Let me start by simply discussing the title of this book. Strap your seat belt on as I spell out the entire working title of this book is: The Gospel You’ve Never Heard: Who Really Goes to Hell: What a Protestant Bible Written by Jews Says About God’s Work Through Christ: (A book for those in the church and those offended by it). ugh. That is the front cover and it is exhausting itself. Sadly, as you get into this book, you find that the author’s ideas about the Bible and Christianity are just as scattered and unresolved as his thoughts on what the title should be. The portions of this book that I read are simply a strain of unanswered (and dare I say unanswerable with scripture) questions that have no bearing on the Christian life lived by New Testament Christians.

The author is attempting to place Jesus as found in the gospel writings, in opposition to the writings of Paul. He bases much of his argument primarily off the fact that since Christ does not really discuss Hell and salvation that much in His teaching, that Paul must have been mistaken when he discussed these issues in his letters written to the churches he helped establish. Also, since Christ did not really stress the fact that He is the only way as much as Paul did, then Paul could have gone a little over board and been wrong. Jesus versus Paul for the sake of salvation is the heart this book is written in.

Stressing the love message of Christ, Rudel is attempting to further a theology of universalism. His position holds by the thread that when someone does loving acts to others, even if that are not doing them in the name of Christ, that they are being pleasing to God. In other words, this is the deeds not creeds doctrine of Rick Warren taken to an extreme. According to this book, people who never confess Christ as Savior, can work their way to Heaven. Rudel wants the reader to believe that all good people, of which Bible believing people know there are NONE, go to heaven.

I did not stick around in this book to read the conclusions as I agreed to review this book expecting to receive a Christian book. This is not a Christian book but instead a tool that will drive people out of the church and out of fellowship with their Lord Jesus Christ. This book is a study in hypothetical thought based on carnal and human wisdom taken to its most nauseous point. This book has found its way into my garbage as I would not want my children to pick it up and read it and be led astray by such false teaching. Also, I would not want them to read this and think that this is the sort of scattered mess that should be published as professional writing today. Honestly, even outside of the theological realm, this book is a real mess and will numb your brain while reading it.

Who Really Goes to Hell? People who are led astray by this book is who. Do not buy this book.

http://www.thispilgrimland.com

This is a tough book to get through not because of its writing, but because of its content. Chapter after chapter run of the mill evangelicals are challenged to abandon status quo theology and instead explore what scripture might actually say. Bibliography would’ve helped me research in depth some of the statements he was making. Since I don’t have his resources I’m left with more questions than answers, and more skepticism than acceptance.

That’s not to say this is a book to avoid. In fact, I’m a HUGE fan of books that challenge the mundane status quo that is evangelicals (usually loosely based on some spawn of reformed theology) that’s left the church utterly powerless today. I recommend picking this title up and taking the ideas seriously, but exploring your own answers to the questions Rudel raises.

The Good: One feature I really liked was at the end of each chapter, there was a section entitled “Summary and Final Notes.”

The Bad: Whoever thought it would be a good idea to bold Scripture quotes in the text, let me tell you…it was a bad idea. In my opinion, it made the book more difficult to read and was a huge distraction.

Something else that irks me about this book was a little disclaimer on the copyright page:

Version 1.3

Due to the author’s zeal overrunning his good judgment, an uncorrected version of this work made it into retail channels previously.

One would think that they now have corrected the typos in this version…but alas, that is not so.

In Mark 9:43-49Jesus… (22)

That was just one of many typos that should have also been fixed between the first version and this version.

Finally, Rudel seems to ignore 2000 years of interpretation history. I don’t recall one quote from the Church Fathers.

The Ugly: None

Overall, I thought the book was interesting. Much like the author of the Forward, there were parts that I agreed with and there were parts that I didn’t agree with. But the book did challenge me. It made me think.

I give this book a solid three stars.

