Rob Bell: Heaven, Hell...the Fate Of Everyone Who Ever Lived

[gman]

I read much of the blog post, and I gather that Richard Beck believes in a literal hell, so he says, and a punishment after death that is only for a time. It seems that Rob Bell is leaning more toward a universalism that denies a literal hell; that hell is here and now.
One thought came to mind when I read the portion of the blog discussing Matthew 25. The english translation of the bible uses the word eternal, and the english language defines it as eternal, everlasting, without end. If the meaning of Matthew 25 in the original greek is a defined period of punishment administered by an eternal God, as Beck asserts, why didn't the translators use language that would have made that interpretation more clear? The scriptures tell us to search the scriptures for ourselves. In a way, Beck asserts that we really need greek scholars to give us the meaning of scripture.
So many questions and so many directions you could go with this.
Scripture seems clear to me. That God made a way in this life, no man is without excuse in this life, and you only get one shot in this life. If God's gift of life is everlasting, the wages of sin are also everlasting.

I watched Bell's promo video a second time, and the whole thing was a trip through disturbia. One reviewer said something to the effect that whoever frames the argument wins. I found Bell's framing quite disgusting.

GMan

[brent]

I did not say that I did not read. I just don't buy or read all of the new books from authors barfing up their versions of old ideas, or super-natural para bible revelation sold to Christians.

Universalism is not new. I have several large catalogs that document the origins of churches, denominations, theologies, etc in the modern age (from the 1800s on). Any form of it is incorrect according to scripture. God's eternal life is eternal. Eternal judgement is eternal. There is not more than one way to God. Jesus Christ is the only way. Most true universalists actually deny Christ, not include him. What they teach makes Jesus a liar. Either Jesus is who he said he is or he is not. This is different than the Christians preaching "inclusion". There is a bit of a difference between inclusion and universalism.

As far as getting my knowledge, I have provided audio serives for Bishop Carlton Pearson in Tulsa, OK and several of the Universalist "pastors" he joined with in ministry. I have heard what they believe from their own lips.

[CatNamedManny]

Yeah, I just read a lengthy review of Bell's book, and it seems like he goes much further down the road of universalism than Beck does. The stuff he seems to be saying about Christ and salvation don't seem to be biblically supported at all.

The english translation of the bible uses the word eternal, and the english language defines it as eternal, everlasting, without end. If the meaning of Matthew 25 in the original greek is a defined period of punishment administered by an eternal God, as Beck asserts, why didn't the translators use language that would have made that interpretation more clear? The scriptures tell us to search the scriptures for ourselves. In a way, Beck asserts that we really need greek scholars to give us the meaning of scripture.

Well, Greek scholars are the ones giving us the scripture in our language in the first place. So if we are to truly "search the scriptures for ourselves," I guess we all need to become Greek scholars.

I think your question could be reversed: Why didn't the original author use a Greek word that undoubtedly meant "everlasting" rather than this more unclear one? In the end, translators are just like the rest of us: They are viewing the Bible through the lens of their beliefs, and interpreting it accordingly. Presumably, most Bible interpreters are not universalists, so they have no reason to question whether a word that has been translated "everlasting" since 1611 might actually be better translated as something less defined.

It's only recently, after all, that translators have begun going back through homosexuality references and changing them to more accurately reflect temple prostitution where appropriate (Deut 23:7, I Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46 and II Kings 23:7 were originally translated "sodomite" and now are translated "temple/shrine/cult prostitute"). Or there's the fact that translators consistently change 2 Peter's introduction from "Simeon" to "Simon." Why? I would suspect it's because the "Simeon" language is one of many reasons scholars doubt Peter actually wrote the book. Similarly, the NIV and other versions add the word "now" when it doesn't appear in the Greek in I Peter 4:6. This changes a potentially tricky phrase — "For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead..." (NASB) — to a more orthodox one: "For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead..."

I think there's this idea that Bible translation is set in stone. It's not, and I'm not terribly surprised to find that some words are interpreted in one way when they could easily be interpreted in other, less orthodox ways. Our assumptions govern our logic far more than we like to admit; I don't see it as any different for Bible translators.

[brent]

Bible translation does not need to be redone over and over. We actually know LESS about the original languages and their contexts than the writers and early translators. I like to read the bibles Messianic Jews use. There are a couple of good software based versions with video and backline history that helps explain the significance of the thoughts in the OT that English confuses and glosses over. Their OT is close to KJV most of the time. I guess those guys did a good job there.

The problem with these new NT translations is that they are using Greek as a key, when Greek was not what was spoken. It was a common man's Greek mixed with a couple of other slangs. It was closer to a form of Yiddish. So, you can throw out Strongs and the others. They are incorrect. Get some Lexicons. Some of these people are also funded by people with a cause other than God's. Take the United Council of Churches for example. They included homosexuals for a reason.

[Preacherman777]

In regards to Matthew 25, one of the biggest problems I would have with assuming that judgment might not be everlasting is that in order to do that (because of the way the context is framed) we would also have to assume that Heaven is not eternal. The two are used in the same way. Therefore, it's simply poor hermeneutics to attempt to make the universalism argument.

[CatNamedManny]

In regards to Matthew 25, one of the biggest problems I would have with assuming that judgment might not be everlasting is that in order to do that (because of the way the context is framed) we would also have to assume that Heaven is not eternal. The two are used in the same way. Therefore, it's simply poor hermeneutics to attempt to make the universalism argument.

I think it's correct to argue the words are used the same way in this verse, given their proximity. But it seems there are lots of other references to eternal life, whereas there are very few other references to eternal judgment.

