I’m finishing up the review today so that my husband can take the book back to the library. I finished reading the book over the long weekend but we were very busy as a family and I didn’t have time to sit down and write much.

Overall, I enjoyed the book and wasn’t sure what all the controversy is about. The few people I specifically talked to about the book who had read it also couldn’t tell what the controversy was all about. My best guess is that those with the biggest problem with Bell’s book haven’t taken the time to read it. Isn’t that usually the case in Churchianity, though.

In the second to the last chapter, The Good News Is Better Than That, Bell takes a look at the parable of the Prodigal Son. I rather like what he does with the parable–I think it’s supportable and consistent with the bigger picture being conveyed in the Parable. He basically suggests that both of the sons’ problem is rooted in their story of their life being inconsistent with their father’s story of their life.

The youngest son’s story, at the time of his return, is that he isn’t worthy of being a son anymore. He’s too “bad”; he hasn’t lived “right”; the best he hopes for from the father is to be hired back as a slave–he knows his father treats his slaves better than he was being treated in the world. But the father says to him that the real story of his life is that he is the son and what he is worthy of is a party with the finest.

The oldest son’s story, when he returns from the field and finds the party being thrown for the younger son, is that he has been there the whole time, slaving away, and the father hasn’t acknowledged his good work and how unfair is that? Not even a goat for him to throw a party with his friends–nothing special has been rewarded him for doing what he was supposed to do. But the father informs him that while he has been there all the time everything the father had was available to him.

Ultimately, when our story about ourselves is wrong we can’t appreciate the awesomeness of someone else’s story. So many people need there to be a hell because they can go yet another day suffering and struggling to do what is expected of them as a Christian with the assurance that at least all those people out there doing what they aren’t allowed to do are going to get theirs someday. But God doesn’t tell that story in His Word.

Lots of people have their hope tied up in a Rapture where they get to escape all the suffering of the Great Tribulation because they’ve done what they needed to get out of that–and that Fire Insurance is going to pay off for that high price they’ve believed it to cost. All those people who wouldn’t listen to them about Jesus are going to know who had it right in the end! But God doesn’t tell that story in His Word.

If it turns out after we die that we find there is a hell something like traditional Christianity adopted from the Greek and Roman mythologies then isn’t the response that reveals a love for your neighbor that is like your love for yourself to be broken-hearted and tormented to learn that anyone has gone there? If there is going to be a Great Tribulation the likes of what is described in Left Behind theology then isn’t the response that reveals a love for your neighbor that is like your love for yourself to be a desire to STAY and help them through it since you have the hope of Jesus and they don’t?

And maybe, just maybe, no one will need that kind of “reward” for themselves or “come uppance” for their neighbor if they really understood the message that God has written in His Word about them. Because those of us who have been in the Father’s House all along are not slaves–we’re His Children. And those of us who have gone out into the world thinking we could do things better if we followed our own ideas aren’t so damaged and broken that the best we can hope for is a position as a servant in the Father’s house–we’re His Children. And maybe, just maybe, THAT is the kind of love and the message of hope that would cause people to rush in droves to the Father. I know it has transformed my life.

Ultimately I don’t hear Bell saying that there isn’t a hell, or a heaven, or judgement–what I hear is Bell challenging why so many in the Church NEED there to be these things. Most of what people believe about these things comes from a handful of verses that may or may not be talking about what they are constructing them to be about–like a lot of doctrinally “sure” things people are convinced of. But if God wanted us to really understand the afterlife–and wanted that to be the reason we live however we live in this life, I have no doubt He could have been very clear about what would be awaiting us. Yet He wasn’t. I think that is because when we know Him we can trust Him. And when we don’t know Him we often don’t care much about what happens to us. I’m all about loving my neighbor enough to share with them that they can enter heaven now–the Kingdom of God can be in their hearts NOW! And I love God and trust Him enough to trust Him with the neighbor who seems to not want anything to do with Him in this life. If there is something akin to hell in the afterlife I’m convinced that those who go there will really have to want to be there–and if God were to choose at the last minute to let everyone stay with Him, I’m okay with that. I don’t believe that scenario is given in Scripture, because I do read of not everyone wanting to be with Him–but I do believe that the opportunity for everyone to be with Him has been extended. And I think a lot more people are going to be there than some people seem to think.