David Rudel’s “The Gospel You’ve Never Heard” is a challenging assault on evangelical Christianity’s modern presentation of the Gospel. The book is subtitled “What a Protestant Bible written by Jews says about God’s work through Christ” — which is a fair way of describing Rudel’s primary thesis: our understanding of the Gospel revealed through Christ in Scripture is contextual and interpretive. The front cover contains yet another subtitle: “A book for those in the church and those offended by it.” Finally, the jacket cover illustration shows a young lady with her arms folded in front of her and the phrase “Who really goes to hell?” scrawled in Sharpie across her hand. Before you even crack the cover, you have a pretty good idea of where Rudel is going.

Rudel’s primary objection to mainstream evangelical Christianity’s presentation of the Gospel is that it simply isn’t biblical. Rudel forces his readers to go rushing back to their New Testaments in an effort to validate what they’ve always believed (or been told to believe) about the Gospel. He claims that we’re guilty of reading Jesus too often through Paul, which results in an emphasis on total depravity as the hallmark of the human condition. “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,” Paul says and we adopt this as our primary identity. Rudel makes a good point here; I believe we should hear Jesus on his own terms as he announces God’s Kingdom reign.

But many of Rudel’s conclusions will challenge and even upset most readers who consider themselves to be Christians. He claims that early belief in Jesus as Messiah had nothing to do with either His death or His resurrection (p17). He also repeatedly claims that we should differentiate between Jesus’ public teachings in the Gospels and his private interactions with the disciples. Such a reading neglects the literary nature of the Gospels as communally formative documents about Christ. Are we to accept that the earliest Christians somehow discounted the narrative portions of the Synoptics that make us privy to Christ’s “extra curricular” sessions with the disciples? Are these texts not meant for our “overhearing” that we might grow as disciples, too?

Rudel seems to base a great many of his conclusions on a close reading of the Synoptic Gospels, specifically the Gospel of Mark. Rudel acknowledges this hermenuetic approach, but it is one of the shortcomings of his text. Rudel prefers to focus on the Gospel accounts in his search for the “real” Gospel — which is fine, except that he fails to give many other New Testament texts (John’s Gospel, Paul’s letters, etc.) a fair reading. In fact, very little is made of John’s Gospel, which is somewhat surprising given Rudel’s preference for Gospel over epistle. When he does turn his attention to John, his treatment of the text is poor, even lazy in places. (See his rushed discussion of John 3.16, pp.26-27.) It seems Rudel may be guilty of the same kind of interpretive construct he accuses evangelicals of propagating.

On the positive side, Rudel’s attention to detail is commendable. He also approaches this work with great respect for the authority of Scripture, something that will appeal to his audience even if they disagree with his ultimate conclusion.

Having just recently read another book with the word Gospel in the title, I have become a bit leery of people who will do so in the future. So I began reading with trepidation as to how Rudel would use the word.

Personally I define the good news as anything which sets you free to love. It is clear that in reading this book, Rudel felt it necessary to be freed from certain church doctrines of which he was previously bound. It is wonderful that the author has found more freedom to love as a result of his understanding of the Bible. Yet, one of my main concerns is that he rails against the term “evangelical” without giving it a personal definition.

As a pastor, within a denomination which considers itself Evangelical, which is nothing more than a group of people who seek to share the good news with others, allowing them to become more free to love (as Jesus’ main commandment is to love God and love your neighbour) it pains me to read his negative references to the word. The truth is that Rudel himself is being evangelical by trying to spread what he believes to be the good news.

Overall, the book is decent, though poor editing makes it difficult to read. I consider myself a pretty good reader, and this is a book I have to put down every few pages just to try and understand the many points made.

I would rate this book a 5/10.

So begins a book by David Rudel entitled, **Who REALLY Goes to Hell? The Gospel You Never Heard Preached.** Since I’m already convinced that much of what people think the Bible teaches is not biblical, I was predisposed towards learning whatever new insights his book might reveal.

Yet when Rudel begins his argument by claiming he’ll show that what Paul preached contradicted what Jesus preached, I sat up and took notice. It raised my expectations – not that I believed at the outset that he had to be wrong. I love it when someone can show me I’m wrong — I have no vested interest in maintaining false teaching only because it’s tradition.

