Death ≠ Life: A Biblically based exploration of annihilationism

Brought up as an evangelical Christian I learned the prevailing doctrine of Hell as eternal, conscious punishment.  Due to my human limitations, and my love of unsaved family members, this was never an idea of justice I understood nor did it seem in keeping with the teachings regarding God’s character, but I accepted it on faith fully understanding, then and now, that God is not limited by human values.  Years later came across the doctrine of annihilationism.   This holds that after death is judgment and those who have not accepted Jesus as their Savior, during their human lifetime, will be thrown into the lake of fire and annihilated.  This seemed much more in line with a perfectly just and loving God.  That said, human emotion aside, if it’s not found in Scripture it’s not true, period.  And so began my study of the Biblical basis for both doctrines.  Good news: the Biblical support for annihilationism is extensive. 

Let’s begin at the beginning, with God’s promised consequences for man’s first sin.  God tells Adam that as a result of his sin his life will be difficult and in the end he will return to the ground from which he was taken (Gen. 3:19).  Nowhere does God tell Adam he will be suffering for all eternity as a result of his sin.  Furthermore, God then casts Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden specifically so they will be unable to eat of the tree of life and live forever in their new sinful state (Gen. 3:22-24).  All that is written here indicates that the God given penalty for sin is death. 

Fast forward to the New Testament.  Here we learn the Good News: God provided Jesus, His perfect Son, as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins.  Those who accept Him are forgiven, redeemed and no longer required to pay the permanent penalty for their sins.  That is indeed wonderful news, but has the coming of Jesus somehow also altered the original death penalty for sin?  There is very little evidence to this effect and abundant evidence to the contrary. 

Here we begin with Jesus’ own words in the quintessential Gospel verse John 3:16: “For God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”  Jesus does not offer two alternate locations for everlasting life, Heaven or hell, rather the choices He promises are “everlasting life” or “perishing.”  Based on Jesus own words, the penalty for sin has not changed.  The apostle Paul further confirms this by stating “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”  (Rom. 6:23).  Again, eternal life is promised for the forgiven, death for those remaining in sin.

So how does this actually play out in the end?  For that we take a look at the book of Revelation.  Here we see the judgment of all who have died.  Each person’s destination is indicated by whether or not their name is found written in the “Book of Life”.  Those not found are cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15).  Again, we see an indication of life vs. fire.  To further clarify, John refers to those having “their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone” as “the second death.”  Nowhere are people described as living in this lake of fire.  Jesus Himself refers to hell as a place where both body and soul are destroyed (Matt. 10:28).  Again, there is no indication in these verses that any trace of man survives in hell, on the contrary man is specifically described as perishing, being destroyed and experiencing the second death.

Does hell provide eternal, conscious punishment for any being?  Yes, the devil, the beast and the false prophet will be “tormented day and night forever and ever” (Rev. 20:10).  This fits the original purpose of hell which Jesus Himself described as “the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41) (as an interesting side note, although God promises death to Adam, death is not included in His stated penalty to the serpent (Gen. 3:14-15)).

Based on these verses hell is:

1.   An everlasting fire

2.   Prepared for the devil and his angels at least three of whom will be tormented in it for all time

3.   The second death for unsaved humans who have earned death as the penalty for sin

So where did the notion of eternal conscious punishment for unsaved people come from?  From both human sentiment as well as scripture interpretation, although this paper will address only the latter (for more detail on the former, please see my blog entry: God Doesn’t Need a PR Firm…Just the Truth).  To that end let’s turn to the actual statement of faith and associated Bible references of the Evangelical Free Church. 

The EFCA’s statement #10 states:

Response and Eternal Destiny

10. We believe that God commands everyone everywhere to believe the gospel by turning to Him in repentance and receiving the Lord Jesus Christ. We believe that God will raise the dead bodily and judge the world, assigning the unbeliever to condemnation and eternal conscious punishment and the believer to eternal blessedness and joy with the Lord in the new heaven and the new earth, to the praise of His glorious grace.

The Scripture references the EFCA cites as support for the phrase “assigning the unbeliever to condemnation and eternal conscious punishment” are: Matt. 25:46; Lk. 16:26; 2 Thess. 1:9; Rev. 14:11; 21:6, 8; 22:14, 15 an examination of each follows.