And I think when we see what the real plan is for eternity we’re going to be so amazed–and whatever we have thought about it will seem so silly to us. Every time we humans think we have the mind of God I figure that will be the case.

Okay, I’ve gotten used to liking the points people are trying to make even when I can’t connect to the support they offer for the point. I don’t know why it surprised me to find it here, but Bell has been so close with so many points that to see him so off in this chapter . . . and off in a way that makes me want to yell, “Did you read the Torah? The whole thing?”

In a nutshell, Bell is addressing the issue of “the rock” from which the Israelites received water in the wilderness is Jesus–and we know this because we’re told by Paul in the epistles. And He explains that the spiritual source of everything is Jesus. And we can trust this. And with the point of this chapter I mostly agree.

But he’s not understanding the rock!

on pp 142-143 he speaks of God telling Moses to strike the rock in the wilderness to provide water for the people and animals. Then on pg 143 he writes:

“The story goes on, telling us about their continuing journey, the obstacles in their way, God’s patience with them, and Moses learning how hard it is to lead people and not lose your sanity in the process.

But the rock–we don’t hear any more about the rock.

Until more than a thousand years later.”

BUT WE DO! If you keep reading the story about the Wilderness journey of the Israelites you find that the rock travels with them. And it is this rock that Moses is later told to speak to and when he, instead, hits it again, he loses the privilege of going into the Promised Land. This rock is a huge deal! And it undermines the Scriptures to minimize it to one encounter where Moses is told to strike it.

When the people come to Moses in Numbers and complain about being thirsty and needing water, Moses goes to God and tells Him that the people and animals need water. In the Hebrew God responds with a correction–the animals need water to drink, the people need spiritual water. So in order to provide it Moses is told that he is to go and speak to the rock. Instead, Moses strikes the rock–it worked before, right? The sages suggest that Miriam, Moses sister, had been carrying the rock and that she had died so they didn’t know which rock it was. This is supported with the fact that in the Hebrew it is called “the rock” and not “a rock.” They state this indicates a known rock. For whatever reason–whether he didn’t know which rock it was, or he just got frustrated, he didn’t do what he was instructed to do.

And the observation from the sages is interesting. But before I share the commentary from the Chumash (the Hebrew Scriptures broken into Torah portions with commentary), let me explain the amazing significance of “et”, or, in Hebrew, aleph tav.

Yeshua said, “I am the alpha and omega.” Well, actually he didn’t. That’s the Greek of what he said, but what he really said is, “I am the aleph and the tav.” Alpha and aleph are the first letter of the Greek and Hebrew alphabet respectively. Omega and tav are the last letters. Proper translation. But “alpha and omega” doesn’t have nearly the meaning that “aleph tav” has. See, there is one word in Hebrew that *to this day* the rabbi’s do NOT know how to translate. It is usually treated as a direct object, often translated into English as “to”, but if you look at a Hebrew interlinear Bible you will find symbols under the aleph and tav to indicate that they do not know how to properly translate this word. This “word” that was “in the beginning”–as in, literally in the first verse of Genesis! And when he said, “I am the aleph and the tav,” Yeshua was making the claim that HE is the WORD they do not know how to translate!

That may take some time to sink in–no doubt it was a very shocking statement to the Pharisees and Torah teachers of his day! But why share that here?

