Another Reader’s Story

Often I receive emails from readers who have stumbled across “my story.” Most of them thank me for taking the time to share as they have gone through similar circumstances and are helped by my own experience. Sometimes these emails or Facebook messages include a detailed story from the reader — of their own journey with respect to fundamentalism. I have shared a few reader’s stories so far, and now have another story to add to the mix.

I have made some slight edits and changed some of the details to protect this reader’s privacy, but she is a real person sharing her thoughts and questions about fundamentalism.

Hello, Bob. I ran across your blog on the internet again, from when I first saw it, 2 yrs ago. 🙂 You took my thoughts and words right out of my mind and heart as I read your Story.

I’ll put this as short as I can. We ended up moving to the deep south in 92. We were invited to an IFB revival meeting week. My husband gets saved, and we are for the next 7 yrs immersed in an IFB church and culture and all that you describe. As a wife and mother, the church ladies made legalism, dress code, and etc. look very holy and right.

7 yrs later, we move to a rural Westerm state where there was no IFB church at all in a 50+ mile range. So we took a daring step to attend a local Bible church. Boy were our eyes and hearts opened to our once KJV-only, strict ideals of a Godly life! We were opened up to a world of other Christians (imagine that!), who were not hindered by all the IFB oddities. We saw for the first time in 7 years what real grace, love and joy in the Lord looks like! We realized we can sing praise and worship songs and hymns in the same service and still be OK!!

Move forward about 14 more years. We are still out west and about 2 yrs ago now, we move closer to larger town. This time we tried to go back to an IFB church and drove 45 miles to attend one in a larger town. 10 months later we realized we aren’t as IFB as we use to be! God had opened our eyes, grew our hearts and we then saw how actually depressing, small minded and small world this IFB church is.

We now attend for the last 2 years a non-denominational community church where God is passionately preached and worship is so real that it just brings tears of joy to my eyes! 🙂 The people are very kind, loving, REAL, and have a zeal for life we’ve not really seen in most IFB churches we attended.

My question is… is this normal to swing so far away from the IFB ways? Are there more ex-IFB attenders seeing what I’m seeing and you have seen? I feel we are all saved by grace, and we’re just filthy rags in God’s eyes, but through His grace and love we are HIS, and I no longer feel pressured to have more children because that’s what other IFB ladies do. Or pressured to wear skirts all the time, etc…. I think you get the picture.

We are pondering going to a revival in the IFB church we left on good standing, but that now has a new pastor. The evangelist is ——— ———–. We would like to attend because we sometimes miss that “good old fashioned” preaching like when my husband got saved. Do you know of this evangelist? Is he a moderate IFB or from the “I will not be moved at all” type? LOL

Also I might add, expository style preaching, verse by verse is where it’s at!! Our pastor we have now is awesome. We don’t miss the topical style preaching. I’ve always felt it was lacking a good Bible base, and has too much of pastor talk or shout.

Well, thanks for your input, like I said, you took the words out of my mouth! I do sometimes feel guilty for us moving on to a non-denominational church, but God is putting peace in me as the years go by.

Peace and God bless!

Part of my reply to her was:

Hi ——.

Thanks for your note. You are not alone. So many have traveled the same road and learned the same truth. Not all IFB churches are bad, but so many just miss out on a wider world of God’s grace and goodness. That isn’t to say there aren’t problem churches that aren’t IFB. Not just anything goes, mind you. But there are so many sincere, godly churches that just don’t do church by IFB rules.

I haven’t heard of Evangelist ——— …. There can be good preaching, but so much is shallow and emotional. And IFB churches are so focused now (more than ever) on keeping people in the fold. As long as you know what you’re getting into, it wouldn’t hurt to attend one night. But that is up to you and your husband and how God directs you.

Enjoy the freedom in Christ. I loved your story. From time to time, I like to share stories like this on my blog with personal names and details removed. If you were interested in letting me share it, I would. But I never do so without permission. I’ve had literally hundreds contact me and thank me for what I’m doing or share part of their story like you did – so know that you are not alone.

Either way, God bless you and yours. Glad you stumbled across my blog.

In Christ,

Bob Hayton
FundamentallyReformed.com

She replied, giving me permission to share this with my readers. Here is part of her reply.

