religious people who stoned Stephen to death?  What about Saul?  It doesn't seem that there was a punishment or agonizing hell on earth for them.  Bell's hell on earth seems only to be agony and suffering for the victims.  Does the Bible really teach that the victims suffer hell on earth, a biblical hell, for the sins committed against them?  Or as with the rich man, does it seem that this judgment and punishment comes in the afterlife?

And what about the feelings and experiences of a cocaine addict or how the suffering a man might feel after he has sinned by having a marital affair?  Has God cast any of these living people in to hell, or at least a hell on earth? (And again, we can't say Mahatma Gandhi is in hell but it's okay to declare that these living people could be in hell?)  The answer is no, God has not cast these living people into hell on earth.  For the victims, we might think of this suffering in light of 2 Corinthians 1:1-11 and Romans 8:28.  These victims are not cast away from God.  And for the perpetrators who are suffering as a result of their own sin, we might call this conviction in some cases, or it may be that the law is acting like a schoolmaster (Galatians 3), all for the benefit of their salvation.  God may feel distant to them, but only because they have pushed him away, done as an act of their own self punishment.  But God has not cast them to the burning trash heap of hell, not yet anyway.  God is not neglecting them; he loves them and desires good things for them.

It may seem that the Bible only talks of hell as a garbage dump as Bell tries to present it.  (He says that the only mention of hell is the Greek word gehenna. But even staying on the surface of semantics, this argument neglects 2 Peter 2:4's use of the word tartaroō.)  And of course it would seem that there are very little mentions of hell or any kind of punishment if we only look for the word gehenna.  And if we neglect Jesus' parables and much of the symbolic hints of punishment and reward, and even much of the direct statements about a punishment for sin after death, we might think that hell is not that big of a deal.  We could falsely draw the conclusion that Jesus wasn't that concerned about hell.  But that would be a mistake.  Before you incorrectly draw that conclusion, read some passages in the Bible again, without anybody's commentary.  Here are just a few examples; there are many more: Genesis 37:35; 42:38; 44:29, 31; Numbers 16:30, 33; Deuteronomy 32:22; 1 Samuel 2:6; 2 Samuel 22:6; 1 Kings 2:6, 9; Job 7:9; 11:8; 14:13; 17:13, 16; 21:13; 24:19; 26:6; Psalms 6:5; 9:17; Matthew 3:12; 5:22, 29–30; 7:23; 10:28; 11:23; 13:24-30, 42-43, 47-50; 16:18; 18:9; 23:15, 33; 25:32-33; Mark 9:43–47; Luke 3:17; 10:15; 12:5; 16:23; John 15:6; Acts 2:27, 31; James 3:6; 2 Peter 2:4; Revelation 1:18; 6:8; 9:2; 14:9-11; 18:8; 19:20; and 20:13–15

And I propose that if we are to look for any example of hell on earth we must look to the specific moment while Christ was on the cross as a propitiation for our sins; that is, taking on the sins of the world which were laid upon him (Isaiah 53:4-6; Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10).  In that moment, when it appeared that Jesus was isolated from the Father, he cried out, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34).  In that moment, Jesus was making a way for us.  And if anything were going to make an argument for hell on earth, it must be this moment.

Next up, "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 4)."

* I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book, Love Wins.
** Photo of "The Poor Lazarus at the Rich Man's Door" by James Joseph Jacques Tissot is used with permission from the Brooklyn Museum.

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 2)

[This review is a review in parts.  If you are just joining this review, start with "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)."] 