Well remember that I said Moses asked for water for the people and the animals. Listen to what the sages say about that:

“Here, in God’s command to Moses that he bring water to the nation, the word [aleph tav] separates assembly from animals. However, the word [aleph tav] does not appear in verse 4, which contains the nation’s grievance, or in verse 11, which recounts the appearance of the water. These variations are significant. When the people asked for water, they equated themselves with their animals, implying that the physical need for water is the same in all living beings — but God did not want that. He wanted the nation to realize that if He wills it, there is a spiritual blessing in food that enables people to be nourished and satisfied, that people are not like animals. God inserted the word [aleph tav] in His command to Moses to indicate that there should be a difference in kind between the drinking of the assembly and that of their animals. In reality, however, that failed to happen. Moses and Aaron did not sanctify God’s Name . . , so that the people did not become as elevated as God had wanted. Consequently, when the water flowed and they drank (v. 11), there was, tragically, no [aleph tav] to differentiate between the assembly and their animals (Meshech Chochmah).” pp 843-844

The rabbi’s KNEW that the Israelites didn’t get the message and were missing something important. And they knew that the important thing they were lacking was something they didn’t know how to translate. Paul knew that Yeshua is the aleph tav–the Word that John explains was in the beginning–and the rock that Paul makes a big deal about.

So, yeah, there are rocks everywhere–but there is only one Rock.

After explaining sacrifice (after talking about Eminem . . . these are the jump arounds that I think lose some people) Bell explains where some of the explanations for what Yeshua accomplished on the cross come from in Scripture. He sums up:

“What happened on the cross?

is the cross about the end of the sacrificial system
or a broken relationship that’s been reconciled
or a guilty defendant who’s been set free
or a battle that’s been won
or the redeeming of something that was lost?

Which is it?” (pg 127)

His answer is “yes” to all of the above. Though I have to disagree with him a bit as he has (probably unknowingly) slipped into a traditional Christianese understanding of the sacrificial system. His explanations of what sacrifice was all about come from the pagan world and do not at all resemble God’s stated intent, purpose or experience of sacrifice within the ancient Israelite’s world. For one thing, the early believers continued offering sacrifices until the destruction of the Temple in 70AD. In the book of Acts Paul pays for the sacrifice of some young men who had taken a Nazirite vow (and some have suggested he also had taken the vow with them). The book of Ezekiel speaks of the sacrificial system existing in the Millenial Kingdom (another reason I don’t believe we are in it yet).

Yes, Yeshua is the *end* of the sacrificial system–in the same way he is the *end* of the Law. He is the ultimate goal, what they both point to, the final destination of the journey. But neither *ceased to be* because of him. Neither was ever the way to receive salvation, or atonement. They were the means through which one came to understand salvation and atonement. They were done so that the person participating in both would be walking in the practices of pictures that regularly refreshed their hope in Messiah to come. And just as Yeshua admonished his disciples to celebrate every Passover seder they ever participated in from that night on “in remembrance of” him, so any sacrifice offered after his ultimate sacrifice on the cross, when done in remembrance of him, would be a worthy sacrifice.

Of course who you understand the author of Hebrews to be (who Bell is referencing as saying the sacrificial system is ending), and when you believe they are writing, will determine a lot about what you believe of their message. I agree with Bell that it was most likely a woman, but I also believe it was written after the destruction of the Temple in 70AD and that one of the purposes was to encourage the Hebrews (the Messianic Believers, more specifically) that it was okay that they could no longer offer the commanded sacrifices they had continued to offer. The author presents a beautifully Hebraic picture of the interconnection between the sacrifices being offered up until that point in the earthly Temple by the Levitical Priests and the ongoing sacrifices being offered in the heavenly Temple by the High Priest in the order of Melchizadek, Yeshua HaMashiach! The comfort is given that Yeshua has accomplished what every single one of those sacrifices was a picture of him accomplishing and since he was the *end* of them–the goal, the aim, the bullseye, the destination–when you have received him as your savior, and his ultimate accomplishment on the cross is applied to you, then you do not need to offer the actual sacrifices in the actual Temple (that you cannot offer because it doesn’t stand). You are covered; you are good. What peace that must have given the readers of the letter to the Messianic Hebrew Believers.

What Bell is attempting to tackle with all of this, however, is the reality that the authors of the Epistles presented diverse metaphors for Yeshua’s death on the cross and what it accomplished. They used images that were meaningful to their audience and they used lots of different ones to explain the same things. At different times and in different parts of the world there has been preference for one image over another. Even within different individuals it is okay if one metaphor holds more meaning. An attorney may best understand the legal imagery while someone working in the world of finance may be relate to a debt being paid/cancelled. And that’s good.