But in my years studying both Jesus’ and Paul’s teachings, I have seen no “contradictions” — only people’s disappointingly inaccurate misreading of the Word. Wrongly interpreting either Jesus or Paul can lead to some outstandingly foolish errors.

But excited by this author’s new challenge, I hoped he would show me something new, something more than I’d ever seen previously.

Of which I was yet again disappointed.

Near the start of his book, Rudel makes an odd request. He explains that he’s 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”, saving that “closer” examination for a second perusal. Why? Rudel says, “I use over 2,700 verses and you’ll never get through the book if you stop and examine each passage.” To begin with, there’s a touch of arrogance in assuming his readers are going to read his book twice, as most readers will not. But there’s also a hint of theological sleight-of-hand in his saying, in essence, “Don’t 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 misinterpretation and misunderstandings of Scripture, it seems the reader ought instead to be encouraged to look closely at the Scriptures used in order to see that this author’s re-interpretation (or re-envisioning) of them is in fact accurate.

In a few places I rebelled and looked up his interpretation of Scriptures. Several times I discovered he’d either taken a verse out of context (giving it a meaning it didn’t really have) or gave an explanation (especially “of the Greek”) that I couldn’t find 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 which reads, “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” doesn’t refer to a chronological span of time but to its quality. Rudel apparently felt free, with that little expository tidbit, to henceforward dismiss any normal interpretation of “eternal life” and exchange it for what he defends as a truly “Jewish idea” known as 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 sources which are biased toward traditional interpretations. Which would make his argument irrefutable.

Yet what drew me to Rudel’s 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. Along the way I came across a number of lovely observations he’d 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. He 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 Jew’s need and stopping to render aid, he then became neighbor to the Jew. Absolutely lovely. And upon checking it out in Greek dictionaries and other sources, they confirmed 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.

Here’s an example of how Rudel’s 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 doesn’t include people understanding (and trusting) His work on the Cross. Give that a moment and reflect: did Jesus preach the Gospel or not? His Gospel had neither Cross nor Blood, so is He 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 reflections on “the Jewish perspective”, he has gained many excellent insights by merely asking, “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 many, modern Christians have either neglected it 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 that the Old Testament 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 they didn’t.]

Part of the challenge 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 Christ’s 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 him? Or the thief dying next to Him on the Cross that that very day they would be together in Paradise? The thief didn’t repent, showed no indication that he trusted in Jesus for salvation, and he certainly wasn’t baptized. How’d HE get into Heaven? (Or DID he?) How can Jesus say that the people who “inherit the Kingdom” are those who have “given Him” food and drink? Jesus says nothing about repentance or trusting Him or believing in His atoning work on the Cross. Giving someone a glass of water is the basis of being taken into God’s Kingdom?

The question posed in the title, “Who Really Goes to Hell?”, isn’t directly answered anywhere in the book. He briefly refers to it on p. 84 and I won’t give away his solution. Needless to say, it’s in the same section in which he demonstrates that God’s 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.

Two problems I feel are most difficult for me to resolve. (1) He goes to very great length trying to establish that there are actually two “salvations” referred to in the New Testament — deliverance and regeneration. He asserts that there can be no regeneration aside from becoming one with Jesus Christ (baptized), 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 (“by His stripes we are healed”.)

The second problem (2) is the hardest for me to resolve. Rudel displays throughout his book an 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 nullified God’s 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 to encroach on the freedom from the Law that the apostle Paul insists is ours — all the Law.

The one text I observed Rudel does not focus on seriously (at least that I could find) was Paul’s 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, 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 give up His life for on our behalf.

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 the lot that a reader who ventures into Rudel’s world will come out the other end with some degree of spiritual transformation. As Hopkins writes in the Forward, “if you love God’s Word and treasure God’s Church, this book will be an essential, albeit annoying, challenge.”

