Love Wins - A Review of Rob Bell's New Book

Love WinsQuestions matter. They can help you to grow deeper in your knowledge of the truth and your love for God--especially when you're dealing with the harder doctrines of the Christian faith. But questions can also be used to obscure the truth. They can be used to lead away just as easily as they can be used to lead toward. Ask Eve.

Enter Rob Bell, a man who has spent much of the last seven years asking questions in his sometimes thought-provoking and often frustrating fashion. And when he's done asking, no matter what answers he puts forward, it seems we're only left with more questions. This trend continues in his new book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, where Bell poses what might be his most controversial question yet:

Does a loving God really send people to hell for all eternity?

The questions you probably want answers to as you read this review are these: Is it true that Rob Bell teaches that hell doesn't exist? Is it true that Rob Bell believes no one goes to hell? You'll just need to keep reading because, frankly, the answers aren't that easy to come by.

How he asks the question is just as important as the question itself. "Has God created billions of people over thousands of years only to select a few to go to heaven and everyone else to suffer forever in hell? Is this acceptable to God? How is this 'good news'?" They say that the person who frames the debate is going to win the debate. That is especially true when the debate is framed in this way, through these particular questions. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. No offense, and no pun intended.

The Toxic Subversion Of Jesus' Message

Bell begins the book with surprising forthrightness: Jesus' story has been hijacked by a number of different stories that Jesus has no interest in telling. "The plot has been lost, and it's time to reclaim it." (Preface, vi)

A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better.... This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus' message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear. (ibid)

You may want to read that again.

It really says that. And it really means what you think it means. Though it takes time for that to become clear.

Heaven Is A Place On Earth--and We Are Making It

Bell frames much of the book around time and place, around what the Bible means when it speaks of the when and where of heaven and hell. He points to Revelation 21, citing that the heavenly city, the New Jerusalem, is coming down to the new earth. He also affirms that heaven is a real place where God's will alone is done and that at present, heaven and earth are not yet one (pp. 42-43). These are points that few Christians could seriously question.

His argument progresses to this: Because heaven will eventually come to earth, if we're to take heaven seriously, we must take the suffering that exists in the world seriously now. Therefore, we are called to participate "now in the life of the age to come. That's what happens when the future is dragged into the present" (p. 45). In light of this, humanity's role within creation is redefined so that we are not so much stewards as we are God's partners, "participating in the ongoing creation and joy of the world" (p. 180), and engaging in creating a new social order with Jesus (p. 77). This language of partnering and participating is frequently applied by Bell to causes of social justice.

But what about hell? Is hell a future reality or a present one? Is it an earthly reality or one that exists elsewhere?

Hell appears to be more about what we do to each other than what we've done to God. Bell reads Jesus' warnings of divine punishment as addressing only the temporal, rather than both the temporal and the eternal. These warnings were for the religious leaders of the day, and had very little to do with some other reality or some other time, he argues (pp. 82-83). Instead, hell is "a word that refers to the big, wide, terrible evil that comes from the secrets hidden deep without our hearts all the way to the massive, society-wide collapse and chaos that comes when we fail to live in God's world God's way" (p. 95). There's no fire and no wrath, at least, none that is extrinsic to us.

Does Rob Bell deny the existence of hell? He would say no. We would say yes. He affirms, but only after redefining. And that's just a clever form of denial.

Exegetical Gymnastics

Understanding what Bell truly believes and what he is truly seeking to teach can be a battle. The reader will find himself following many rabbit trails and arriving at several dead ends. It seems that where Bell's arguments begin to break down, he simply walks away instead of pursuing consistency and logic. This book could not stand the rigors of cross-examination. It has little cohesion, little internal strength.

The reader will also find broad statements offered as fact. "At the center of the Christian tradition since the first church has been the insistence that history is not tragic, hell is not forever, and love, in the end, wins." Is that true? It is easy to say, but can it be proven? Again and again Bell turns to the original languages but he quotes no commentaries, points to no sources. He says things like "'forever' is not really a category the biblical writers used." But he offers no proof. Again, it is easy to say, but can it be proven? Can it be proven from a legitimate source?

