Rudel's Book Entitled, "Who REALLY Goes to Hell?

" So begins a book by David Rudel entitled, Who REALLY Goes to Hell? The Gospel You Never Heard Preached. People think a lot of things are taught in the Bible that aren't taught at all. "God helps those who help themselves." "What goes around, comes around." "This, too, shall pass.""Cleanliness is next to godliness." "God works in mysterious ways." "Money is the root of all evil." "Confession is good for the soul." "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we will die" None of these are in the Bible. And many, many more. Since I know a lot of what people think the Bible teaches isn't really true, I was curious to learn if David Rudel had some honest and new insights to reveal to me that could shine light on any wrong teachings I might still be holding. When it comes to teachings about God holding sinners over the res of Hell, slowly roasting them, I'm more than ready to be proven wrong! Yet when Rudel begins his argument by claiming hell show that what Paul preached contradicted what Jesus preached, I sit up and take notice. It raises my expectation not that I assume at the outset that he has to be wrong. I have no vested interest in maintaining false teaching only because its familiar to me. But in my years of study of both Jesus and Pauls teachings, I've seen no contradictions only people claiming to see contradictions based on some disappointingly inaccurate misreading of the Word. Excited by this authors new challenge, I hoped he would show me something new, something more than Id ever seen previously. Of which I was yet again disappointed. Near the start of his book, Rudel makes an odd request. He explains that hes used so many Bible verses that he wants the reader to skim rapidly through his book at least once without pausing to closely examine any of the verses he uses, saving that closer examination for a second perusal. Why? Rudel explains: I use over 2,700 verses and youll never get through the book if you stop and examine each passage. To begin with, theres a touch of arrogance in assuming his readers are going to read his book twice, as IMAO most readers will not. But theres also a hint of theological sleight-of-hand in his saying, in essence, Dont look at any of the verses too closely just go with whatever interpretive spin I put on them as I build my persuasive argument. If an author is presenting truth that is rooting out older misinterpretations and misunderstandings of Scripture, it seems the reader instead ought to

be encouraged to look closely at the Scriptures used in order in order to agree that this authors re- interpretation (or re-envisioning) of them is in fact accurate. In a few places I rebelled and looked up his interpretation of Scriptures anyway. Several times I discovered hed either taken a verse out of context (giving it a meaning it didnt really have) or he'd gavin an explanation (especially, as he typically claims, of the Greek) that I couldnt nd supported in any other scholastic commentaries. One brief example: He relates a sermon given by Norm Koop (son of the famous Surgeon General) explaining the word eternal in John 17.3: This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. Koop said that in the Greek (which phrase always needs to be taken with a grain of salt), eternal doesnt refer to a chronological span of time but its quality. Rudel apparently feels free, with that little expository tidbit, to dismiss all normal interpretations of eternal life and exchange it instead for what he defends as (what he labels) a truly Jewish idea of the World to Come. But as many sources as I checked, none of them gave even the least hint of this interpretation of eternal life. Rudel, I suppose, might claim I looked at the wrong sources sources which are biased toward traditional interpretations. Which, in that case, would make his argument irrefutable. Yet what drew me to Rudels book was the hope that (at the very least) he would ask some questions and pose some problems that would prove challenging to the religious status quo in Christendom in general and in me specically. Along the way, I came across a number of lovely observations hed made about Scripture passages that I hurriedly adopted as my own. (Thanks, David!) One precious little insight referred to Jesus story of the Good Samaritan. Rudel observed that though most translations say that the Samaritan was a "good neighbor," the Greek verb tense is better translated "became" meaning that prior to stopping to help the Jew, they were not neighbors. But after seeing the Jews need and stopping to render aid, he then "became" neighbor to the Jew. Absolutely lovely! And upon checking it out in a Greek dictionary [Strong's] and other sources, they conrmed his observation. Many chapters and sections of chapters are wonderful. In one, for example, he lists seven things "Jesus never preached" including any sermons about trusting in His atoning work on the Cross. Heres an example of how Rudels reasonings can challenge conservative Christian thought: Since Jesus never preached to the Jews about His atoning work on the