David Rudel steps into the discussion with Who Really Goes to Hell?: The Gospel You’ve Never Heard- What a Protestant Bible Written by Jews says about God’s work through Christ (A book for those in the church and those offended by it).

In the course of the book, Rudel compares modern day Evangelical teaching about what the gospel is and it’s strong focus on escaping hell with what he (of course) calls the biblical gospel or teachings of Jesus. Rudel does a terrific job asking the questions that we mostly have to ignore if we want to accept the modern Evangelical spin on the gospel- questions like, “If that’s all it is about, then why does Jesus teach things like, ‘Forgive and you will be forgiven,’ or ‘In the manner you judge so you will be judged,’ or even ‘If the gospel is all about getting people out of hell, then why did the Disciples take so long to get around to telling others outside of Judaism about it- or could the gospel have more to do with other things than merely hell or heaven for eternity?’”

Rudel certainly takes the Bible seriously, and his scripture work has been extremely thorough. Rudel was a theoretic mathematician, and it is interesting to watch him lay out his evidence and then make logical connections to bring out a more robust and holistic understanding of Christ’s entire life, rather than just his death on the cross. The connections he makes (and fresh insight he brings) to the work of the High Priest in the temple and Jesus’ work on the cross made me smack my head and say out loud “Of course!” I don’t want to give too much away, but the way he brings the teaching of Jesus and Paul together, as well as troublesome passages from the book of Hebrews (troublesome to a modern Evangelical understanding of the gospel) is, to put it simply, beautiful.

This, of course, flies in the face of at least one review I’ve read of his book, which claimed he relied on the now trite argument of “Jesus vs. Paul.” I didn’t see that at all- in fact, quite the opposite. Rudel acknowledges that seeming dichotomy, but then summarily dismantles it by showing how they really are compatible, IF we understand a Jewish perspective on things like judgment, delivery, etc.

This book was independently published, and is offered completely free as a download. So you can expect that yes, there are some editing issues or concerns with layout. Some reviewers seemingly focused on this alone- but don’t let it stop you from completing the book. It really is well thought out and well reasoned, and offers a great perspective on issues of atonement, salvation, judgment, and the gospel.

I have sent a request to the author for a potential interview, so stay tuned for that. In the meantime, check out the author’s blog: Fire in The Bones [Biblical, Heterodox Christianity].
You can also check out the website for the book, where you can download the book for free and get some awesome PDF’s (like “What Jesus Never Preached,” “Misunderstood Parables,” “The Modern Gospels Biblical Problems,” and “A Comparison of Biblical and Evangelical Christianity”)

The following is my review of Who Really Goes to Hell? by David Rudel. I’ll say up front that I did enjoy the challenge of a different perspective on this subject. This book definitely made me open my Bible and ponder some serious questions. However, although the underlying question of “Who really goes to hell?” is a good one, and worthy of discussion, I believe Rudel’s reasoning is erroneous and I warn those who desire to read this book to read it with caution.

At the core of Rudel’s message is a system of works. He interprets the emphasis of what Jesus did as having an effect in this life only, breaking the shackels of slavery to sin off of the believer by taking away the dominating power of sin. He presents the work of God in Christ as something that makes a believer stronger and more able to combat sin in this life, but not sufficient to rescue the believer from hell. Being rescued from hell, according to Rudel, is based upon obedience to Jesus’ commands. He states that a person who believes that Jesus is the Christ, who repents and who even receives the Holy Spirit, can lose their inheritance in God through disobedience.

I am not at all diminishing the importance of obedience, for I wholeheartedly believe that if a believer loves Jesus, then that believer will obey his commands (John 14:15). But I also believe 2 Corinthians 5:21, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” The question to me is, did Jesus pay for our sins or not? If indeed Jesus was made sin for us, was crucified and died, and was raised by God as victorious over sin, then what charge is against the believer who places their faith in that work? The sin is gone, paid for, and separated from the believer as far as the east is from the west (Psalm 103:12). And if that sin is gone, than I am saved from eternal damnation as much or more as I am saved from sin’s power in this temporary life.