Throughout the book he engages in what can best be described as exegetical gymnastics, particularly in dealing with the Greek word aion, a small word that is crucial to his arguments.

While this word is commonly translated as "eternal" or "everlasting," Bell argues that it can also mean "age" or "period of time," or even "intensity of experience." Using this approach, he briefly argues from the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt. 25:31-46) that eternal punishment isn't eternal, but rather an intense period of pruning.

Now here's the thing: aion and aionos definitely can mean "age" or "period of time," they also mean "eternal." The word's context helps us to determine its meaning. So if we assume that these words primarily mean "age" or "period of time," what happens when we apply that definition to John 3:16 where aionos is used?

For God so loved the world that He sent His only Son so that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have life for a period of time.

Not as encouraging, is it? While Bell might argue here that "life abundant" might be a better fit (playing on the "intensity of experience" angle and tying it to John 10:10), at the end of the day, we're left with an approach that gives more credence to living your best life now than it does to worshipping Jesus.

The Good News Is Better Than This

Throughout the book, there are a number of points where we would agree with Bell, particularly when he identifies some of the goofy things that people have concocted to make God's absolute sovereignty palpable. But his answers are equally unsatisfying. Even his good critiques are simply a bridge to bad conclusions.

As he makes his case, Bell seems to delight in being obtuse, creating caricatures of opposing views that lack logic and compassion. He paints himself as the victim of the hateful, toxic, venomous denizens of certain corners of the Internet that believe "the highest form of allegiance to their God is to attack, defame, and slander others who don't articulate matters of faith as they do" (p. 185).

Thus, Rob Bell appoints himself a martyr for his cause, and anyone who disagrees with him is preemptively silenced. It's a useful technique, that, but hardly a fair one. Meanwhile he acts as if those who hold to the belief that, in Bell's words, "we get this life and only this life to believe in Jesus," a view passionately held to by the vast majority of Christians throughout history, are blowing smoke rather than dealing honestly with the Scriptures. He subtly redefines the questions and answers, and in doing so, also shifts the battle lines.

As he moves those lines, he moves closer and closer to outright blasphemy. Turning on 1 Timothy 2 (where Paul states that God desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth) Bell reflects on a traditional (orthodox) view of hell and asks:

How great is God?
Great enough to achieve what God sets out to do,
or kind of great,
medium great,
great most of the time,
but in this,
the fate of billions of people,
not totally great.
sort of great.
a little great.

A God who would allow people to go to hell is not a great God, according to Bell, and the traditional belief that He would is "devastating … psychologically crushing … terrifying and traumatizing and unbearable" (pp. 136-7).

God is at best sort of great, a little great--great for saving some, but evil for allowing others to perish. Dangerous words, those. It is a fearful thing to ascribe evil to God.

So what of the gospel? Where is the gospel and what is the gospel? Ultimately, what Bell offers in this book is a gospel with no purpose. In his understanding of the Bible, people are essentially good, although we certainly do sin, and are completely free to choose or not choose to love God on our own terms. Even then he seems to believe that most people, given enough time and opportunity, will turn to God.

In This Is Love

If Love Wins accurately represents Bell's views on heaven and hell (at least if our understanding of the book accurately represents his views on heaven and hell), it reveals him as a proponent of a kind of Christian Universalism. He would deny the label as he tends to deny any label. But if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well, you know how it goes.

As soon as the door is opened to Muslims. Hindus, Buddhists, and Baptists from Cleveland, many Christians become very uneasy, saying that then Jesus doesn't matter anymore, the cross is irrelevant, it doesn't matter what you believe, and so forth.

Not true.
Absolutely, unequivocally, unalterably not true.

What Jesus does is declare that he,
and he alone,
is saving everybody.

And then he leaves the door way, way open. Creating all sorts of possibilities. He is as narrow as himself and as wide as the universe.

...

People come to Jesus in all sorts of ways.

...

Sometimes people use his name;
other times they don't.

...