Matt. 25:46: “And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”  This is a quote from Jesus who contrasts “eternal life” with “everlasting punishment.”  The punishment is indeed described as “everlasting” but is not referred to as “life” it is in fact, contrasted with life.  Death, with no possibility of resurrection is indeed “everlasting.” 

Luke 16:26: “And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.”  This is from the story of the rich man and Lazarus which is the only passage that, in my view, offers any challenge to annihilationism.  This refers to two men in a conscious state after death, one of which is suffering and the other in comfort.  Jesus refers to the place as “Hades” (v. 23) which, as Revelation shows, is an actual place.  There are however alternate explanations for this passage.  The first is that it’s strictly a parable illustrating the ultimate lesson, stated in verse 31, that certain people will not repent despite overwhelming evidence that Jesus can save them.  The second is that Hades is an intermediate destination.  Hades is actually referred to in Rev. 20:13-14 as delivering up it’s dead for judgment and then being cast into the lake of fire, the second death, itself.  We of course cannot know for sure but in light of the preponderance of Biblical evidence for annihilationism cited elsewhere I find either of these explanations more plausible than interpreting this passage as proof of eternal conscious punishment.

2 Thess. 1:9:  These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.     Here we again see the term “everlasting” but it’s used to describe “destruction”.  Destruction is not survival and it is not conscious.  Again, this describes a permanent ending with no chance of reversal.

Rev. 14:11:  “And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark in his name.” 
 

These verses cannot be referring to eternal conscious punishment for one simple reason: the preceding verse (v.10) tells us the group referenced is to be tormented in the presence of the Lamb. Scripture tells us clearly that the unsaved will be separated from Jesus. Jesus Himself commands the unsaved to “depart from Me…” (Matt 7:23) and Paul writes “They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord…” (2 Thes. 1:9)

  Secondarily, the adjectives “forever and ever” here specifically refer to the ascension of smoke.  Additionally, the torment is experienced by those “who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark in his name” – this appears to refer to a specific group described in Rev. 13, not all unsaved people.  Although these people are described as having no rest, this state is not specifically described as lasting forever.   

Rev. 21:6, 8: And He said to me, “It is done!  I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End.  I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts…But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”  This is actually a strong verse in support of annihilationism, specifically referring to the lake of fire as “the second death.” 

Rev. 22:14, 15:  “Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.  But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.  Here God welcomes His redeemed into His city to again “have the right to the tree of life”, which was denied Adam after his sin.  Life is the given to the redeemed, the unsaved are outside the gates without access to the tree of life.  Although it specifies the sinners, and that they are excluded from the city, nowhere does it state they are alive. 

Based on the above, in my view the Bible strongly supports annihilation.  Happily, this view is also in keeping with a perfect, merciful, loving and just God who:

1. Provides a clear and singular path to eternal life through acceptance of His perfect Son Jesus as our Lord and Savior.
2. Extends forgiveness and salvation to all who truly repent in this life, regardless of their previous sins.
3. Gives us the free will to choose death over life along with the inevitable and just consequence of doing so.

As always, welcome your thoughts and comments.

Thanks for reading.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.  John 3:16

God Doesn’t Need a PR Firm…Just the Truth

A reflection on Dr. Albert Mohler’s defense of eternal conscious punishment

OK, let’s put a face on it.  Picture someone you know and genuinely love - an appealing, compassionate person of good character (admittedly by human standards) but one who does not believe in Jesus.  For me this would be my funny, honest and thoughtful brother.  Now picture this person’s face as they experience maximum agony for trillions and trillions of years and beyond – for all time.  Now picture yourself, during this same period, at a banquet table in Heaven with other Christians and Jesus Himself, feasting and having a wonderful time, Jesus, of course, is fully aware of your beloved brother’s everlasting torment. The same Jesus who clearly demonstrated boundless love, compassion, grace, and yes, righteousness, during His human ministry on earth and told us “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.”  John 14:9

When considering the above, even the most ardent supporter of the doctrine of hell as eternal conscious punishment would have to admit their own lack of human understanding of this as justice.  A perfectly legitimate and credible position for supporters of this doctrine would be to refer to Isaiah 55:8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts neither are your ways My ways, says the Lord” and conclude that their limited human perspective prevents them from understanding how this equates to fair justice but, as they believe Scripture supports this doctrine, they accept it on faith.  Perfectly legitimate.