Rob Bell opens Chapter Two, his chapter on heaven, with a discussion of some artwork that hung (or still hangs) in his grandmother's home for as long as Bell can remember.  There is a picture of the painting in the book on page 20.  (HarperOne has made every effort to obtain permission to use the creepy picture, but seems to be unable to find its creator).  On the right side of the picture is a smoky, dirty, polluted world.  Running through the picture is a huge chasm and spanning that chasm like a bridge is an enormous cross.  People are walking on the cross to the other side where a very sunny, large, clean city is located.  It gave Bell and his sister the creeps, although it's difficult to know what exactly caused the feeling in Ruth.  She doesn't say (22).   Bell however, seems to be disturbed that the picture suggests that people leave one place to go to another.  Somewhere else.  He writes, "From what we can see, the people in the painting are going somewhere, somewhere they've chosen to go, and they're leaving something behind so that they can go there" (23).  This idea is Bell's launching point into his discussion about heaven. 

Before reading Chapter Two, I got the sense that the picture is symbolic of the cross making a way for one world to be bridged to another, so people can go from a life destined for hell to a life in and among the Kingdom of Heaven.  A chasm between a world of death and yuckiness was now bridged by Jesus' work on the cross to a world of life and beauty, free from such yuckiness.  It would seem that people (who were originally on the yucky side) are able to go to the other side but the things of death's side will remain where they are, separated from the amazing city.  These things might be "war, rape, greed, injustice, violence, pride, division, exploitation, and disgrace"-- things Bells says, "will not be able to survive in the world to come" (36).  But I quickly learned that Bell did not see the same symbolism that I observed.  He saw people escaping to someplace else. And he didn't like what he saw.

On the one hand, Bell attacks an immature, non-biblical view of heaven, one of winged people playing harps and bouncing from cloud to cloud.  He takes some time to demonstrate that the new heaven and earth will be much like the physical world in which we live, only without rape, corporate greed, and oil spills. (It might be worth noting that he doesn't express his thoughts with words and idea such as sin or the temptation of sin.)  It will be an earth like the one prior to Genesis 3.  It's here, on earth, not somewhere else.  (Regarding the new heaven and earth, I agree with Bell on this topic.)  But for Bell, when we die, we don't go anywhere else, not at all, because heaven is right here--this seems to be the argument, at least the idea he's promoting.  But I think he takes this a little too far.  He seems to neglect passages of the Bible that suggest that Jesus was going somewhere to prepare a place for his people.  (Bell discussed this somewhat in Chapter One so I discussed it and some Scriptures related to this idea in the post that looked at that chapter.)  Even Bell himself can't get away from the idea of people going somewhere (maybe before they come back here).  In making a later argument about the physical, earthy idea of heaven, Bell writes,

"Paul writes to the Corinthians about two kinds of bodies.  The first is the kind we each inhabit now, the kind that gets old and weary and eventually gives out on us.  The second kind is one he calls "imperishable" (1 Cor. 15), one immune to the ravages of time, one we'll receive when heaven and earth are one.  Prior to that, then, after death we are without a body.  In heaven, but without a body. A body is of the earth. Made of dust. Part of this creation, not that one.  Those currently 'in heaven' are not, obviously, here.  And so they are with God, but without a body" (56, italics added for emphases). 

But while he is making an argument about the present incompleteness of heaven and earth, Bell alludes to somewhere else.   So is it possible that when people die, they go to this temporary place--where they have no body--to wait for a time when the yucky side of the world will be remade as it was before the fall in Genesis 3?  Intentionally or not, Bell himself makes a good argument for this; and, this idea does seem to suggest that people do in fact go somewhere that's not here with all the bad things Bell lists, at least for a time.  I think he's being too hard on that picture at his grandmother's house.  And he's being hard on other Christians.

Bell also points out that some people think of heaven like a mansion, but he says that the word "mansion" appears nowhere in the Bible's descriptions of heaven (43).  I found this statement rather interesting because I've always thought a mansion was a big house with lots of rooms.  John 14:2 doesn't say the specific word, "mansion"; but Jesus says, "In my father's house there are many rooms.  If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?" (ESV).  It seems that place, someplace, where Jesus is going, has lots of rooms.  Maybe like a mansion?