Some people have so much baggage with regard to the name "Jesus" that when they encounter the mystery present in all of creation--grace, peace, love, acceptance, healing, forgiveness--the last thing they are inclined to name it is "Jesus."

...

What we see Jesus doing again and again--in the midst of constant reminders about the seriousness of following him living like him, and trusting him--is widening the scope and expanse of his saving work.

That is what we know as universalism. And it is cause for mourning.

Christians do not need more confusion. They need clarity. They need teachers who are willing to deal honestly with what the Bible says, no matter how hard that truth is. And let's be honest--many truths are very, very hard to swallow.

Love does win, but not the kind of love that Bell talks about in this book. The love he describes is one that is founded solely on the idea that the primary object of God's love is man; indeed, the whole story, he writes, can be summed up in these words: "For God so loved the world." But this doesn't hold a candle to the altogether amazing love of God as actually shown in the Bible. The God who "shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8), who acts on our behalf not so much because His love for us is great, but because He is great (Isaiah 48:9, Ezekiel 20:9,14,22,44, 36:22; John 17:1-5).

That's the kind of love that wins. That's the kind of love that motivates us to love our neighbors enough to compel them to flee from the wrath to come. And our love for people means nothing if we do not first and foremost love God enough to be honest about Him.


This review was co-written with my friend Aaron Armstrong who writes at Blogging Theologically. All quotes are taken from an Advance Reading Copy of the manuscript that was provided specifically for review purposes; they will be verified against a final bound copy of Love Wins following the book’s release.

Comments (219)

201
Anonymous's picture

A much sadder thing is that Christianity has become a pagan religion far away from its Jewish roots, so bickering about burning in hell for eternity (or not as the case may be) is a moot point.

202
Anonymous's picture

Brittany,My point was, as Kevin DeYoung pointed out, Bell had said enough to respond to before people read the book. The publisher’s description and Bell’s video themselves raised questions and invited people to respond— that’s exactly what they were intended to do.

Bell’s own words, before the book came out, made it clear that he was rejecting the traditional Christian doctrine of hell. In the video, he mocked that doctrine. Nobody was writing book reviews two weeks ago; they were responding to what was already out there.

Also, I don’t think you read JT’s original post very carefully. He has three paragraphs on how grievous false teaching is. There was no “pushing off the cliff.” Piper’s tweet was three words and a link to Taylor’s post; which clearly implied agreement. I think you’re interpreting both of these guys unfairly.

203
Anonymous's picture

Awesome book review, thanks!

Have you noted the striking similarities between Gnosticism and Universalism?

Gnosticism: The belief that sin doesn’t exist (and people therefore don’t need to be born again) and that by attaining a certain level of conscious awareness called “Gnosis” you are freed from the bondage and limitations of the material world.

Universalism: The belief that everybody in the world is saved (and therefore don’t need to be born again) and people simply need to attain a “conscious awareness” that they are free from the bondage and limitations of the material world.

Here is an article that clearly shows why the Universalism doctrine does not uphold truth and leaves the heart of the believer cold:

http://www.newcovenantgrace.com/universalism/

In GraceAndre

204
Anonymous's picture

Thanks Tim for reading the book so that I should not. Rob should be avoided as a plague but prayed for with tears and groanings that cannot be uttered. Jesus is a friend of sinners of whom i am chief and i would beg Rob to turn from his adulteration of scripture and humble himself in repentance and trust in the accomplished work christ alone for his redemption.

205
Anonymous's picture

From the very first video I saw, Bell bugged me. I didn’t know why, but he did. I would use an old expression, to sort of say that he always “gave me the creeps” a bit….. I think the reason he is so popular is because he, sort of “pop-summarizes” things in a fashion that is appealing to “busy Christians on the run”…… It reminds me of a freshman year philosophy class; the kind of affair where “everyone is right, so long as you have a viewpoint.” We believers know from Christ’s parable of the path and the gate, that we can’t always have it “our way”. I’m very glad that you reviewed this in a larger Christian context…. It was illuminating.

And now I know why this man always gave me the creeps.