Thanks for writing back so quick. You are welcome to post my story — it is the shortened version. 🙂

I do believe it took the straightforward, hard evangelist-style preaching to get my husband’s attention, short of a tallking donkey. 🙂 Tthe IFB church was his first real introduction to church, so it is near and dear to his heart….

3 of our 5 kids have prayed with Dad to accept Christ as their Savior. The 2 youngest are too young to understand, but they will not know the stressful lifestyle of the IFB church upbringing. Instead they will learn how to have a life in Christ full of grace and a good biblical world view.

Have a great day~

Free eBooks from R.C. Sproul

Crucial Questions eBooks from R.C. Sproul - now free
R.C. Sproul has authored a series of short books answering important questions that almost everyone has asked at one time or another. Now Ligonier Ministries, has made these books available for free as ebook downloads (Kindle or iTunes formats).

I just wanted to pass along this news to my readers who may be looking for helpful resources for new Christians, and anyone longing to grow in grace. Here’s the list of books available. Go to Ligonier.org for more information.

  • Can I Be Sure I’m Saved?
  • Can I Have Joy in My Life?
  • Can I Know God’s Will?
  • Can I Trust the Bible?
  • Does God Control Everything?
  • Does Prayer Change Things?
  • How Should I Live in this World?
  • What Can I Do with My Guilt?
  • What Does It Mean to be Born Again?
  • What Is Baptism?
  • What Is Faith?
  • What Is the Trinity?
  • Who Is Jesus?
  • Who Is the Holy Spirit?

Clarifying My Thoughts on Music

My most recent post on music has a provocative title: “Superior Affections Yet a Christ-less Conception of Worship.” And someone over at Sharper Iron sought clarification (in the comment thread here) as to whether I was really implying that a traditional stance on music is inherently legalistic.

I wanted to share my clarification here for my readers’ benefit.

Clarification

I quoted Bixby for the “Christ-less” remark in my post. I do think discussing the music issue and having ordinate affections and all, would be healthy for evangelicalism as a whole. The criticism is valid that often there is not much thought given to where we are with music and worship.

That being said, there is a danger to have such an emphasis on form that it obscures the gospel. I do think that is a danger as well.

Berating people and badgering people into having a certain music style is not healthy. Bixby was saying as much. Is RAM doing that, or some RAM type people? I am not sure. But that is not healthy if/when it occurs.

Additionally, having pride in our worship or thinking we are superior because of it would be a gospel problem. Legalism is in the heart so this is a danger that can exist. Maligning others and impugning them with ill motives, which is how the public statements often sound from RAM / traditional music emphasizing fundamentalists when they speak of those who use the other music. It goes back to Chuck Phelps’ letter and the anonymous hit piece on NIU that RAM posted. Those are examples of judging motives and assuming the worst of those who utilize contemporary styled music in worship.

To quote from my post which was referring to Bixby’s:

If you have preferred traditional music, his post will help you examine your own heart. It will also show how this stance toward the worship wars can so easily turn into a pharisaicalism that looks down on others and in turn, becomes an empty shell of externally focused religion.

The point is that one can have what is considered “superior affections” and yet have a Christ-less conception of worship – a legalistic attitude. I am not claiming that RAM has this. I think Bixby brings out some good points and may overstate his case some, but in my experience it is usually the followers who take what someone says and run with it to an extreme. So I bet there are real examples behind the excesses Bixby chronicles and denounces in his post.

Hopefully that explains things. Discussing the role of affections and the role of music can be a healthy thing for the evangelical church. Often people just assume and do, rather than carefully consider. The careful considering I have done on the issue has made me a better worshiper and I think a greater influence in evangelicalism by fundamentalists in general – on lots of things, would be a good thing.

Then some follow up questions were asked and I thought I’d share my response to those here as well. I don’t want to be misunderstood and this is an important conversation – even if it is difficult not to talk past one another and be misunderstood in our zeal for our particular musical position.

Are you saying that if you have a “standard” for worship action (never mind whose for a minute), you are maintaining a “legalistic” and “Christ-less” concept of worship? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but it seems like that’s where you are going.