He is also trying to make the point that there isn’t one “better” metaphor. All of the metaphors used in the epistles are good and meaningful. We do not have to feel obligated to stick with one over the others–especially if there is not as much cultural understanding for the meaning as there was in the time the letter was written using that metaphor. In the modern Western world we don’t really get the meaning and heaviness of living in a culture that offers regular sacrifices. Unless and until we study these things, it’s perhaps the hardest metaphor for us to relate to. This is one reason why I teach about the sacrificial system so that we can understand what the authors are talking about when they reference it.

And, Bell goes on to point out, his death wasn’t anything unusual or special. He died the way thousands of people died at the hands of Rome. Naked on a cross. What is unique about Yeshua is that he rose from the dead. I do understand that Bell is going with convention at one point–which I find ironic considering his almost obsessive need to challenge convention at most other points–but the cross was not accomplished on “Friday” with a subsequent resurrection on “Sunday”. Yeshua is clear earlier in the gospels that he would be “three full days and nights in the tomb” and Friday at sundown to Sunday at sunrise barely accomplishes a day and a half. Now, I know the general come back is “he just had to be in the tomb part of each of those days for it to count.” Which sounds like a good argument–except that it’s ridiculous. First, a day for the Jewish person would start at sundown and end at sundown; Second, it was not until the person had been dead for three FULL days that they were pronounced truly dead. My understanding is that something close to 80-90% of coma cases come out of the coma within the first 3 days. In the ancient world without our modern day medical technology it would be impossible to determine if someone was in a coma or dead–and since it was observed that lots of people woke up within 3 days, they waited 3 days to pronounce them dead. This gives a lot of background to all of the stories where Yeshua brought people back from the dead after seeming to intentionally wait three full days. So if Yeshua only spent part of 3 days in the tomb then he didn’t die and thus he wasn’t resurrected–in which case those of us who pin our faith on him and what he accomplished have a real, serious problem. Plus, this whole Friday to Sunday picture misses the whole connection between Yeshua’s resurrection and the Feast of Firstfruits that he was fulfilling in his resurrection. But since that isn’t where Bell goes, I suppose I digress . . .

Only Bell then goes on to try to make a point using John that is . . . I’m sorry to say after loving the book so much up to this point . . . juvenile and revealing how much Bell is missing in his study of the Gospel of John. Bell points out that Yeshua turning water into wine is called the first sign by John, and that healing the official’s son is the second, according to John, and then Bell starts numbering things so that raising Lazarus from the dead becomes number 7 and he talks about 7 being the number of the days of creation, etc. Except that the number 7 and its reference to the days of creation in the book of John is culminated in the miracle of turning water into wine–not begun there. Now I’m okay with layers of 7′s in John, especially because John is writing in the Sod level (the 4th level, the highest level, the secret level reserved for learned rabbi’s at least 30 years of age and found worthy of studying this level), but to then skip to the end of the gospel and make the 8th sign Yeshua’s resurrection and claim that is the “beginning of a new week” . . . it sounds good, but it does NOT work. Nice try, but missed the boat. Because in order for Yeshua’s resurrection to be the “8th sign” in the Gospel of John we have to jump ahead a LOT of chapters and ignore miracles and “signs” being done in each of them.

All to make a point that I partially agree with. NO–the old has not gone and the new come. The new is the same as the old–just interpreted correctly, explained, lived out instead of only hoped for. But *it* is the same. And, yet, I do agree that the story John is telling is “one about God rescuing all of creation.” (pg 134)

I do agree that when the Gospel message is presented only in terms of Yeshua coming to reconcile man to God via death on the cross for our sins we are making humans the center of the story. And I agree this is missing the bigger point. And it is true that Scripture presents Yeshua acting to reconcile all of creation to himself! Yes, our reconciliation is part of that–but the bigger picture is the bigger point.

