book review: "who really goes to hell?"

7/29/2019 Book Review: "Who REALLY Goes to Hell?"

1/4

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 NeverHeard Preached.

People think a lot of things are taught in the Bible that aren't taught at all. "God helps thosewho help themselves." "What goes around, comes around." "This, too, shallpass.""Cleanliness is next to godliness." "God works in mysterious ways." "Money is the rootof all evil." "Confession is good for the soul." "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we willdie"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 tolearn 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 Godholding sinners over the fires of Hell, slowly roasting them, I'm more than ready to be provenwrong!

Yet when Rudel begins his argument by claiming hell show that what Paul preachedcontradicted what Jesus preached, I sit up and take notice. It raises my expectation not thatI assume at the outset that he has to be wrong. I have no vested interest in maintaining falseteaching only because its tradition. But in my years of study of both Jesus and Paulsteachings, I've seen no contradictions only people claimingto see contradictions based onsome disappointingly inaccurate misreading of the Word. Excited by this authors newchallenge, I hoped he would show me something new, something more than Id ever seenpreviously. Of which I was yet again disappointed.

Near the start of his book, Rudel makes an odd request. He explains that hes used so manyBible verses that he wants the reader to skim rapidly through his book at least once withoutpausing to closely examine any of the verses he uses, saving that closer examination for asecond perusal. Why? Rudel says, I use over 2,700 verses and youll never get through thebook if you stop and examine each passage. To begin with, theres a touch of arrogance inassuming 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 atany of the verses too closely just go with whatever interpretive spin I put on them as I buildmy persuasive argument. If an author is presenting truth that is rooting out oldermisinterpretation and misunderstandings of Scripture, it seems the reader instead ought to beencouraged to look closelyat the Scriptures used in order in order to agree that this authors re-interpretation (or re-envisioning) of them is in fact accurate.


2/4

In a few places I rebelled and looked up his interpretation of Scriptures anyway. Several timesI discovered hed either taken a verse out of context (giving it a meaning it didnt really have)or he'd gavin an explanation (especially of the Greek) that I couldnt find supported in anyother 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 chronologicalspan of time but its quality. Rudel apparently feels free,with that little expository tidbit, to dismiss all normal interpretations of eternal life andexchange it instead for what he defends as (what he labels) a truly Jewish idea of the Worldto Come. But as many sources as I checked, none of them gave even the least hint of thisinterpretation of eternal life. Rudel, I suppose, might claim I looked at sources which arebiased toward traditional interpretations. Which, in that case, would make his argumentirrefutable.

Yet what drew me to Rudels book was the hope that (at the very least) he would ask somequestions and pose some problems that would prove challenging to the religious status quo inChristendom in general and in mespecifically. Along the way, I came across a number of lovelyobservations 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 neighborto the Jew.

Absolutely lovely. And upon checking it out in Greek dictionaries and other sources, theyconfirmed his observation.

Many chapters and sections of chapters are wonderful. In one, for example, he lists seventhings "Jesus never preached" including any sermons about trusting in His atoning work onthe Cross. Heres an example of how Rudels reasonings can challenge conservative Christianthought: Since Jesus never preached to the Jews about His atoning work on the Cross, yet Hewent everywhere preachingthe Gospel then the Gospel doesnt include people understanding

(and trusting) His work on the Cross. (!!!) Give that a moment and reflect: did Jesus preach theGospel or not? His Gospel had neither Cross nor Blood, so is He a Modernist or even aheretic? Or is the common understanding of what makes up the Gospel inadequate?Whether Rudelsright or wrong, the question itself should rattle the cages of those who have an overlysimplistic idea of what is the Gospel.

However correct Rudel is in his reflections on the Jewish perspective, he has gained many


3/4

excellent insights by merely asking, Since the Jews in Jesus day were not modern, 21stcentury Euro-Americans, what did theythink Jesus meant in His teachings? Rudel points thereader back to the Old Testament repeatedly, insisting that whereas many, modern Christianshave either neglected the OT completely or have picked out of it only those verses that makethem 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 evenpoints out Jesus exasperation in Luke 24.25 with His own disciples blindness about the OT,that it was a type of grand prophecy, a huge picture that... gave clues about the comingChrist [Messiah] so that the Jews of Jesus day could recognize Him. [Which they didnt.]

Part of the challenge of this book are the questions Rudel asks questions that mostChristians either avoid or ignore. For example: how, exactly, is it possible for people, beforeChrists death, to be saved. What about people who have never even heard about Jesus butwho obey within themselves the Law of God (as Paul refers to in Romans 2.) Why is it that

esus 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 theKingdom are those who have given Him food and drink? Jesus says nothing aboutrepentance or trusting Him or believing in His atoning work on the Cross. What could be amore theologically heretical notion than giving someone a glass of water as the basis of beingtaken into Gods Kingdom?

The question posed in the title, Who Really Goes to Hell?, isnt directly answered anywherein the book. He briefly 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 intentionnever was for anyof usto go to Heaven at least, not in any permanent sense. Enter, stage left, the city of Newerusalem. [That's a hint, folks]

Two problems I find in Rudel's presentation are most difficult for me to resolve: (1) He goesto very great length trying to establish that there are actuallytwo salvations referred to in theBible deliveranceand regeneration. He acknowledges that there can be no regeneration asidefrom becoming one with Jesus Christ (baptized or baptizo), but deliverance can come in amuch more general fashion. My problem is that there are numerous Scriptures that show usthat not only regeneration comes through the Cross, but deliverance from sin, death and evensickness (e.g., by His stripes we are healed.)

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 theLaw so that there is the Law which still holds sway over usand the rabbinical Law whichnullified Gods intentions. In fact, he insists that a person can be made righteousby properlyobeying the Law. But however you cut it, it seems to me that obeyingthisLaw encroachs onthe freedom from the Law (allthe Law) that the apostle Paul insists is ours. (e.g., "Stand firm


4/4

in the freedom with which Christ made us free and do not let yourselves be subject again withthat yoke of slavery." Gal. 5.1)

The one text I expected Rudel to focus on seriously (but I couldn't find) was Pauls logicalexplanation in Galatians 2.21 and 3.21 that if it were possible for any person ever to be maderighteousby obeying the Law, then Christ has died in vain. If a person could become

righteous by his or her own efforts, then instead of dying, Jesus could have simply stood backand 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 give upHis life on our behalf. Since He had no sin, He had no need to die and His choice to die was,so-to-speak, superfluous or redundant nor did He remain dead.

So every person who (spiritually) is unitedto Jesus sharesin His death, shares in His burial, andshares 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 hadbeen unthinking followers of traditional dogma. In my opinion, there are ample pages ofquestions, challenges and radically different perspectives on the traditional approach toChristian teachings on salvation, hell, Heaven and other stuff. Any reader who ventures intoRudels world can easily come out the other end with somedegree of spiritual transformationor (at least) discomfort. As Hopkins writes in the Forward, if you love Gods Word andtreasure Gods Church, this book will be an essential, albeit annoying, challenge.

Emil Swift

book review: "who really goes to hell?"

Documents