I am not saying a “standard” makes one legalistic. A standard can be so exalted and gloried in that we rejoice that we aren’t like the publican who doesn’t adopt our standard. That is when it becomes legalistic. How one lifts up and rallies around and promotes the said standard can go a long way to promoting or encouraging the legalistic response to it. But just having a standard or drawing a line at some point, doesn’t mean that legalism will be the inevitable result.

However, wouldn’t you have to say, whether you have thought through it or not, that you have some “standard” of worship, even among those who are trying to have Christian worship; where in your conscience you say “this can be used to bring honor to God”, or “this doesn’t honor the Lord”, or “it doesn’t do anything for me” or however you want to say it.

Yes there is a standard, I would think, at our church. The line isn’t extremely clear but pastoral direction would be given and has been given in shaping the musical philosophy at our church and others I’ve been to in the past.

How do you think a less conservative standard of worship affects the unsaved? Those who have been saved out of a background of extreme love of the world and sin?

Our worship isn’t about the unsaved. I hope they would encounter a reverence and exultation in Jesus when they see our worship however. As for those saved out of a background of “extreme” love of the world and sin? Our worship is so different from what they are used to when it comes to sensual lyrics, sensual musical performance, stage lights, etc., that I don’t think there is a strong enough correlation in their mind.

Today, if you go to the dentist, go to a shopping mall, eat at Wendys, attend a ball game, go to a bowling alley, pop music and a syncopated beat is everywhere. It is the air we breathe. And for that reason, I contend, that it has become just a normal part of the culture. Heavily sensual beat, gyrating dance, intense and very loud music – that is part of the club scene and has characteristics quite different from what you hear in the doctor’s waiting room.

All of that means is that the average Joe who comes to hear our syncopated worship songs, won’t think anything inherently strange or sinful is happening. It is the music expression he is used to – his language. The lyrics and God-ward direction from the worship leader(s) will be what is new, and powerful, and attractive. And he’ll also encounter older hymns, and choral pieces that are different to his average experience that also communicate the depth of church history and the grandeur of worshiping a holy God.

What if someone in your worship team wants to perform secular music in secular venues as well?

Certain kinds of secular music don’t necessarily have to be seen as immoral. But it would depend on the type, the context, etc. It hasn’t come up in churches I’m aware of, or a part of. But consideration would be given for sure. Do we have to have a rule book which says you can’t do X, Y and Z outside of Sunday’s serivce and Saturday’s practice times, in order to be a faithful church? How about we disciple people and respond in biblical wisdom to situations as they arise?

Feel free to jump into the conversation in the comments below, or over at Sharper Iron.

Superior Affections Yet a Christ-less Conception of Worship

There are a variety of reasons for the “worship wars,” as they are called. And for fundamentalist Christians, most of the arguments center on the worldliness or immorality of the very musical instrumentation itself — the contemporary, beat-driven sound that makes up CCM. Growing up, I was trained to recognize a strong beat in musical accompaniment and to envision that anyone singing to such music was worldly. As I started thinking through the subject in more detail, I wanted to find a Biblical argument for my stance against pop musical styles. And Frank Garlock and David Cloud had to suffice. Even then, I could see the arguments were quite weak, so most of the rationale had to depend on an analysis of the psychological affect of rock music on people and of all things, potted plants. Yes, plants!

Well, after I walked away from strict fundamentalism and re-evaluated my position on cultural matters in light of an open-minded examination of the Bible, I came to embrace contemporary worship and I was then able to really enjoy worshiping God in music to a whole new degree. I encountered deep, Christ-exalting lyrics (more meaningful to me than some of the shallow and almost trite hymns we sang growing up). And the music resonated with me – it moved me. It was like speaking in the language of my own culture — which I had been trained to deny and put down, but that really was a part of who I was. I was able to express myself in worship, to lift up my soul and exult in new, powerful ways. And I have since come to really appreciate the contemporary worship song for all its worth.