Unfortunately this is all too often not what we communicate, either to fellow Christians or non-believers.  Instead we attempt to explain the unexplainable.  Dr. Albert Mohler is currently at the forefront of this effort.  He has written extensively in defense of this doctrine and quotes theologian Geerhardus Vos who “warned against abstracting the love of God from His other attributes, noting that while God’s love is revealed to be His fundamental attribute, it is defined by His other attributes, as well. It is quite possible to “overemphasize this one side of truth as to bring into neglect other exceedingly important principles and demands of Christianity,” he stressed. This would lead to a loss of theological ‘equilibrium’ and balance….”.1    Humanly speaking, Vos’s words are unconvincing in that everlasting torment for temporal sins is beyond any human capacity to conceive of as “equilibrium” or “balance” - mathematically speaking, it is not equal.  Dr. Mohler however purports that the challenge associated with accepting this doctrine is not our limited human understanding but rather the mindset and values of certain people.  He says, “…modern persons demand that God must be a humanitarian, and He is held to human standards of righteousness and love…”.2 True enough, but the standards to which he refers are by no means arbitrary, rather they arise from our capacity for reason and logic.    Implying that only “modern persons” have this limitation is incorrect. 

Dr. Mohler does attempt to address the apparent lack of balance by stating, "The traditional doctrine of hell argues that an infinite penalty is just punishment for sin against the infinite holiness of God."³  But what does this mean exactly?  Agree with the contrast between our sinfulness and God's perfect holiness but how does this translate into damages?  Has sin during one's human lifetime somehow harmed God for all eternity?  Rather than explaining the doctrine, Dr. Mohler's comparison seems more effective in suppressing any sincere questions, even from Christians who, while correctly believing that they, and all people, are undeserving of Heaven (Rom. 3:23), are made to feel that any notion they have that their unsaved loved ones may not deserve eternal torment is a sign of arrogance and unrepentance.  This doesn't welcome legitimate concerns - it silences them.

Another point made by Dr. Mohler is that the “modern denial of hell” is a rejection of retributive justice.⁴ Not always true.  Here he is grouping two very different alternate doctrines, Universalism and Annihilationism and addressing them as one.  His premise fits the former well - if all ultimately end up in Heaven, whether redeemed by Jesus in this life or not, then there is no permanent penalty for sin – and no reason for the cross.  However, Annihilationism presents a very different story.  This doctrine holds that those who don’t accept Jesus as their Savior - in this life - are annihilated in the lake of fire, in keeping with the Biblical teaching that “the wages of sin is death…” (Romans 6:23).  How is the death penalty not retributive?  Clearly it is.

Although Dr. Mohler represents only one side of this issue as influenced by human sentiment, in actuality this applies to both sides.  Ironically, viewing hell as eternal conscious punishment may itself be an attempt to hold God to human standards of justice.  When considering murderers, rapists and pedophiles, who among us doesn’t feel that annihilation is too good for them?  Is our sense of human justice satisfied if Hitler is ultimately allowed to merely die?  Perhaps our outrage over easy treatment for this heinous group is overshadowing our compassion for the much larger group of better behaved unsaved people. As we debate our lack of understanding of God’s wrath are we in actuality just ill equipped to understand His divine mercy?  Worth considering.

As Dr. Mohler says: "We must never believe that we can do a public relations job on the Gospel or on the character of God."⁵ Both sides must stop spinning the truth.  Effective evangelism and fair debate demand an honest, clear assessment of our own position as well as that of opposing views.  By communicating an understanding of a concept of punishment, the severity of which is far beyond our human comprehension, we at best damage our own credibility and at worst come off as anything but loving.  Either way we put God, and other Christians, in an unappealing light.