From here, Bell shifts to an attack on matters of when one enters the Kingdom of Heaven, and what one must do in order to be granted admittance.   He looks at passages that deal with the Kingdom of Heaven now and argues against Christians that primarily see the Kingdom of Heaven as a future event. He also attacks the various ideas of how one is accepted or inaugurated into the Kingdom of Heaven.  He's rather critical of a sinner's prayer, and he discusses the sinner on the cross.  Although to me, the non-verbal story being told in that narrative seems to suggest a recognition of sin and a submission to King Jesus.  Is scriptural approach seems selective.  For a discussion of what the Bible has to say about the Kingdom of God, please visit this post. 

Bell also paints a picture of a hardworking single mom trying her best to do good.  He says she's faithful with what she as been given.  "She's a woman of character and substance" (53). Then Bell asks, "Is she the last who Jesus says will be first?" (53).  In contrast to this, Bell discusses the people on magazine covers who are "often beautiful, rich famous, talented people embroiled in endless variations of scandal and controversy" (54).  Of these people, Bell asks, "Are we seeing the first who will be last that Jesus spoke of?" (54).  But never is there a conversation about what these people think of Jesus.  No discussion of the necessity of Christ or his atonement.  (I'm not sure the words "atonement" or "resurrection" have appeared anywhere in the book thus far, and "repentance" and "surrender" appear nowhere in a positive light if they appear at all.)  And I wonder, how is it okay to speculate about the status of these people but not the status of Mahatma Gandhi (1).  Does this seem like a double-standard?

I feel that Bell's picture of a physical heaven is a biblical representation of the heaven in which believers will live out eternity, with dirt and plants and work, free of sin and temptation and the effects of the fall.  But I also feel that Bell doesn't represent the Kingdom of God well.  It has aspects of now and future but those aspects are not the same.  It's complex.  However, there is an indication in the Bible that not everybody is automatically a citizen of this Kingdom.  And it's citizens are among the Kingdom now and after death.  (For more on the Kingdom of Heaven, with lots of Scripture references worth further study, please look over this post on the topic.) Bell, however, seems to be on the far side, arguing the now against people on the far other side arguing the future. He really wants to make the Kingdom of God simple, so he can then take that simple thing that he's created, call it the standard Christian believe and then argue that it's actually more complex than we think.

And there is one glaring problem found on pages 57 and 58. Bell writes, "Let me be clear: heaven is not forever in the way that we think of forever, as a uniform measurement of time like days and years, marching endlessly in to the future.  That's not a category or concept we find in the Bible" (58, emphasis added for effect).  To make his point Bell shares a word study that seems almost like an intentional misrepresentation.  He examines the Greek word aion, which generally means age, a period of time, forever, or a world without end.  It also appears as a form of negation which is often translated "never." But Bell says it's better to think of it only as a time, or rather as an "intense experience" (58).  He then states, "This is why a lot of translators choose to translate aion as 'eternal.' By this they don't mean the literal passing of time; they mean transcending time, belong to another realm altogether" (58).  There are some serious problems here.  First, there is no concept of an eternal time in the Bible?  And the translators don't think this has anything to do with time?  Really?  And what about the Greek word aionios? This different word has the same root but it is an altogether different word.  In its simplest form it means past, present, and future, eternal, everlasting, without end.  Has Bell forgot this word in his word study?  It's rather important as we examine this topic.