206
Anonymous's picture

I seem to recall something C.S. Lewis wrote about his spiritual and literary mentor George MacDonald’s tendency toward Universalism: “He hopes, indeed, that all will be saved; but that is because he hopes that all will repent.” From the fragments I’ve seen, including this review, that seems to be a possible way of understanding Bell as well; emphasis on “hopes” rather than “dogmatically claims” or some such thing.

As to how people twist scripture, I also have been mystified for years by the way that the “How Much More” passages in Paul (e.g., Romans 5) somehow are routinely read to mean “How Much Less,” and how the “All” of Romans 3:23 is taken to be an absolute, unequivocal universal “all”, except insofar as it applies to Romans 3:24; and how in many other passages (say, Romans 5:18) the “all” is commonly forced to mean “some” or “a few” or “all who meet certain conditions”. Maybe this controversy over Bell would do all of us the service of being able to honestly discuss what in the world might be meant by, say, this saying from 1 Timothy 4:10: “…we have put our hope in the living God, who is the savior of all men, especially those who believe.” There’s that pesky “all” again…

207
Anonymous's picture

I am still looking forward to reading Bell’s book on my own. I appreciate the review and the thoughts about what Bell presents. I have a different view of the afterlife and hell than most Christians have, which would be (in theological terms) conditional immortality and annhilation.

I just wonder if Bell holds these views as well, but cannot articulate them? Although, with Bell being a very good communicator, I find that may be hard to believe.

I have been blessed by a lot of what Rob has written/said over the years, but he has also left me scratching my head at times. So I treat his teaching like I treat everything else I read or listen to…I treat it like I’m eating chicken - eat the meat and throw away the bone. Only the Bible can be consumed in it’s entirety.

Thanks for the review!

208
Anonymous's picture

It seems to me that God is pretty clear in His Word on a lot of things, especially the subject of Heaven and Hell. When people come along and put a whole new twist on doctrine that has been around for centuries, warning bells start to chime. Where is the Holy Spirit’s discernment in all of this? I would think that if Rob Bell’s take on things is the way that God has things set up, God would have made it pretty clear through the inspiration of the Spirit throughout history, but that doesn’t seem to have been the case. Of course, I haven’t gone to seminary or had formal Bible teaching. I just read my Bible and pray God would give me understanding. Most of it seems pretty straightforward and not as complicated as Bell’s quotes.

As an opinion, if you don’t want to follow God during your lifetime, why in the world would you want to be with Him afterwards? I have known people who are very hostile towards God and want nothing to do with Him. The view that all people end up in Heaven with God would then violate the free will of those who don’t want God, wouldn’t it?

209
Anonymous's picture

Rob Bell’s questions are both timely and important. Jesus only ever talks about ‘hell’ in terms which equate that destination with a failure to help humans’ made in God’s image and likeness. Far too many Christians see the faith as some kind of country club accessible only to themselves and people like them.

Well done Rob, keep up the good work.

210
Anonymous's picture

So make fun of me for taking a “let’s wait and see” approach, but I certainly wouldn’t treat anyone in my church, believer or not, with such arrogance.”

Is it arrogance to examine the work of a pastor (e.g. Rob Bell’s video promo of his book), in the context of his larger body of work and habits as a teacher, and come to the conclusion “Rob Bell might be a Universalist”?

Because that’s what I saw Justin Taylor and others doing. And I don’t see a problem with that. It may turn out that he’s not. But if words actually mean something, and Rob Bell’s video actually meant something, then it’s perfectly ok for people to come to some sort of conclusion, even if it is open-ended as we await further explanation/evidence/revelation.

Now, I have no idea what Piper meant by “Farewell, Rob Bell.” No clue. Seems to me he was either jumping to conclusions, or knew something we didn’t. But don’t lump everyone into the same category, because then you’re just committing the same error of presumption and refusing to examine what they’re actually saying, which you accuse them of doing towards Rob Bell.

211
Anonymous's picture

Excellent. Thank-you!

212
Anonymous's picture

Thank-you, Tim. Excellent!

213
Anonymous's picture

@JR wrote: I’m sorry, but I don’t buy the notion that God does not force people to go to hell, that they choose to go there. The rich man in Luke 16 strikes me as someone who would give anything to get out of hell.”