I in no way mean to be disrespectful to Rudel, but I believe false teaching should be called as such. In my opinion, Rudel did not back up his presentation with correct interpretation of scripture. I believe Rudel’s reasoning is erroneous because it diminishes Christ and what he accomplished. It strips God of the power to save his children from his own judgement and places that power in the will of human beings. That should make any honest person very uncomfortable. I agree with the Apostle Paul when he says “What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Romans 7:24-25a) If Christ cannot save me from eternal damnation, then I am doomed. I am thankful to God that Rudel’s interpretation is wrong.

You can view his review at my site; http://www.ricknierwoo.blogspot.com

Are those who have never heard of Jesus Christ damned to eternal hell-fire and suffering? Because of my sound evangelical up-bringing, my knee-jerk response has always been, yes, of course! But where did that idea come from? What is the Scriptural basis for our belief that those who have never heard are eternally doomed?

David I. Rudel in Who Really Goes to Hell? The Gospel You’ve Never Heard: What a Protestant Bible Written by Jews Says About God’s Work Through Christ, provides a new look at what the New Testament says, and how we have read into what the New Testament says. While he seems to make a good case, I still have some reservations and am not completely convinced. Yet I am not enough of a Bible scholar to want to take Rudel on. The lingering question Rudel placed in my mind is how did we come up with the idea that all who have never heard are condemned to eternal damnation? Even though that idea has been part of defining me as an evangelical, Rudel has raised some questions in my mind. But those questions are not going to change my attitude toward those without Christ. I believe that God is love. In His love for us God sent His Son to die for us. I also believe that God wants a personal relationship with people that is possible through His Son. People who have never heard of Jesus can experience God’s love through their contact with His children such as myself. That alone should be adequate motivation for reaching out to others—including those who have never heard.

Rudel has caused me to question whether those who have never heard of Jesus are passing to their doom. I can no longer sing “They’re passing to their doom” in a spirit of joy. My joy comes from knowing that more people have heard about Jesus Christ and had an opportunity to accept His welcome into His eternal Kingdom of joy.

I personally did not enjoy this book. I thought the author’s style of writing was difficult to get into and honestly didn’t offer anything new to the “emergent or emerging” conversation. I didn’t find his arguments terribly insightful or engaging, and his view is a little lopsided.

I’m sure some people will think this book is useful to bolster or justify their ideology but it simply wasn’t for me.

What I noticed about the way Farley (Naked Gospel) goes about talking about the gospel relies heavily on Paul, and he reads Jesus through Paul. Rudel on the other hand, reads Paul through Jesus, though unfortunately I believe Rudel tries to drive a wedge between Jesus and Paul in regards to the Gospel. As one who is strongly Anabaptist I try to define the gospel through the 4 Gospels, and would much rather focus on those 4 books, but I believe it is wrong for us to say Jesus and Paul aren’t talking about the same gospel.

I believe Rudel is getting to the point that Jesus is about the kingdom of God being here and now and that Jesus came to bring about the good news which isn’t just about an end destination, but about the kingdom of God here and now and also henceforth. But I believe his arguments are badly written (either that or I was way too tired while reading the book). If I were to read a book about Jesus and the Kingdom of God, I would rather read Brian McLaren’s “Secret Message of Jesus.”

Also I found that his constant labeling of conservative Evangelicals as off-putting, even if I don’t necessarily define myself by that label. I agree with jd234512 when they say, “His approach was very critical of groups of people and he tended to make broad brush strokes in his critiques. Throughout the book he said how “evangelicals,” “conservatives,” “liberals,” and “commentators” were incorrect for various reasons. I put these in quotes because I can only assume what he means by these different words are found mostly in the COUSA(church of United States of America) and we are to blindly follow his assumptions that different viewpoints fit the whole group.”

As far as the way the book was structured, I had difficulty following his line of reasoning, whether it was the way the book was formatted, or whether I was too tired, or whether it was the weird text format (bold letters, normal letters, etc..)