Footnotes:

1, 2:  Doing Away with Hell? Part One

3, 4:  Doing Away with Hell? Part Two
5:  We Have Seen All This Before:  Rob Bell and the (Re)Emergence of Liberal Theology

Is Capital Punishment Biblical?

The 6th commandment states “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13) however killing as punishment for certain crimes has long been considered a valid exception to this commandment.  Our current practice of capital punishment has Biblical roots and is thought by many to be a continuing Biblical mandate.  Christians advocating against capital punishment often base this on extending other Biblical values such as loving your enemies and the necessity of a “consistent value of life” when opposing abortion.  Others, most notably Pope John Paul, have pointed to traditional church teachings referring to execution only in the absence of other options and concluded that the availability of prisons (which were not around during Old Testament times) rules out the necessity of executions.  Still others have pointed to the Old Testament directive to execute people for crimes no longer considered capital offenses (adultery, homosexual acts, violating the Sabbath, disrespecting your parents, etc).  While this sort of logic can be compelling, it goes beyond Scripture.  This is actually not necessary as a careful review of the Bible itself presents much more concrete support for the anti-execution crowd.

A key question when considering this issue is: who is authorized by God to order an execution?  To begin, let’s take a look at the Old Testament instructions on execution.  For capital crimes not including murder, the executioners were stated to be the “congregation” (Num. 15:35) or “the people of the land” (Lev. 20:2).  These terms appear to be synonymous as the nation of Israel was a theocracy.  All citizens were part of the congregation and were instructed to follow Moses and Aaron, the first high priest, and ultimately their successors.  In the case of murder, the only one of these sins still considered a capital offense, there was a provision for the perpetrator to be executed by “the avenger of blood” (Num. 35:19, 21) who was a designated relative of the victim.  However, even in this case, the final judgment of whether murder had been committed was the decision of the congregation (Num. 35:12, 24), effectively authorizing that body exclusively, to order an execution.  The congregation, in turn, was led by the priests and ultimately by the high priest. 

The priests’ conduct and lifestyle was strictly regulated to ensure their ability to intercede for all the people with God – effectively to keep the lines of communication open.  This was a very unique role as the priests bore the sins of the congregation (Num. 18:23), even to the point that the high priest’s death appeared to be substitutionary atonement for those committing involuntary manslaughter (Num. 35:25, 28).  The priests required regular and specific atonement in order to enter the presence of God.  No others were to enter into His presence (Num. 18:22).  Based on all these factors, a compelling argument can be made that God’s intention for execution was that it be an indirect judgment from God Himself through the judgment of a sinless (albeit temporarily sinless through ritual atonement) priest.  Effectively, this rendered a perfect, all knowing, loving, just God as the executioner.  There is no question regarding God’s qualifications to render such judgment.

Translating these Biblical directives to a secular government is an unsupportable stretch.  Compared with the proscribed lifestyle of the Old Testament priests and their unique role, judges today are not God’s representatives and thus are sorely unqualified to hand down the death penalty.  This begs the theoretical question (since it’s clearly illegal): if we had spiritual leaders following the directives given in the Old Testament would they then be qualified to order executions?

Christians have to reply with a resounding “no” on several accounts.  First, the role of priest as intercessor and substitutionary atonement has been made forever obsolete by the permanent atonement of Jesus death – no such high priests can exist anymore.  This fact alone supports the anti-death penalty argument because no one is currently qualified, nor authorized by God, to make these decisions. 

An additional side point can be made that perhaps the role of the “avenger of blood” was specifically revoked in the New Testament when Paul communicated that vengeance belongs to God alone (Rom. 12:19).

Another, less concrete example arises from Jesus statement that He came to “fulfill the law” (Matt. 5:17b).  The Bible states that the “wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23a).  While we know that Jesus’ death fulfills this penalty for His followers by enabling them to have eternal life after death (Rom. 6:23b), might a case be made that His death also fulfilled the earthly penalty of capital punishment?  This particular point admittedly requires thinking beyond Scripture but bears consideration.

A more intriguing idea is the case to be made that Jesus abolished legal execution even before His death.  For this we look at the story of the adulterous woman (John 8:2-11).