Cross, yet He went everywhere preaching the Gospel then the Gospel doesnt include people understanding (and trusting) His work on the Cross. (!!!) Give that a moment and reect: did Jesus preach the Gospel or not? His Gospel had neither Cross nor Blood, so is He a Modernist or even a heretic? Or is the common understanding of what makes up the Gospel inadequate? Whether Rudel is right or wrong, the question itself should rattle the cages of those who have an overly simplistic idea of what is the Gospel. However correct Rudel is in his reections on the Jewish perspective, he has gained many excellent insights by merely asking this question: Since the Jews in Jesus day were not modern, 21st century Euro-Americans, what did they think Jesus meant in His teachings? Rudel points the reader back to the Old Testament repeatedly, insisting that whereas many, modern Christians have either neglected the OT completely or have picked out of it only those verses that make them feel good, he insists that all of the Old Testament must be read as Jesus intended: everything in it pointed prophetically to the coming of the Messiah Who was Jesus. He even points out Jesus exasperation in Luke 24.25 with His own disciples blindness about the OT, that the OT was a type of grand prophecy, a huge picture that... gave clues about the coming Christ [Messiah] so that the Jews of Jesus day could recognize Him. [Which many didnt, but many did but still refused to accept my observation from John 1.10f. ES] Part of the treasure of this book are the questions Rudel asks questions that most Christians either avoid or ignore. For example: how, exactly, is it possible for people, before Christs death, to be saved. What about people who have never even heard about Jesus but who obey within themselves the Law of God (as Paul refers to in Romans 2.) Why is it that Jesus can say to people who have not repented (such as the paralyzed man let down through the roof) that his sins were forgiven? Or how can He say that the people who inherit the Kingdom are those who have given Him food and drink? [Mt. 25.33ff] Jesus says nothing about "repentance" or "trusting" Him or "believing in His atoning work on the Cross". What could be a more theologically heretical notion than giving someone a glass of water is the basis of being taken into Gods Kingdom? The question posed in the title, Who Really Goes to Hell?, isnt directly answered anywhere in the book. He briey refers to it on p. 84 and I wont give away his solution. Needless to say, its in the same section in which he demonstrates that Gods intention never was for any of us to go to Heaven at least, not in any permanent sense. [Enter,

stage left, the city of New Jerusalem. That's a hint, folks] Two problems I nd in Rudel's presentation are most difcult for me to resolve: (1) He goes to very great length trying to establish that there are actually two salvations referred to in the Bible deliverance and regeneration. He acknowledges that there can be no regeneration aside from becoming one with Jesus Christ (baptized or baptizo; i.e., Rom. 6.3ff), but deliverance can come in a much more general fashion. My problem is that there are numerous Scriptures that show us that not only regeneration comes through the Cross, but deliverance from sin, death and even sickness (e.g., by His stripes we are healed.) I'm not persuaded these are to be thoroughly distinguished from each other. The second problem (2) is the hardest for me to resolve with my own perspectives. Throughout his book, Rudel seems to show a deep affection for the Law. He reinterprets the Law so that there is the Law which still holds sway over us and the rabbinical Law which nullied Gods intentions. In fact, he insists that a person can be made righteous by properly obeying the Law. But however you cut it, it seems to me that obeying this Law encroaches on the freedom from the Law (all the Law) that the apostle Paul insists is ours. (e.g., "Stand rm in the freedom with which Christ made us free and do not let yourselves be subject again with that yoke of slavery." Gal. 5.1) The one text I expected Rudel to focus on seriously and refute (but I didn't nd) was Pauls logical explanation in Galatians 2.21 and 3.21 that if it were possible for any person ever to be made righteous by obeying the Law, then Christ has died in vain. If a person could become righteous by his or her own efforts in obeying the Law, then instead of dying, Jesus could have simply stood back and said, Get your act together, O Man, or go to hell. But since there is no righteousness that comes from obeying the Law, Jesus chose to become unrighteousness on our behalf and in union with humankind to die and live again. In His Resurrection are we all Resurrected from the dead into eternal life and incorruptible, immortal bodies just as is our Lord's. So every person who (spiritually) is united to Jesus shares in His death, shares in His burial, and shares in His Resurrection Life. This "Good News" has nothing whatsoever to do with obeying or disobeying the Law only with trusting in this Good News about Jesus (Or not.) Rudel says he hopes that his book will turn upside down the worlds of a few who once

had been "unthinking followers" of traditional dogma. In my opinion, there are ample pages of questions, challenges and radically different perspectives on the traditional approach to Christian teachings on salvation, hell, Heaven and other stuff. Any reader who ventures into Rudels world can easily come out the other end with some degree of theological discomfort and potentially some radical spiritual transformation. As Hopkins writes in the Forward, if you love Gods Word and treasure Gods Church, this book will be an essential, albeit annoying, challenge. Emil Swift