And with all I’ve disagreed with Bell about in this chapter, I do agree with this:

“A gospel that leaves out its cosmic scope will always feel small.
A gospel that has as its chief message avoiding hell or not sinning will never be the full story.
A gospel that repeatedly, narrowly affirms and bolsters the “in-ness” of one group at the expense of the “out-ness” of another group will not be true to the story that includes ‘all things and people in heaven and on earth.’” (pg 135)

I also agree with Bell that the intimately personal part of this whole story is that we are called to die to self in order to live with Messiah. We are called to die to our pride, our sin, our egos, our old selves, our ideas about how things should be . . . and then to live with the reality that Yeshua presents of how things are. Life comes through death. In fact, that is one of the reasons I love that the Hebrew days is sundown to sundown is that the day begins with night–death–and in the morning there is new life–resurrection; a picture of the Gospel is built into each and every new day–sort of gives new depth to choosing this day whom we will serve.

My guess is this chapter, more than the previous ones, are where people conclude that Bell is a Universalist. I don’t think that’s a fair conclusion *from this chapter*, but I see why they may think that. Rob Bell asks the question in chapter 4, “Does God get what God wants?” I’ve long said that one reason I can’t believe in Calvin’s definition of “election” being for only those chosen while others are rejected is because God says He desires that all should be saved. If God can’t fulfill His own desires–If God actually creates a system (Calvin’s Election) that sabotages what God says He desires–then how can we have faith in His ability to fulfill the promise to grant us the desires of our heart? It has never made sense to me.

Rob Bell also presents what can be a very scary reality for those who have studied their denominations doctrine on these eschatalogical things but not done a lot of church history digging . . . the reality that devout Christians in different ages and at different times in history have held to a variety of end times scenarios. Certainly, in times past there was the expectation that many, if not MOST, people would be with God in the end! Yeshua’s words in the Gospels speak of people coming from the North, East, South and West, and He rejects the idea of fighting to get through a narrow gate, or of anyone being left out who wants to be there.

Bell presents a few ideas including that individuals can come to the Lord in this life or in the afterlife. That is consistent with a position held by many of the sages in ancient Israel. Bell pushes the envelope a bit by suggesting different end times, or not, for this to take place. I don’t believe that Scripture presents an unending option of coming and going from the Kingdom.

Bell also moves on to support a belief that God has given us free will and therefore we can choose to reject God. We can choose to not have relationship with Him. We can reject. God loves us enough to not make us be with Him forever if we really don’t want to be. But I believe, as it seems Bell does, that we have to really be committed to not being with God to not end up with Him. I do believe a lot more people are going to be there than many think–and that some won’t be there who might surprise people.

One thing I do believe Bell misses in this chapter is an understanding that in Hebraic thought “all” does not necessarily mean “every single last one.” It means “all who do.” So “all the earth will be saved” would mean “everyone who is at all inclined to be with God is going to be,” rather than, “Whether they want to or not every single person is.” Not understanding this word use can lead to a more universalist reading of the text than I believe is warranted. And I do believe that Scripture presents us with a judgment where some will still want nothing to do with God. But I do have to agree with Bell that, at the end of the day, we don’t know exactly what it will be like. Despite all the claims of post-death enlightenment from those who have come back to share, we do not have a clear and provable Truth about what happens after we die. The whole point of eschatology is that it is a study of what has yet to come–what will be at the end. So I can agree with Bell on this for sure:

“Whatever objections a person might have to this story, and there are many, one has to admit that it is fitting, proper, and Christian to long for it. We can be honest about the warped nature of the human heart, the freedom that love requires, and the destructive choices people make, and still envision God’s love to be bigger, stronger, and more compelling than all of that put together. To shun, censor, or ostracize someone for holding this belief is to fail to extend grace to each other in a discussion that has had plenty of room for varied perspectives for hundreds of years now.” (pg 111)

Ultimately, I am comfortable relying on God’s grace to be bigger than everything and if God chooses to let everyone into His Kingdom and take everyone with Him into eternity then I would rejoice in that and have no disappointment in me. And, if God honors the desire of those who insist to the end that they want nothing to do with Him then I trust fully that God is good and He knows what He is doing and it is not with any malice or lack of thought that He would allow the to go their own way. I don’t need someone to suffer so that I can feel more special; I don’t need someone to not get into the Kingdom so that I can find my place more secure. And some day, when we stand before the Lord, we’ll know His plan for certain. Until then it’s both speculation and a revelation about who we believe God to be–what we believe about Him and His character.