All in all, I agreed with the chapters that focused on focusing on the Kingdom of God as our main priority instead of some end destination alone ala Secret Message of Jesus. But for the most part I didn’t resonate with him in much of his conclusions, which honestly I’m not even sure what they were (no hell, no judgement??? I’m not sure what he was getting at.) I agree with prolepticlife when they say, “After all is said and done the most glaring issue I have with the book is it never really answers the question posed on the cover: “Who really goes to hell?” It seems the author is proposing either a modified universalism, or a works salvation. In the book he says he rejects both, but at times that is the impression that one is left with.” I also for now won’t be recommending this book to my friends or colleagues.

Having said that, I can’t recommend the book. Not simply because I don’t agree with his conclusions, but because I find the book lacking in the depth and explanation necessary for something of this nature. In the book Rudel redefines “justification,” “salvation,” “judgment” and “atonement.” There is nothing inherently wrong with an open and thorough debate on these important subjects, but one would hope that such a radical departure would warrant a greater explanation.

I was troubled as well by the author’s use of the pronoun “it” in referring to the Holy Spirit. While he describes the Holy Spirit as one of the blessings that come to the believer, I am left wondering if he is Trinitarian in his view of God? Does he believe that the Holy Spirit is a thing and not a person? He never says, but his language suggests as much.

I get the impression that the method of writing was to just put pen to paper and write as the thoughts came. A better review and editorial process might have resulted in a better product. I did notice that the author’s web page had a link to download an updated version, but right now I don’t have time to reread this version.

After all is said and done the most glaring issue I have with the book is it never really answers the question posed on the cover: “Who really goes to hell?” It seems the author is proposing either a modified universalism, or a works salvation. In the book he says he rejects both, but at times that is the impression that one is left with.

Maybe Rudel will do a more extensive rewrite that will engage the issues he raises more fully. As for now I wouldn’t recommend this book.

Rudel brings up some great questions that have caused me a fair bit of chewing and digging deeper into these texts. My one major criticism of the book is that over and over Rudel seems to attack the “Evangelical” gospel that says if we believe in Jesus death burial and resurrection we’ll all be saved from Hell. While I believe Jesus calls us to follow His teachings mainly being saved from Hell or “Judgement”, as Rudel likes to call it, is a benefit of following Christ and believing that He is the risen Lord. Rudel however continually goes after the “Evangelical” mindset, gospel, you name it. Even though he gives a disclaimer in the beginning that He knows not all Evangelicals hold to the stereotypes he throws out there, he speaks of Evangelicals as if they are ignorant and too stubborn to change their minds about any issue.

I’m an Evangelical. I hold to some core truths about Jesus and the Gospel. I agree and disagree with some of Rudel’s points made in the book. However, after reading the book I feel more like Rudel cares so little about me and looks down on me as inferior for even lumping myself in with this category of believers. RUDE-L lives up to his name.

A big plus in the book is that Rudel uses LOADS of scripture references. This is possibly the main reason I didn’t put the book down after being textually assaulted time and time again in the first two chapters. Rudel has done his homework. The reading level is not for the faint of heart. There are times when I felt overwhelmed after reading a chapter just because there was so much to process. This is not a light read so bring your shovel because I would encourage some of your own digging along with Rudel’s proof texts.

I found the argumentation and discussion of Rudel’s perspective enticing and adventurous; having also come up with some conservative-evangelicalism of my own, I know how much of a challenge he is up against to re-frame questions as well as scripture.

Here is Rudel’s main point: Jesus doesn’t teach the “modern Gospel” of salvation by faith alone. His solution, as far as I can figure it, is to differentiate between salvation and judgment. Salvation is renewing of life available through the gift of the Holy Spirit. Judgment is an accounting at the end of time for what one has done with one’s life.

I found the book provocative but was only able to read it comfortably with an open bible along side. Most of his citations encouraged me to look at the context.