In brief, the religious leaders bring a woman to Jesus who was caught in the act of adultery.  They cite the Old Testament law requiring her to be put to death and ask Jesus to rule on the matter.  Jesus replied that whoever among them was sinless should cast the first stone.  Slowly but surely each person drops their stone and leaves.  Jesus then tells the woman that He does not condemn her either and she should go and sin no more.

Many view this as a beautiful story of Jesus' mercy to a sinner convicted of, what was then, a capital crime.  But beneath the surface we see a timeless story that confronts the practice of execution by highlighting its extreme shortcomings – serious flaws around corruption and bias that continue in our justice system today.

To understand this we need to examine the punishment for adultery in Leviticus 20:10.  This verse clearly states that both the man and the woman were to be put to death.  Upon bringing this woman to Jesus the priests stated that she had been caught in “the very act” of adultery (John 8:4).  Since the act takes two, where was the man?  It appears that God’s designated judges, the priests, were applying the law unequally – valuing one class of citizen over another.  God did not merely imply impartiality in judgment, He directly commanded it (Lev. 19:15). These leaders were directly violating God’s laws – their judgment was affected by bias and maybe influence, as we continue to see today. 

Jesus responded with a clear directive, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8:7).  Since the Old Testament required execution, by the congregation, for adultery, this raises a very interesting question: did Jesus abolish this Old Testament law?  There are Christians who would argue that He did exactly that however Jesus states clearly that He did not come to abolish the law (Matt. 5:17a).  So how can His directive be reconciled with upholding the law?

First, it’s important to distinguish between the law and the punishment for breaking the law.  In this case, the law stated that adultery was a sin.  Jesus affirmed and upheld this law when He told the woman to “go and sin no more” (John 8:11b). 

Stoning was the penalty for breaking the law.  In the case of adultery, the people, under the direction of the priests, were the lawful executioners.  So did Jesus change this law?  His requirement was that the executioners be sinless.  As the executioners were mere people, this prerequisite seems to be impossible.  Isn’t adding an insurmountable obstacle to the practice of lawful punishment effectively changing the law?

To answer this we go back to the required practices for priests.  Although priests were not born, nor were they permanently, sinless, the mandated practice of atonement rendered them temporarily sinless whenever they entered the tabernacle and communicated with God.  Again, these practices were designed to keep the lines of communication with God clear.  In the case of this adulterous woman, the religious leaders’ clearly corrupt judgment is evidence that they’ve fallen out of communication with God and were currently in a sinful state.  Jesus did not change the law he merely clarified it by pointing out that due to their disobedience they were no longer qualified, under the already existing requirement, to be “sinless” judges.  The brilliant irony of Jesus' directive is that it wasn't dependent on any prior sins the priests committed, rather He caught them "in the very act" (to use their own words) of willfully disobeying God's command to be impartial in judgment (Lev. 19:15).  They had no leg to stand on and as scholars of Torah, they had to know this.  Jesus was in fact upholding the law – the priests in this case were not. 

In summary, although a number of emotional and practical appeals have been made by Christians against the death penalty, we need go no further than Scripture itself for a compelling argument against its continuance:

1. The Old Testament has no precedence for execution ordered by a secular court.
2. Because of Jesus’ death, priests are no longer God’s designated representatives leaving us with no qualified judges in this area.
3. Jesus’ Himself rendered the priests unqualified to judge even prior to His death due to their disobedience in applying judgment.

The Bible does not appear to offer any support for our current practice of capital punishment – we’d be a better people without it.

Your comments are welcome. 

Thanks for reading.

The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.  Deuteronomy 29:29

Where’s the Love? : Is Rob Bell’s portrayal of the Gospel Good News for Anyone?

Rob Bell has ignited quite a firestorm with his latest book.  Most of the debate centers on his view of hell which is clearly a critical issue for discussion.  However, there is another aspect of this book which has been largely overlooked.  Many of Bell’s detractors claim he is attempting to redesign the Gospel to be more palatable to people in our current culture who find Christian beliefs unappealing.  If so, has he succeeded in telling a more attractive story?  Not in this reader’s opinion.  On close review, Bell’s story is not good news for anyone, regardless of whether or not they happen to be Christian. 