Here are the New Testament passages where the word aion appears (some are in the negated form often translated as 'never'): Matthew 12:32; 13:22, 39–40, 49; 24:3; 28:20; Mark 3:29; 4:19; 10:30; Luke 1:33, 55, 70; 16:8; 18:30; 20:34–35; John 4:14; 6:51, 58; 8:35, 51–52; 9:32; 10:28; 11:26; 12:34; 13:8; 14:16; Acts 3:21; 15:18; Rom 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 12:2; 16:27; 1 Corinthians 1:20; 2:6–8; 3:18; 8:13; 10:11; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 9:9; 11:31; Gal 1:4–5; Ephesians 1:21; 2:2, 7; 3:9, 11, 21; Philippians 4:20; Colossians 1:26; 1 Timothy 1:17; 6:17; 2 Timothy 4:10, 18; Titus 2:12; Hebrews 1:2, 8; 5:6; 6:5, 20; 7:17, 21, 24, 28; 9:26; 11:3; 13:8, 21; 1 Peter 1:25; 4:11; 5:11; 2 Peter 3:18; 1 John 2:17; 2 John 1:2; Jude 1:13, 25; Revelation 1:6, 18; 4:9–10; 5:13; 7:12; 10:6; 11:15; 14:11; 15:7; 19:3; 20:10; and 22:5.  Look at these passages and note the context and translational use.

But wait, there's that other word that Bell completely neglects--aionios that has the eternal, forever, time marching on without end aspect.  Look at where this word appears in the New Testament, and notice its context, usage, and English translation: Matthew 18:8; 19:16, 29; 25:41, 46; Mark 3:29; 10:17, 30; Luke 10:25; 16:9; 18:18, 30; John 3:15–16, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40, 47, 54, 68; 10:28; 12:25, 50; 17:2–3; Acts 13:46, 48; Romans 2:7; 5:21; 6:22–23; 16:25–26; 2 Corinthians 4:17–5:1; Galatians 6:8; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; 2:16; 1 Timothy 1:16; 6:12, 16; 2 Timothy 1:9; 2:10; Titus 1:2; 3:7; Philemon 1:15; Hebrews 5:9; 6:2; 9:12, 14–15; 13:20; 1 Peter 5:10; 2 Peter 1:11; 1 John 1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11, 13, 20; Jude 1:7, 21; and Revelation 14:6.  These are not the same word and they each carry their own meaning.  Notice that these two different words appear in the same books by the same authors.  Sometimes they appear in the same paragraphs, and in a couple cases, even in the same sentence! (See Mark 10:30 and Luke 18:30 for example).  Has Rob Bell intentionally neglected the word aionios in order to try to make his point?  

Despite the word study problem, at the conclusion of the second chapter, I feel better about the book than I did at the conclusion of Chapter One.  Bell is at least making an attempt to answer some (although not many) of his proposed questions.  He is trying to describe what happens when we die and he's punching holes in a misguided, non-Christian view of heaven.  However, an occasional swing is aimed at the wrong target.  And sometimes, it's a little below the belt or misses the mark completely.  There are discussions of Scripture that seem a little twisted in order to serve his purpose, especially in some of his word studies.  I still get the feeling Bell is angry at some fringe Christian ideas that were popular in the 1980s; and rather than trying to tell a story of Christ's Good News as he suggested he was going to do, he's still reacting to ideas and practices of Christianity that he doesn't care much for.


Next up, "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 3)."

*I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book.  
** The photo of Rob Bell is the copyright of Mars Hill Bible Church and a color version appears on the back cover of Love Wins. 

What is the Kingdom of God?

I once taught a class where the kingdom of God was of chief interest.  For the sake of time, we didn't read all of the Scriptures listed below, but I did print this material as a handout to the class and I felt it would be worth posting here.  The question at hand is, what is the Bible referring to when it mentions the kingdom of God? 

 

THE KINGDOM OF GOD

A Systematic View

The kingdom of God (nearly interchangeable with kingdom of heaven, kingdom of Christ, kingdom of our Lord, and sometimes just the kingdom) is discussed often throughout the Bible. It can seem complex, because it is inside creation, outside creation, and above creation. Like the Trinity of God, there is no earthy analogy to adequately describe it. Presently, we only see it in bits and pieces but our understanding of it comes through faith.