Don’t get me wrong. I still value the old hymns, and I value traditional music as well. I sing in choirs and enjoy harmony and special numbers. I also don’t enjoy any new song, indiscriminately. There is a lot of shallow music without much doctrinal depth out there, for sure. But there are some great songs which bridge the gap between traditional and contemporary. I have written, years ago now, on the Modern Hymn movement. UPDATE: USA Today just did a piece on the Gettys who I also feature in the article linked above. And I still enjoy a balanced worship approach that seeks to unite styles and generations, as well as ethnic affinities, together into a blended, unified, corporate celebration of worship. And I appreciate John Piper’s emphasis on gravity alongside our gladness in worship too.

Now, to the point of my post, after having come to where I am now on worship, I became aware of a newer position on music in fundamentalism. This position eschewed some of the more Gospel-ish hymns, and didn’t take to the sentimental songs that were written in the late 1800s and early 1900s. They took to more doctrinal-centered, high sounding hymns. And they also stressed “religious affections” — an approach which majored on appropriate feeling in worship, and stressed that God desired the best aesthetics in music. I didn’t get sucked into that movement, although it did seem appealing and intellectual. But it didn’t sit well, especially when it was not Scripture that was judging between various music forms but research and supposed universal aesthetic principles.

I say this to encourage anyone who is following me here, to go read Bob Bixby’s recent post pointing out some grave errors in this “religious affections” approach to music. This approach stresses that there is a right way of feeling, and that how you sing and what you sing in church, reveals if you are having right feelings toward God. It sounds right, but it isn’t. Of this movement, Bixby notes:

They’re separatists by condescension. They don’t practice separation; they practice superiority. And that separates them….

Theirs is a Christ-less conception of worship. It’s Gospel-free. It’s enraptured by form. It’s old-school fundamentalism. And it has little to do with the religious affections that Jonathan Edwards wrote about.

Bixby’s piece is worth reading if you have ever tended toward frowning on contemporary worship styles. If you have preferred traditional music, his post will help you examine your own heart. It will also show how this stance toward the worship wars can so easily turn into a pharisaicalism that looks down on others and in turn, becomes an empty shell of externally focused religion.

I have to quote one more bit from Bixby’s post before encouraging you to read the whole thing.

Consider the God-ward, God-glorifying form of the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14. “I thank thee God that I am not like that poor Chris Tomlin singer over there who shuts his eyes and lifts up his hands with the pitiful, artless, crude hip-swaying style of corrupted orthopathy.” Ah, yes! The feelings of thankfulness were genuine in the Pharisee. He had, in fact, religious affections of sincere gratitude that God — indeed, he credited God! — had not made him as that poor loser in the corner, crying out to God with bad poise, seemingly unconscious of God’s glorious transcendence and preference for hymns. No one had more concern about form worthy of God than the Pharisee. No one.

Now if you really want more after reading Bixby, you could try to wade through this old post in my archives, with its 50 plus pages of debate on the subject of the morality of music! But you probably have better things to do!

“A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New” by G. K. Beale

A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New by G.K. BealeBook Details:
  • Editor: Gregory K. Beale
  • Category: Biblical Theology
  • Publisher: Baker Academic (2011)
  • Format: hardcover
  • Page Count: 1072
  • ISBN#: 9780801026973
  • List Price: $54.99
  • Rating: Must Read

Review:
Christians today are blessed with a wide variety of resources for studying the Bible. In America, it seems that every few months some must-read theology book hits the press and promises to revolutionize our understanding of God’s Word. And many of these books truly are helpful. We really have no excuse for not understanding Scripture more and being more conformed into the likeness of Christ, given the endless resources meant to help us do just this.

At the same time, however, this abundance of resources can serve to puzzle us and leave us lost in an ever expanding maze of theological conundrums. The specialization in biblical studies doesn’t help. Specialists write on the Gospels, or on Paul’s letters, to the virtual exclusion of the input from other New Testament, or Old Testament books. OT specialists develop their understanding and grow in their study completely apart from their NT counterparts. And with the study of God’s Word being so cranial, simple insights and the role of the Holy Spirit’s illumination tend to be ignored. And then today’s scholars often ignore the insights of previous generations, who found Christ throughout the Old Testament, but weren’t versed in the latest scientific insights from form and redaction criticism or literary theory. Many have seen this widening gap, between academia and the church pew, and yearned for scholarship that matters: academic insight for average individuals. And some have hoped for a whole-Bible, biblical theology that would span the differing worlds of OT and NT scholarship and put the entire Bible back together again.