In Love Wins Bell seems to have three main objectives:

1.      To communicate that the “Good News Is Better than That”.  Bell states that certain predominant beliefs held and taught by many who identify themselves as Christian are erroneous, portray God’s character in a very bad light, encourage bad behavior by “Christians” and, as a result, are repellant to many people.  These beliefs fall in two main categories:

1. Who goes to Heaven?
2. What is the nature of hell?

2.      To invite people to join a conversation about these matters by creating an environment in which all questions and opinions are welcome while we wrestle with these issues together.

3.      Less expressly stated, but permeating throughout the book, is Bell’s attempt to encourage people to behave better toward each other, put in his words, to not “reject love.”

To support his positions, Bell uses an intriguing mixture of both Scripture and human logic.  While Bell raises some important issues, the book ultimately misses the mark on all three counts.  That’s the bad news.  But fortunately, for all of us, the good news is indeed better than what is commonly believed and also better than portrayed in this book.  Way better.  That said, let’s take a closer look.

WHO GOES TO HEAVEN

Bell begins laying the foundation for his hell discussion by taking issue with two prevailing views:  the beliefs that salvation is, obtained by grace alone and only available to a select, few Christians.

Bell is concerned that the doctrine of salvation by grace alone has become a tacit endorsement of bad behavior by Christians secure in the knowledge that they’re Heaven bound because they said “the prayer” at some point.  Bell cites numerous Bible verses which he implies point to a variety of paths to salvation.   One very interesting example he cites begins in Matthew 19:16 when a rich man asks Jesus “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” Bell refers to verses 17-18 in which Jesus tells the man to keep certain of the Ten Commandments.  To which the man replies, that he has, all his life.  To me, this is a fairly astounding claim for any human being to make, made all the more so by Jesus raising the bar on some of these same commandments - effectively redefining adultery to lust and murder to hatred (Matt. 5).  So, was Jesus sincerely expecting the man to keep these commandments or was he communicating the impossibility of doing so? 

For his part, Bell does not comment on the absurdity of the man’s claim but observes, correctly, that Jesus left out the commandment about coveting your neighbor’s stuff, one that would likely be particularly convicting to a wealthy man.  Bell then quotes verse 21 as “Go, sell your possessions, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven”, he then relates the end of the story - the man does not comply with Jesus’ suggestion and walks away from Him.  Bell seems to be using this as an example of someone given the opportunity to gain entry to Heaven through performing a good work.  Curiously, Bell omits the second half of verse 21, in which Jesus states “Then come, follow me.”  So would giving away his wealth save the man or is that his biggest obstacle to following Jesus, which is what actually would save him?  I, along with many others, would argue the latter – especially in light of the impossibility of keeping the other commandments cited by Jesus.

 

Likewise, none of the other verses referenced by Bell are inconsistent with the notion of grace alone, manifested in good works.  Unfortunately, Bell remains silent on verses which both support the promise of grace while clearly explaining the non-severable link between that grace and the good works that should be its outcome.  Jesus commands us to love one another and says this is in fact how we’ll be identified as His followers (John 13:34, 35).  He also provides a clear guideline for our behavior “If you love me you’ll obey what I command” (John 14:15).  Our behavior is not our entrance to salvation but the absolute evidence that we have indeed received it.  While Jesus paid the price for our inability to perfectly live up to the standards of the law, the law remains as the code of conduct for which we must strive.  In short, Scripture definitively rebukes the “Christian” bad behavior with which Bell is concerned, without negating the fact that we are saved by grace alone.  

Bell’s other concern is the prevailing view that only a “select few” attain salvation.  He proposes here the notion that God does not need people to spread His word.  Most Christians would agree.  God invites us to join Him in His work but is in no way constrained by our limitations.   If He can communicate through a donkey to Paul, He can certainly speak directly to a pot smoker in his kitchen (an example from the book).  Bell correctly cites that the gospel will be proclaimed to all nations (Mark 13:10) – this in itself suggests that some will hear it through supernatural means.  Additionally, in Revelation 7:9, 10 John speaks of seeing a “multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language” standing before the throne of God and praising Him.  Clearly a very great number of people will be receptive to this proclaimed gospel. 