Sorry, I really couldn’t resist, I love a pithy rhyme.

And I mostly appreciated Bell’s thoughts in this chapter. A few times I cringed at his choice of how to present something and once or twice I understood, because of his style of communicating, the point he was trying to make but felt he was in error in the details of how he made the point. Though probably not for what you might think.

Basically, his point is that “hell” as presented in much of Churchianity is little more than a repackaged Greek or Roman underworld controlled by Satan–the modern Church name for the god Hades. With this I agree 100%. He does not believe such a “place” is presented in Scripture. I don’t either.

He explains the reality of the garbage pit in the Valley of Gehenna, though he leaves out one point I think is incredibly relevant. Yeshua speaks of fearing the one who can send you there, but never explains who that is and if you don’t understand how the Jewish legal system worked this can be lost in translation. See, the bodies that went to the garbage pit in the Valley of Gehenna were the ones that had been found guilty of a death-deserving offense against God’s Law. They had been warned by two individuals who were aware of the sin about to be committed; they had been witnessed by two separate individuals who saw them actually commit the crime; charges had been brought; no witnesses could be excluded as false witnesses; and death had been the God-commanded penalty for that sin. After that person was put to death, their body would not be buried, or put into a tomb. Instead, their body would be thrown out into the garbage heap where Josiah, centuries before, had cleansed all of Israel by burning the pagan priests and their pagan junk in that spot. That’s why it was the garbage pit and nothing good went there. So the warning to avoid Gehenna (often translated “hell” or “hades”) is a warning to avoid a life that will cause your fate to be that of being thrown into the heap with all the pagans and the trash. Or, put another way, live according to Torah and God’s commands.

I think that the way Bell presented God’s punishment conveyed the way that the word is used in Biblical texts, but I’m not sure if Bell himself understood what he was presenting. I say that because the takes so many things to that next level, that next step, and this he let hang there in midair. Rather than recount his entire discussion of the purpose of punishment, let me highlight the pieces of the text that I think are very important for making sure you walk away with a more Hebraic understanding of the word.

Pg 90:
“His [Paul's] assumption is that giving this man over to “Satan” will bring an end to the man’s “sinful nature.” It’s as if Paul is saying, “We’ve tried everything to get his attention and it isn’t working, so turn him loose to experience the full consequences of his actions.”

He then concludes, farther down on the same page:
“The point of this turning loose, this letter go, this punishment, is to allow them to live with the full consequences of their choices, confident that the misery they find themselves in will have a way of getting their attention.”

THAT is what punishment is in Scripture. It is God letting you do what you insist on doing. It is God no longer holding back the consequences of your choices. It is God saying to Israel through the prophets that the reason He is sending them out from the Land is that He loves them SO MUCH that He can’t let them stay–because to stay in the Holy Land and continue to live as they are will bring them full destruction and death. THAT is love! And what the Bible is speaking of when it speaks of “punishment.” (pg 91)

Bell also touches on something I think he could have developed a bit more with an explanation of the Jewish understanding of the idea he presents–though I understand why he may have held back. For all he is accused of being a heretic about, this idea might have pushed some critics into full on apoplexy! When Bell presents the separating of the sheep and the goats he explains that the phrase for where the goats get sent off to, that is often translated “eternal punishment” is really a phrase that can mean, “‘a period of pruning’ or ‘a time of trimming,’ or an intense experience of correction.” In Hebraic thoughts about death there is a belief that those who die and are unrighteous from in this life will have their soul put through a time of trial and testing while it is separated from the body that hindered it with sensual desires in this life. While separated from the flesh their soul has an opportunity to learn lessons unheeded in life and they have the opportunity to grow in righteousness in response to the trials and tests they undergo in death. The belief is that at the resurrection of the flesh the body will instantly, upon being restored with the soul, change to the place that the soul has ascended to in righteousness and it is in this state that the individual will stand before the throne of Judgment. This is the understanding that a Jewish audience of mature Torah teachers and Pharisees would have understood upon hearing of an aion of kolazo or “period of pruning.”