If you have ever thought the Gospel was as clear as Four Spiritual Laws, this is an excellent book for you to read and wrestle with.

The book is structured around the idea that when we read the Bible, we find a very different version of salvation than we hear coming out of the average conservative pulpit. Rudel presents this book as part of a personal journey of faith and scripture reading. Defining salvation is a key theme, especially in relation to judgment and hell. He writes the book in an attempt to rationalize a literal faith that is neither conservative or liberal, placing a high level of importance upon the words of Christ and the New Testament interpreters.

As much as this should be resonating within me, it doesn’t at all. I find Mr Rudel’s book frustrating on multiple examples.

1. There are editorial and grammatical mistakes. This is made evident on his site (more on that later) and in the front of the book noting that I hold a revision that should be correcting previous mistakes. The main frustration with this was with simple things. When Mr. Rudel is explaining his belief around “eternal” life (αἰώνιος ) his scripture reference is wrong (referring to John 17:13 instead of John 17:3). There were a few other instances of these things happening in the book.

2. I find the typesetting and the print to be distracting and confusing. This book is physically hard to read. Changing typefaces and fonts throughout kept me on my toes. While this style works great for notes (I do it sometimes) and possibly blog posts, it doesn’t translate well to book form. It is normal to use a serif font for scripture, but to combine bolding, italics, and different fonts on the same page just looks bad.

3. At times, I don’t think this book is good theology. Yes- his attempt to rethink the term heresy and heterodox is good. It recognizes how institutional oppression and the more empirical developments of theology have contributed at times to Church History and the development of doctrine. However, part of our faith is the belief that the “right” things have been passed down through time. Mr. Rudel has enough knowledge to get around Greek and Hebrew terms and other academic forms of theological work, But I think that some of his conclusions are sloppy and are not up to the form they should be for a published book.

Upon further investigation, it seems that this book is a just a few steps away from self-publishing. There isn’t a problem with this, and in some situations it is a great idea. But I think that this book could have benefited from an editor. The content of the book is good, albeit the issues raised above. There is to much content in the work. At times, I found myself seriously agreeing with the questions raised, but I was consistently disappointed in how answers were given and rational proof was made. It seems as though the work could be held as a great example not of “post”, but instead of “hyper-modernity”.

I do respect Mr. Rudel and his mathematic vocation, especially how it has lead to a very thorough survey of the New Testament, but I think the mystery of sacred text has been taken out. I agree with many things he is trying to say, but other issues keep raising their head. It just seems amateur. This could be a good book, but it would take several volumes and some contribution from someone trained in theology to translate some of the content. I think in the enthusiasm to share what are great discoveries and a journey that many of us have been on, the gun was jumped.

Having said that, I found that I did not agree with Rudel’s answers. I won’t give away the punch line by going into his conclusions. I will say that if you are satisfied with modern evangelical theology you will find Rudel’s hermeneutical methods strange and probably disconcerting. I come from the other end of the spectrum (I’m more of a liberal) so I found his efforts intriguing but ultimately felt that he was forced to conclude with the answers he did due to an adherence to the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture and a desire to make the Scriptures, particularly the very different salvation messages of Jesus and Paul, mesh.

One thing that I really agree with is Rudel’s point that modern evangelicalism does not depict Christ in a biblical enough way that rejecting their version of the gospel is equal to rejecting Christ. He asks, “How accurate a gospel do you have to reject before it counts as rejecting Christ? … If I’m correct and Christians today are not proclaiming an accurate gospel, is anyone really rejecting it? … Christian are representatives of Christ. If our lack of love towards others, our pitiful record at modeling Christ, or a history rife with hypocrisy and corruption in the church cause people to reject Christ, .. they were not shown Christ [at all], so how could they reject Him?” (page 81).

Finally, let me say that Rudel has caused me to go back and re-read the Gospel of Mark. When we compare that early gospel to American cultural Christianity, the difference is amazingly evident.