While Bell subscribes to the belief that God can and does communicate supernaturally, he takes the anti-exclusivity point further by suggesting an alternative to the prevailing view of hell. 

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF HELL?

Many of Bell’s detractors accuse him of focusing on God’s love while ignoring God’s justice.  I disagree with this criticism and in fact find that he demonstrates a keen sense of God’s justice.  It is on this specific ground that Bell takes exception to the common Christian concept of hell as eternal, conscious torment - it does not appear just.  I wholeheartedly agree.  Infinite conscious punishment for sins committed in a finite life does seem grossly out of proportion, especially when considering it doesn’t just apply to the murderers and rapists among us but also to law abiding, compassionate people who don’t happen to share our faith.   Further complicating matters, torture and torment, even for finite periods, are viewed as cruel and unusual – even for our worst criminals.  We don’t behave that way - it is not just, as defined by our society.  Does this disconnect repel non-believers?  Yes, often. Does it create profound ambivalence in Christ followers?  Yes, often - and when it doesn’t, it should.   

But, are God’s ways often beyond our comprehension?  Absolutely, there are many things in this world that we cannot fully grasp (1 Cor. 13:12).  Is it possible that in some parallel universe a punishment of this extreme nature can be logically reconciled with a loving and just God?  Anything is possible with God.  But is it likely?  Would God have designed an eternal system of reward and consequence, the reconciliation of which is totally beyond the comprehension ability of the people whose minds He Himself designed?  Not likely - not for this critical issue.

That’s the human logical, emotional argument.  More to the point, there’s very little scriptural support for this common view of hell – on this general point, Bell and I agree – but, to quote Mies van der Rohe, God is in the details.  Bell outlines an alternative view for which there is also little scriptural support plus a fair amount of logical disconnects. Bell’s scenario centers on the idea that human death may not be the deadline for making a decision that leads to salvation.  He suggests that redemption can happen after death and cites several scripture verses he believes support this notion. 

These verses fall into two general categories, the first is the premise that hell can be redemptive.  To support this, Bell first cites verses regarding the restoration of cities and nations that have been either physically destroyed or significantly harmed on earth.  Bell then goes on to mention an excerpt from 1st Timothy regarding two men whom Paul wrote that he had “handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme”.  Unless Paul was ordering the execution of these men (which no one is suggesting), this is referring to corrective action during their human lifetime.  Clearly God uses trials in this life for corrective purposes.  However, none of these verses reference what happens to people post-mortem.  In using them as an illustration of redemption after death Bell makes an unsupportable leap. 

The second category contains verses referring to “all” people, nations or tongues.  Bell quotes 1 Timothy 2, “God wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” and poses a leading question: “Does God get what God wants?”  This opening question, along with his inclusion of several verses regarding all people worshipping God, suggests that he may believe that in the end all are saved. But, in other sections of the book he insists that “love demands freedom…We are free to resist, reject, and rebel against God’s ways for us. We can have all the hell we want.”  Can the idea of all people being ultimately saved coexist with the notion of free will?  Bell implies that it can and that all people may ultimately make the choice to follow God because of the irresistible nature of His love.  Back to the fact that God designed us: if He designed us without the ability to resist His love, how is that free will?  It isn’t.

Is Bell Universalist?  He has denied this and the book is unclear.  But, if he isn’t Universalist, none of the verses referring to “all” support his argument, because “some” does not equal “all”.  On the other hand, if he is Universalist, his claim that “love demands freedom” doesn’t resonate.  Either way bottom line, he has a big logic problem.   

                                                 

He also supports the notion that hell is something people create for themselves on earth by rejecting love, and that to attain salvation people need to “choose love.”  Very little behavioral direction is offered beyond “choosing love.”  Additionally, Bell, in contrast to his earlier complaint about the bad behavior of self-identified “Christians”, expresses much concern for burned out Christians who seem too focused on works. 