Put another way, yes, the universalist argument precludes this specific example of eternal life/eternal damnation from meaning "forever" in the way we understand it, but it does not preclude either of those things from being true anyway. There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts the idea of eternal life, and the references to it are many. On the other hand, there appear to be several verses that contradict the idea of eternal punishment, and the verses in support of it are actually quite few in number.

[imc]

Good posts Manny, you seem to be following a very similar train of thinking to me, and it's refreshing to read someone well versed in the alternative theologies of hell, most seem to characterize anything outside of the "orthodox" view of hell (eternal, conscious torment) as meaning no judgement and every goes straight to heaven.

However, the verse discussed above (Matt 25), is the one that gives me most trouble. As you say, there is more biblical basis for heaven being eternal than hell, but because of the same word being used here, the other verses supporting heaven being eternal also end up supporting hell being eternal. If it wasn't for this, you could certainly argue about the greek perhaps not meaning literally for ever, but as it is, surely you have to treat both parts the same? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

[CatNamedManny]

Good posts Manny, you seem to be following a very similar train of thinking to me, and it's refreshing to read someone well versed in the alternative theologies of hell, most seem to characterize anything outside of the "orthodox" view of hell (eternal, conscious torment) as meaning no judgement and every goes straight to heaven.

However, the verse discussed above (Matt 25), is the one that gives me most trouble. As you say, there is more biblical basis for heaven being eternal than hell, but because of the same word being used here, the other verses supporting heaven being eternal also end up supporting hell being eternal. If it wasn't for this, you could certainly argue about the greek perhaps not meaning literally for ever, but as it is, surely you have to treat both parts the same? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

IMC, as I understand it, Jews at the time the Bible was written didn't really view eternity the same way we do. So the word we translate as "eternal" simply did not carry time connotations. It was more a "value" word, referring to "the age to come," whatever that might be and however long it might last.

The fact that Jesus, who obviously knew a whole lot about how the world would end and what would happen to everyone when that happens, barely talked about it signifies to me that we should all be a lot more humble about topics like this. We just don't know what's going to happen, and I think God would prefer we focus on the richness of a life lived in his grace and truth rather than on drawing lines with "turn or burn" theology that does more to drive people away from God than draw them to him.

[imc]

The fact that Jesus, who obviously knew a whole lot about how the world would end and what would happen to everyone when that happens, barely talked about it signifies to me that we should all be a lot more humble about topics like this. We just don't know what's going to happen, and I think God would prefer we focus on the richness of a life lived in his grace and truth rather than on drawing lines with "turn or burn" theology that does more to drive people away from God than draw them to him.

In total agreement with you there. My point was, due to Matt 25 we have to apply the same logic to both heaven and hell. So if we deduce from other scriptures that heaven is eternal (or never ending), then Matt 25 makes it difficult to deny that interpretation to hell also. Conversely, if we say that time in hell will come to an end (whether by annihilation or salvation) then because of this same word in Matt 25, we have to say the same about heaven don't we? Are you saying that heaven isn't everlasting or that the logic described above is unnecessary?

This is a genuine question, not trying to argue your point - I'm actually very much in agreement with it. I just haven't heard anyone address Matt 25 satisfactorily yet.

[CatNamedManny]

The fact that Jesus, who obviously knew a whole lot about how the world would end and what would happen to everyone when that happens, barely talked about it signifies to me that we should all be a lot more humble about topics like this. We just don't know what's going to happen, and I think God would prefer we focus on the richness of a life lived in his grace and truth rather than on drawing lines with "turn or burn" theology that does more to drive people away from God than draw them to him.

In total agreement with you there. My point was, due to Matt 25 we have to apply the same logic to both heaven and hell. So if we deduce from other scriptures that heaven is eternal (or never ending), then Matt 25 makes it difficult to deny that interpretation to hell also. Conversely, if we say that time in hell will come to an end (whether by annihilation or salvation) then because of this same word in Matt 25, we have to say the same about heaven don't we? Are you saying that heaven isn't everlasting or that the logic described above is unnecessary?

This is a genuine question, not trying to argue your point - I'm actually very much in agreement with it. I just haven't heard anyone address Matt 25 satisfactorily yet.

I think the key error in your logic is this sentence: "if we say that time in hell will come to an end (whether by annihilation or salvation) then because of this same word in Matt 25, we have to say the same about heaven don't we?"

It does follow that if we take a consistent view of "eternal" as not having the time connotation we traditionally ascribe to it, then we have to use that definition when it describes life, as well as death or judgment. But that simply rules out one piece of evidence for believing in an eternal hell and an eternal heaven. We can still believe in those things, if we want to, provided they are not contradicted elsewhere in the Bible.

In hell's case, there's very little evidence aside from its attachment to the word we wrongly translate "eternal," while there are several verses that contradict the idea of everlasting damnation — verses that say plainly that God desires a universal reconciliation, certainly, and indicate pretty strongly that ultimately everything will be reconciled.

In heaven's case, there are plenty of other verses that provide evidence for eternal life. For example, 1 Corinthians 15:52-53: "The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." Ecclesiastes 3:11: "Even time indefinite he has put in their heart, that mankind may never find out the work that the true God has made from the start to the finish.” Many verses discuss the resurrection of the dead, which would seem to preclude inherently any possibility that you could then die again (because otherwise what's the point of being resurrected in the first place?)

The Bible is consistent and clear that those who accept Jesus will spend an eternity in heaven with him. The Bible is equally consistent and clear that those who do not will be judged and will go to hell, whatever that is. The Bible is far less clear about what happens to them after that, and in my opinion seems to lean toward an expansive interpretation of God's grace, a grace powerful enough to overcome death and hell to forgive and welcome the repentant sinner, even one who cries out to him from the depths of hell.