Yes, to get OUT once there. The idea that people choose to go to hell is not that they willingly prefer torment to paradise. It is the fact that each person has a choice to take God at His word and follow Him, or go their own way. He will not force His will on us, but if we reject Him, our destruction is our own fault.

214
Anonymous's picture

To those who discount that Jesus can save those in hell, what do you make of 1 Peter 3:19-20?

What about the Nicene and Apostle’s Creeds, still the benchmark for orthodox faith, “He descended into hell.”

If hell is eternal, when Christ ministered to the souls imprisoned there, wouldn’t all souls past present and future have been there?

If Christ indeed ministered to only the spirits from the past, why would he be excluded from those of the future? After the advent of Christ on earth the rules changed, so after the resurrection everyone is held account differently?

What about the traditional view, held long before Christ’s coming, that Sheol was a place all souls went in waiting for judgement? Christ himself uses this view in the Parable of Lazarus. The Apocalypse of Zephaniah (which predates Christ) describes Sheol this way.

The Book of Enoch describes Sheol has having four sections: one where the faithful saints blissfully await Judgment Day, one where the moderately good await their reward, one where the wicked are punished and await their Judgment at the resurrection, and the last where the wicked who do not even warrant resurrection are tormented.

215
Anonymous's picture

This philosophy is nothing new. Why Bell repackages this type of heresy and acts as if he has rediscovered something great is beyond me?

216
Anonymous's picture

You note in the blog: “It seems that where Bell’s arguments begin to break down, he simply walks away instead of pursuing consistency and logic.”

Perhaps the same could be said of Jesus, whose chief values were not consistency and logic, but of challenging people where they were with provocative parables and stories that often left them scratching their heads and they just didn’t get! But somehow we presumptuously assume to know exactly what Jesus meant (even when his immediate audience did not), and then we draw all kinds of concrete literal realities (according to our consistency and logic) from *parables* and then get up in arms when someone does something sorta like Jesus did.

Fantastic.

217
Anonymous's picture

>>>>> A staggering number of people… Jesus’ message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear. (ibid)

You may want to read that again.<<<<<

Why is that NOT examinable?

>>>>>And when he’s done asking, no matter what answers he puts forward, it seems we’re only left with more questions.<<<<<

This is not a bad thing. It is called critical thinking. Why do you believe you do—right, wrong or indifferently? What if what you’ve always been taught by “authorities” is just flat out wrong? What if one lives their life according to a belief that any imminent day now Jesus is going to pluck them out of the world… because a civil disruption is going on in Libya! How does that person look a sinners? With love? Most I’ve talked to, with a silent anticipation of those fucking sinners getting what’s coming to them. This is where love doesn’t win.

>>>>>>In light of this, humanity’s role within creation is redefined so that we are not so much stewards as we are God’s partners, “participating in the ongoing creation and joy of the world” (p. 180), and engaging in creating a new social order with Jesus (p. 77). This language of partnering and participating is frequently applied by Bell to causes of social justice.<<<<<

I think, from what I’ve read in Genesis, this isn’t a redefining, but was the original order.

Social justice?! O my, the scoundrel.

>>>>>Christians do not need more confusion. They need clarity. <<<<<Clarity comes from critical thinking—not blind faith to beliefs that may have become very skewed from ages past due to any number of diversions in history—politics, power to name a few. Why do you believe what you believe?

I’ve always wondered why God would create a world knowing it would need to be saved. Jesus knew his mission before the creation of the world. That’s before Eve bit the forbidden fruit. Before a creature that bore the image of God was placed on the same rock (out of 100,000,000,000x100,000,000,000 in the universe) as the hell-bound fallen angels. And Jesus knew his mission before the creation of the world.

Something to think about. Or is that heresy?

218
Anonymous's picture

Jesus said that in Matthew 7:13. Wide and easy is the path to destruction. Enter the narrow gate.

219
Tim's picture

Thanks for the comments, everyone. I think it’s time to shut them down now.

If you really want to add a comment, you can still visit Aaron’s site.