The scenario Bell outlines to use his own phraseology, raises all sorts of interesting questions, some of which are:

1. As evidence of hell on earth, Bell refers to a number of people who have been victimized, including child amputees he saw in Rwanda.  If these children are experiencing hell on earth, is it a hell of their own creation?  Isn’t this akin to the type of thinking that justifies the cruelty of things like caste systems?  
2. Bell correctly states that all of us, he included, reject love from time to time.  The Bible says that most of us, including the “bad guys”, choose love from time to time (Matt. 5:46, 47).  How much is enough?  Is this left up to the discretion of the individual? 
3. If the mistaken notion regarding the sufficiency of “the prayer” encourages bad behavior by “Christians” how much more will bad behavior be practiced by those who believe they have infinite chances to repent, even beyond the bounds of this life?

Bell does not claim to have definitive answers, rather he offers up more questions regarding our situation post death:

“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 kingdom?  Will everyone be saved, or will some perish apart from God forever because of their choices?”    

This is not unexpected, given the overall tone of the book.  Far more surprising are his next statements:

“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 that love requires.”

Really?  We can’t?  The answers to these questions are unavailable to us?  How does the idea of a loving God square with one who may or may not be telling us that we have a critical decision to make regarding our eternal fate and that a deadline may or may not exist for that decision?    

Alternative View Not Considered

Bell is silent on another doctrine.  Although it’s a minority view, the doctrine of Conditional Mortality is well established, has considerable scriptural support and addresses all of the challenges to the predominant view outlined by Bell in the preface.  In short, this view holds that those who do not choose salvation ultimately die.  Scripture repeatedly contrasts eternal life for the saved with perishing for the lost, beginning with John 3:16.  Additionally, Revelation refers to the second death after judgment for those not in the Book of Life (Rev. 20-21).  While the punishment (along with some other characteristics of hell) is referred to as eternal, this does not contradict annihilation which would indeed be a permanent, eternal separation from God.  There is little scriptural support, in this writer’s view, for the notion that people will have everlasting life in hell.  That is some of the scripture.  From a human logic perspective, this view addresses the major misconceptions regarding God that Bell targets in this book:  

1. God allows free will:  those who choose death are free to die.
2. God is merciful: while the punishment is eternal (death, separation from God) it is not conscious and not in outsize proportion to the crime.
3. God is just:  permanent death is a real consequence – and a terrifying prospect for many, especially when contrasted with eternal life in paradise.

Referencing this doctrine as an existing alternate belief held by some Christians would likely affect the force of Bell’s argument.  Could be that Bell does not agree with this view, but by omitting mention of an established doctrine that addresses all of his primary concerns, the book begins to look less like an attempt at open discussion and more like the promotion of a particular point of view.  Another objective missed.

SUMMARY

In his new book, Rob Bell demonstrates the best intentions.  Unfortunately the book falls short of his stated objectives.  Some of his critics accuse him of attempting to create a gospel that’s palatable for contemporary culture.  If that is indeed Bell’s motive, he’s missed the mark.  The “good” news presented in this book has implications that are not good at all – for anyone.  These are:

1. A god who is neither loving nor truthful enough to provide us with clear guidance on how to attain salvation.
2. A code of conduct left up to the judgment of individual, deeply flawed and naturally self-centered humans.
3. Human suffering that can readily be blamed on those that suffer.
4. Encouragement of bad behavior by those anticipating infinite chances to repent well beyond the bounds of their human life.
5. No free will if all go to heaven because God ultimately “gets what He wants”

Rob: Where’s the Love?

I believe the good news is far, far better.  It is both expansive and inclusive – and much clearer than portrayed in this book.  It includes:

1. A clear and singular path to salvation and eternal life through acceptance of God’s perfect Son Jesus as our Lord and Savior.
2. A merciful God who extends forgiveness and salvation to all who truly repent, regardless of their previous sins.
3. A loving God who communicates this message to all people either through human or supernatural means.
4. The salvation of multitudes who accept this message in this life, whether or not this acceptance is confirmed by other people.
5. A mandated, clear code of conduct that demonstrates love for others, gives us a better life now and definitively identifies us as children of God.
6. The free will to choose death over life along with the inevitable and just consequence of doing so.

That’s my King – and that is Good News.

Thanks for reading.

For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.
 Jeremiah 29:11