“[The kingdom of God] is simply the reign of God in human hearts wherever obedience to God is found.”¹

The Kingdom of God is not the Church. “The Kingdom is primarily the dynamic reign or kingly rule of God, and, derivatively, the sphere in which the rule is experienced. In the biblical idiom, the Kingdom is not identified with its subjects. They are the people of God’s rule who enter it, live under it, and are governed by it. The church is the community of the Kingdom but never the Kingdom itself. Jesus’ disciples belong to the Kingdom as the Kingdom belongs to them; but they are not the Kingdom. The Kingdom is the rule of God; the church is a society of men.”²

The kingdom of God (or kingdom of heaven) is not strictly speaking of the afterlife or future place or future existence. It has an “already/not yet” aspect about it present in many of the discussions about it throughout the Bible.

The kingdom of God should not be mistaken with the sovereignty or rule of God. God is sovereign over all of creation. However, presently, one can be inside or outside of the kingdom of God. And we do not truly, positively experience it until we are within the kingdom of God.

There are 66 uses of “kingdom of God” in the New Testament. There is no Hebrew use of this term that translates into English as “kingdom of God.” (Matt 6:33; 12:28; 19:24; 21:31, 43; Mark 1:15; 4:11, 26, 30; 9:1, 47; 10:14–15, 23–25; 12:34; 14:25; 15:43; Luke 4:43; 6:20; 7:28; 8:1, 10; 9:2, 11, 27, 60, 62; 10:9, 11; 11:20; 13:18, 20, 28–29; 14:15; 16:16; 17:20–21; 18:16–17, 24–25, 29; 19:11; 21:31; 22:16, 18; 23:51; John 3:3, 5; Acts 1:3; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 28:23, 31; Rom 14:17; 1 Cor 4:20; 6:9–10; 15:50; Gal 5:21; Col 4:11; 2 Th 1:5.)

There are 32 uses of “kingdom of heaven” in the New Testament. There is no Hebrew use of this term that translates into English as “kingdom of heaven.” (Matt 3:2; 4:17; 5:3, 10, 19–20; 7:21; 8:11; 10:7; 11:11–12; 13:11, 24, 31, 33, 44–45, 47, 52; 16:19; 18:1, 3–4, 23; 19:12, 14, 23; 20:1; 22:2; 23:13; 25:1.)

There are 2 uses of “kingdom of our Lord” in the New Testament. (2 Pet 1:11; Rev 11:15.) There is no Hebrew use of this term that translates into English as “kingdom of our Lord.”

There are 3 uses of “gospel of the kingdom” in the New Testament, and all of which are found in Matthew. (Matt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14). There is no Hebrew use of this term that translates into English as “gospel of the kingdom.” Matthew also uses the “word of the kingdom” in Matt 13:19.

There is 1 use of “The kingdom of Christ and God” and it’s found in Eph 5:5.

Not every use for kingdom without the various above qualifiers in the New Testament is referring to the kingdom of God, but many do. (There are 55 uses of kingdom not followed by either "of God" or "of heaven.") Significant examples include Matt 4:23; 6:10; 8:12; 9:35; 13:19, 38, 41, 43; 16:28; 20:21; 24:14; 25:34; 26:29; Mark 11:10; Luke 1:33; 11:2; 12:31–32; 22:29–30; 23:42; John 18:36; Acts 20:25; 1 Cor 15:24; Col 1:13; 2 Tim 4:18; Heb 1:8; 12:28; James 2:5; 2 Pet 1:11; Rev 1:6; 5:10; and 12:10.

The Hebrew word for kingdom is used though the Old Testament mostly for earthly kingdoms but there are references to the Kingdom of God. Examples include: Ex 19:6 (Kingdom of Priests), 2 Sam 7:10–16 & 1 Chr 17:9–14 (near/far picture of Kingdom), Psa 45:6; 103:19; 145:11–13 (Blurred lines between Sovereign rule and the Kingdom of God), Dan 4:3 (everlasting Kingdom), and Dan 7:18, 22 (future view of the Kingdom).

___

1 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2^nd Ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 1998), 1163.

2 George Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament; quoted by Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 1994), 863.

* Photo by Niall McAuley is registered under a creative commons license.