When reading through Who Really Goes to Hell, by David I. Rudel, it struck me as I was reading just how much of my beliefs on death, and what comes next has remained unprocessed and uninteresting to me. Truth be told, I like many others in my generation, have allowed my own mortality to conveniently slip past the frontal cortex and reside primarily in my hypothalamus – good for when a bus cuts in front of me as I’m biking down Milwaukee Ave.

But Rudel forces me with great persistence that life and death do matter. In fact, they garner within them the very meaning of life itself, and what happens to us after death has everything to do with how we live while we’re still sucking wind.

Rudel takes a critical look at the Evangelical view of salvation and judgment. He presumes a conservative stance on the bible in that he sees it as holding truth in its words (not just allegory) and wants to unpack for Evangelicals their tidy notions of the afterlife. And you know what? He does a fabulous job.

Salvation has remained a murky vocab word for most evangelicals – mostly referring to the afterlife and making it through the Final Judgment and into Heaven. Rudel proposes that Jesus and Paul emphasized two different understandings of salvation: Jesus focusing mostly on salvation as “deliverance” and Paul seeing salvation as mostly an “indwelling of the Spirit.” In addition, Rudel scandalously makes the claim that it is possible for Jesus to be “the Way, the Truth and the Life” and yet find many who are not Christians as citizens of the New Jerusalem in the age to come. This is because Jesus also said, “Anyone who does the will of my Father is my mother, sister or brother…” Not only this, but look through the Bible and you find examples of folks not a part of God’s covenant linked up with God’s favor, even his forgiveness of sins. (Naaman in 2 Kings 5 being one example.)

All this goes to show that no one can fit God in a box – not even God! Jesus is the Way, the only Way to God – any yet those who never heard the Gospel and yet do from their hearts things to the core of God’s heart, they “make a Law unto themselves” (Rom 2). And what more, the Gospel was preached by the disciples BEFORE the death, burial and resurrection of their rabbi Jesus! What did they say? We know it focused on (1) repentance – a commitment to a radically different way of living and (2) that a strange and compelling Kingdom was near.

Page 100 of Rudel’s book was particularly intriguing to me, as it drew out a chart of all the sermons preached in Acts. In the sermons there are various reoccurring themes and concepts, but “believers go to heaven,” and “others go to hell” (two core concepts for evangelical eschatology,) were not in the chart at ALL! What’s going on here? What Acts does say is that Jesus will judge ALL. “Jesus chooses citizens for the New Jerusalem whose histories demonstrate that they will contribute to its purpose. All others are left outside the gate (in hell.) (Titus 2:14)”

Rudel makes the case that substitutionary atonement and propitiation are not the CORE doctrines of the Bible. God’s covenant with Abraham and subsequently with Israel and ultimately with ALL nations is the central thrust of the Biblical Narrative – this is the “mission of God.” Many modern Christians take Jesus death too individually, making the act all about their personal ticket into Heaven. Jesus’ death was about more than atonement (truly, God had no wrath that needed satisfying) it was also about obedience to God’s will, love for the world, perseverance to live out the life he was called to, and faith that God’s story would continue. In Christ, God replays the Exodus story, even giving the Spirit to the Church, just as God gave the law – exactly 50 days after Christ’s ascension (“Exodus”) from earth.

Rudel finishes by hinting that Jesus will reconcile the WHOLE WORLD through himself. This explains much of the High Priestly prayer in John, as well as verses like 1 Timothy 4:10 “He is the Savior to all men, especially those who believe.” There is a complete salvation that awaits those who believe and have faith in Christ, but the real salvation comes from living into that salvation through acts of charity, in living out the Sermon on the Mount, and experiencing John 12:25: giving up your life in order to find true life!

Folks unaccustomed to a mathematician dolling out theology should beware – but honestly, there is more compound theology than fractions. The writing felt at times choppy and gave the sense that he was building up for one big argument that never really found its voice. The build-up however turned out to have some great morsels in it! I’m hoping he’ll continue to write and give us more deep thinking on this subject. It’s a matter of life and death.