Rob Bell and His Conception of Hell, Chapter 3 of Love Wins: Part 2
Now that we have covered the Good News and the Bad News, let's look at some of Bell's claims.
Sheol: שְׁאוֹל or שְׁאֹל
The Dictionary of Biblical Languages defines this as "The Underworld, Hades, the Grave, i.e., a place under the earth where the dead reside, the realm of death." You will notice that nowhere does this discriminate between the righteous and the unrighteous in death. In this respect, the use of "Hell" to translate the word is mistaken, as Hell is the place for eternal punishment of the wicked dead. Also, this use of "Sheol" has more to do with the abode of the spirit than the physical grave of the body.
Now, Judaism has historically focused more on the present life than on the afterlife. This does not mean that the afterlife was not thought about. Some branches of Judaism may have rejected the idea of an afterlife, i.e. the Sadducees, who did not believe in angels, spirits, or the resurrection of the dead. (Note Matt.22:23-33 and Acts 22:30-23:11) This does not mean that the afterlife has never been taught about. In fact, the passage in Acts indicates that the Pharisees did believe in a coming resurrection. This belief was not limited to the Pharisees. (See John 11:1-57, especially 11:23-24.) But, the primary emphasis of Judaism is not the coming resurrection, but rather, the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom, and the hope for it here and now. The hope was that the Messiah would be born in their time, before they faced death!
So, Sheol was not restricted to only the wicked dead. This does not mean that there was never a conception of a place of eternal punishment for the wicked dead.
Gehenna: γέεννα
The Dictionary of Biblical Languages defines this as "A Hellenized transliteration of the Hebrew, 'Hinnom Valley.' A ravine just SSW of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. A place of trash fires and perpetually burning rubbish, hence the figurative extension of a place of eternal punishment." The Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains agrees, adding, "According to late Jewish popular belief, the last judgment was to take place in this valley, and hence the figurative extension of meaning from 'Valley of Hinnom' to 'hell.'"
Bell, of course, claims the Gehenna was merely "the city dump." What he doesn't take into account is that it had become a metaphor for "eternal punishment," and in this context, the use of the word "Hell" more accurately translates the idea than Bell would acknowledge.
Now, this was not by any means the only way that the idea of eternal punishment is voiced in the New Testament.
Outer Darkness: τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον ("the darkness the outer")
There are three passages in Matthew that use this phrase. Each time, it is Jesus who is using the phrases: Matt. 8:5-13, especially 8:12; Matt. 22:1-14, especially 22:13; and Matt. 25:14-30, especially 25:30.
Eternal Fire: τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον ("the fire the eternal")
This is found in Matthew as well, following the last passage for Outer Darkness: Matt. 25:31-46, especially 25:41. Also in this passage, Eternal Punishment and Eternal Life are contrasted (see Matt. 25:46). So, if the Eternal Punishment isn't really eternal, as Bell claims, then what of the Eternal Life?
There are a few more words that we could cover here, but let us move on to the next topic.
When Bell is discoursing on the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, he claims that it is very important to the story that the rich man wants Lazarus to serve him. (See Luke 16:19-31.) Bell would make this a story about class conflict and the rich oppressing the poor. This is a clear case of eisegesis, that is, reading something into the text. This story has nothing to do with the rich man wanting to be served, and everything to do with choices while alive having eternal consequences. Note that the rich man's torment was not assuaged in any respect, even though he begged. Also note that in the passage, Abraham declares that the rich man's brothers must respond to the witness of Moses and the prophets. The rich man couldn't change his fate, but his brothers still could. On a side note, it is quite interesting that Bell would try to push the idea of class conflict using a passage from Luke. The writing of the books of Luke and of Acts was financed by a rich man, named Theophilus. Money and Power are never deemed Evil. True, they can be used for Evil, but they are not themselves Evil. The oft misquoted passage truly goes, "The love of money is the root of all (or all kinds of) evil" (1 Tim 6:10). The Bible is not about class conflict. In the warning in Luke 16:13, Jesus warns that you cannot serve two masters. This is true. However, the poor can serve money just as readily as the rich. The point was not about having money, the point was that you should not serve your money!
Bell does have a good point when he says that we are not to reject the Lazaruses around us. However, this is not the point of the story. This point is better made with other passages of Scripture, i.e. Matt 25:31-46. Also, the passage in Matthew shows that the Bible is not about class conflict. Who can give water to another, if he or she does not first have water? Or clothing? Or food? The point isn't that you shouldn't have more than your neighbor. The point is that if someone is in need, you should help them.
Bell goes on to say that the rich man was alive in death. This is not the case. Jesus and Paul clearly teach that the spirit (or soul) is not destroyed at death. The rich man could readily have been aware of what was happening even while his body was dead. What kind of torment can a bodiless spirit experience? I don't know for sure. All that we have are word pictures, and I am sure that the truth is more horrible than we can imagine. Next, if this is a parable, which it may not be, it has only one point! In this case, Bell would be taking the analogy too far. If it is not a parable, but a reflection of something that truly happened, then we should take it literally, i.e. the rich man and Lazarus had both died and their spirits were now somewhere else.