Absent from this chapter as well are the two things I hear Bell most criticized for–Universalism (he acknowledges that some will reject God) and Preterism (he continues to speak of future plans from God). What he does do is caution against taking every verse that speaks about future events and hurling them all to some future date and some eschatalogical horror story. I happen to appreciate that level of restraint.

I’m putting these together not just because I read them together but because they really go together. In Chapter 1 Bell asks a lot of fantastic questions–questions I’ve been asking for my whole life! I fully agree with him that many people are *right* to reject the Jesus that is preached to them–if the Jesus they are told is about is not truly who Jesus is, then those who worship him are worshiping a false messiah–an “anti-christ”. I’ve been long convinced that for most of the history of the church the Jewish community has been *right* to reject the Jesus who appears to be of Scandanavian descent and who came to do away with the Torah, to start a new religion, and to make sure the Jews know that they’ve been replaced. What apostasy! In order to accept that Jesus you have to reject the whole Torah–which is essentially what many churches teach we should do. How could a faithful disciple of HaShem, faithful follower of the Word of God, faithful child of God’s chosen people who were entrusted to preserve His Word, simply reject that Word and follow after someone who came to do away with it? And to argue that He came to do all of the commands perfectly so that they would not need to be done by anyone else is ludicrous to anyone who understands that no one person can do all of the commands–some are for priests, some only apply in the Temple, some only during worship, some only for men, some only for women, and on and on.

But Bell is most concerned in this chapter about the realities of heaven–is it a place that only a select few get to go to–some *other* location that is not here? Or is it a different reality made available to anyone who is willing to join on for the journey? I agree with Bell that the idea of heaven as some other, ethereal place where good Christians get to go to be with God is simply not presented in Scripture. Rather, heaven is what you have when you are in the presence of God and God came to Earth to dwell among us in the person of Yeshua HaMashiach and He sent His Spirit to dwell within us now–causing our bodies to become living Temples and the dwelling place for God.

In Revelation we do not get a picture of people going up to heaven; we get a picture of heaven coming down to earth! And Yeshua invites people who encounter Him to encounter heaven now–to begin living in the Kingdom! We are able to enter into the world to come–the olam haba–in this life. What a privilege and a blessing–and the only truly Godly reaction is to want everyone to experience that! To want to hoard and covet this would be an expression of sin–a violation of God’s Law!

I love how clearly Bell presents God’s judgment as being against everything that is a violation of His Law–He judges rape, murder, sickness, violence, pride, division, etc. Because those are in opposition to Him and His Kingdom–those things cannot exist in His presence. And as much as those things might be within us, we are challenged to rid ourselves of them. As much as we retain them, they will be burned up in His presence when the fullness of heaven-coming-to-earth arrives.

I do appreciate that Bell acknowledges that there will be a time to come when heaven is fully united with earth, and that we are able to experience heaven on earth now as we partner with God in what He has planned for this world. I think he walks the tension between what is available now and what will be to come very well–though his ending is a slight slip off one side of the rope and if you haven’t paid attention to everything said and supported with Scripture up to that point it might seem he is making an argument for everything already having been accomplished. Because of some strong and clear points made prior to the end of chapter two, I do not believe that to be the case.

A few things that I noted:

I think he to strongly states the case of a woman author for the book of Hebrews. I happen to agree with him! I do believe the strongest argument is for a woman and I admit I smiled and was very impressed he would take that stand.