A bit further on, Bell talks about "hells on earth right now." While there are truly horrible things that happen here on earth, they are pale shadows of the true horror of Hell. These "hells on earth" are temporal, and will end. Hell is eternal, without remit or recourse. It is true that the Church should work to alleviate these things, and we are. But it is something else entirely to say that this should be our primary focus. It is true that these goals are not at odds. However, those who emphasize dealing with these temporal problems miss the point of the gospel. Matt. 28:18-20 says, "Then Jesus came up and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (NET) Here is what our primary focus is to be. The other things happen as they must, when we see injustice and can do something about it. But it is not to be our primary focus.
Next, Bell deals with Sodom and Gomorrah. Note, these are cities, not individuals. True, the cities were composed of individuals, but they are not identical. A city can be judged, destroyed, and then rebuilt. However, once people die, they are dead. It is true that God can intervene, even bringing someone back from death. i.e. Lazarus (the brother of Mary and Martha), the son of the widow from Nain, Jairus's daughter, etc. But notice, each of these had to face death again.
A destroyed city can be rebuilt, but the people that died when it was destroyed are not brought back to life. It is rebuilt by people other than those who died. So, yes, judgment upon a city can be reversed. A city that was to never be inhabited again can be rebuilt, if God relents.
So, in all of the passages that Bell quotes, when it speaks of wrath or judgment against a city or a nation being removed, it is not speaking of those in or from those cities who have already died. For instance, Bell quotes Joel 3:1, "For look! In those days and at that time I will return the exiles to Judah and Jerusalem." (NET) Ok, this is all well and good. However, if we read the verse just before this, we get more of the context. "It will so happen that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be delivered. For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who survive, just as the Lord has promised; the remnant will be those whom the Lord will call" (Joel 2:32, NET). Clearly, this is not speaking of those who have died who will be returned! This is a promise to those who are still alive! i.e. "those who survive" and "the remnant."
Each of the Scriptures that Bell quotes in this part of the chapter are like this. They deal, not with individual people, but with cities and nations. As stated before, destroyed cities can be rebuilt. This does not indicate that all those that died in the destruction are brought back to life or that they somehow get a second chance!
Next, Bell quotes from Paul. (On a side note, don't you just love how he doesn't properly quote anything? You really have to dig to find what he is referencing.) The appropriate passage is from 1 Tim. 1:18-20. While this reference does deal with God's redemptive purposes in this world, as Bell asserts, it really doesn't touch on what is purportedly the subject of this chapter, i.e. Hell. However, this does line up with Bell's purpose. But his purpose is not really derived from the text of Scripture.
Eternal Punishment: κόλασιν αἰώνιον kolasin aioenion ("punishment eternal")
First, please note the form that Bell gives: aion of kolazo. In giving this, he doesn't even give the proper forms of the words. κολάζω or kolazo as Bell gives it is the lexical form of the verb. If he was going to give the lexical form, it should have been the noun form, κόλασις kolasis.
Let's deal with κόλασιν kolasin first. Louw-Nida gives the definition as "to punish, with the implication of resulting severe suffering." Now, Bell claims this is a horticultural term, but he doesn't give a reference. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Kittel does indicate that this can mean "'to cut short,' 'to lop' or 'to trim.'" However, in claiming that this is merely a horticultural term, Bell falls prey to the etymological fallacy. i.e. A word does not have to mean the same thing as its root, neither does the meaning have to remain unchanged. Just because the word may have started as a horticultural term, which Bell hasn't proven, it does not mean that it had to remain a horticultural term. In like manner, neither is all "pruning" a good thing. In point of fact, the word was used to describe maiming as punishment. So, horticulture aside, the word is safely translated as "punishment" or "severe punishment." (The preceding was derived from the articles in TDNT for κολάζω and κόλασις, which contain much, much more information.)
Now, αἰώνιον aioenion. Louw-Nida gives this as "pertaining to an unlimited duration of time—'eternal.'" Notably, this word is used in the phrase "eternal life." Here, Louw-Nida indicates that when in combination with the word for "life" (as in ζωὴν αἰώνιον, zoeaen aioenion) that it indicates "not only a temporal element, but also a qualitative distinction." Thus, Eternal Life has not only an eternal element but also a qualitative element. Now, in this respect, Bell focuses on the qualitative element only. In looking at the article from Kittel, αἰών aioen can mean "a period of time," as in an "age." However, this does not negate the fact that it can and often does mean "eternal." And yes, αἰών aioen can be used to translate the Hebrew עוֹלָם 'olam. And yes, the Hebrew word does not have to mean "forever" or "eternal." However, when dealing with words, you must always take the context into account. And, since, Eternal Life and Eternal Punishment are used in parallel, the use of the word αἰώνιον aioenion to describe both is a good indication that they should both be translated the same way. And, as Louw-Nida indicate above, "unlimited duration" or "eternal" is in view here.
A Lesser Son of the King
Copyright RL