While I agree with his sentiment, and am a huge supporter of the social gospel in conjunction with the salvation gospel, I think he overstated his point on page 45 when he said, “Around a billion people in the world today do not have access to clean water. People will have access to clean water in the age to come, and so working for clean-water access for all is participating now in the life of the age to come.” The way he worded this could be argued as suggesting that our efforts towards these ends is bringing about the age to come and only Messiah can do that and in the timing that is not in our hands. Yet while we wait, I do agree it is in line with living as the Kingdom People of God.

Especially since just this last week I was teaching on the idea of the narrow gate and the idea that a limited number of people get to go to heaven, I really appreciated Bell’s critique of the attitude all to prevalent within the church today–the idea that a select special few (us) get to go to heaven while the rest of everyone (you) won’t. Throw in the descriptions of where everyone will be and magnify their Greek and Roman Mythological details and I’ve long abandoned the primary eschatalogical ideas of the majority of the church. I’m not a fan of the Left Behind theology and I find it wonderfully ironic that in Hebrew the word used for those “left behind” is only ever used about the righteous! When the Lord sends the harvesters to take the weeds out first I pray I may be left behind!

I don’t think Yeshua could have made it any clearer than he did in the gospels that we aren’t to be considering ourselves above others, or bickering over who gets to be first, or bragging over our status, or thinking any of this is ultimately about us. We were not created to be independent. We were created to live interdependently–with God, with our neighbors, and with the earth that is a beautiful home created for us. Both of the extreme positions–that we have the ability to destroy everything, and that we have the ability to save everything–are modern day presentations of the tower of Babel that was being built to reach up to heaven. Rather, how we live today reveals both who we are and who we think God is. I believe it’s important we try to convey as accurate a picture as we can–that we be made over into the image of God.

I really appreciated Bell’s admonitions to not speak as authoritatively as so many do about salvation and who gets to be with God. I am not a universalist–while I believe that salvation is made available to all I do not believe that all will want it, and I don’t believe God is going to force anyone to spend eternity with him who doesn’t want to be there. I am also not an exclusivist and if God chose to bring everyone into eternity with him and to give them blessings then it would reveal a lot about me if that upset me. I love that Paul echoes ancient Jewish sages when he speaks of believing husbands and wives possibly saving their unbelieving spouse. Though the ancient sages would express it that sometimes those who lack understanding will recognize righteousness even if they do not possess it within themselves. If, in response to that understanding, they attach themselves to the righteous person, then that person’s righteousness is accounted to them. Isn’t that what we’re holding out hope for in the message of salvation? That we might attach ourselves to Yeshua and His Righteousness would be credited to us? Can we not leave room in God’s Kingdom of God’s design for the Master Author of Grace to extend that to whom He chooses as He chooses? I fully maintain that it is because of and through Yeshua that anyone and everyone who receives salvation has received it. I trust God to be just, good, gracious and loving to work out the details beyond my comprehension.

I’ve got a long long list of books I need to read (I’ve got a long list of books I’m currently reading–present tense!) so what is it about this book that gets it bumped to the top of my list? Everyone is talking about it. Even more specifically, several people have specifically asked my opinion on the book and on some of Bell’s points and 1) I keep telling them I will read and review it, plus 2) I can’t think of any more creative blank stares when I have no idea what to respond. So as I go through the book I’ll try to make some notes by way of review–this will probably be a series of posts more than 1 article so please bear with me.

I read the preface this evening so I’ll start there: I get why lots of people are annoyed by his writing style–it’s choppy and somewhat awkward. But someone mentioned he writes like he talks so I’m trying to read him in a casual chatty tone. It helps.

On page x he does make a point similar to one I’ve made lots of times so I’ll mention that. “Sometimes what we are witnessing is simply a massive exercise in missing the point.” Amen to that! I word it a bit differently: I believe the church has spent a lot of time arguing about who’s right about the wrong things! Either way, I think it’s true. Now I’m curious about what he thinks the right things are.

I think that is enough by way of an intro to this series. I’m looking forward to interacting with this book and, by way of this series of articles, with everyone who has been having very big reactions to it (whether they love it or not).