G. K. Beale may have given us just this. His magnum opus is an ambitious project that seeks to integrate the storylines of the Old and New Testaments, and unfold how the New Testament unpacks the promise of the Old as it unfolds for us the glories of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New, Beale displays a masterful grasp on the academy as well as an expert understanding of the second temple Judaistic literature, Ancient Near Eastern writings, and the latest scholarship on both biblical testaments. He is a humble servant of the church, however, and seeks to answer questions the average churchgoer will face and remains ever practical even as he explores a wide array of various topics. And while his book requires careful and (at times) strenuous reading, it truly integrates the entire canon of Scripture in a way that has promise to bring together Old and New Testament scholarship for the service of the church.

The Storyline of the New Testament

The task Beale sets out for himself is huge, and his book is too. With over 960 readable pages, this book will take the average reader some time to conquer. It took me about a year to wade my way through it, although admittedly I tend to be a fickle reader and so left the book for seasons at a time. Beale sets out to explore the unifying center of the New Testament and finds this in a storyline. Each part of the following storyline gets developed in detail and by the end of the book he has adequately proven his thesis. Here is Beale’s NT storyline:

Jesus’s life, trials, death for sinners, and especially resurrection by the Spirit have launched the fulfillment of the eschatological already-not yet new-creational reign, bestowed by grace through faith and resulting in worldwide commission to the faithful to advance this new-creational reign and resulting in judgment for the unbelieving, unto the triune God’s glory. (p. 958, italics and underlining removed)

Recapping the Old Testament

One of my favorite sections in Beale’s work was his few chapters spent detailing the Old Testament’s own storyline. He uses the first three chapters of Genesis as a key for unlocking the story of the entire Old Testament. Adam was to be a vice-regent of God, extending His rule throughout the world. But Adam failed, and was exiled from the Edenic paradise of fellowship with God in a garden-temple. From this wilderness, God called out his people Israel, referred to as God’s firstborn son, and they received an Adamic calling to be vice-regents of God extending the glory of His name as a beacon of light to the nations, centered in their garden-like promised land of paradise – where God would have His name dwell. But they too failed, and were exiled from their special place of fellowship with God. For those unfamiliar with Beale’s extensive work on developing the theme of the Temple throughout the Scripture (cf. Beale’s The Temple and the Church’s Mission, IVP 2004), it is touched on in this section and more fully developed later as Beale turns to the New Testament.

The Role of Eschatology

Beale’s emphasis on the already-not yet, new-creational kingdom, has led many to dismiss his book as one long extensive defense of amillennialism. I would contend that such a dismissal is short-sighted and a biased misreading of his work. His eschatology doesn’t neatly fit into any one theological system, and he prefers the description “inaugurated eschatology.” His discussion of the key terms for “the end times” in both the Old and New Testaments goes a long way toward proving his contention that “in order to understand the NT in its full richness, we must have a keen acquaintance with how the biblical authors viewed the ‘end times'” (p. 16). He argues that the New Testament sees the end times as here in one sense, but not yet fully here. And that the entire New Testament cannot be understood apart from realizing the role eschatology plays. The NT authors understand themselves to be living in the last days, in the beginning fulfillment of what the Old Testament foretold.

New-Creation and Kingdom

Perhaps Beale’s most distinctive contribution to NT biblical theology is his emphasis on the role new-creation plays both in how one understands the kingdom, and in how one understands everything from justification to judgment in the New Testament. Christ’s resurrection was the promise and presence of the new creation, invading our world of space and time. The uncreating of evil has begun, and the recreation of a new world has commenced – and our very spiritual lives with the progress we make in sanctification, is part of God’s making all things new (2 Cor. 5:17, Rev. 21:5).

The Church as End-Time Israel

This is where many people will stumble over Beale’s approach. Some will point to his embrace of the Sabbath and paedo-baptism as errors flowing from his fundamental misunderstanding of the distinction between Israel and the church. I would ask those who will differ fundamentally here to take time to read Beale as there is still much to be gained from his work. But I am convinced his unpacking of the biblical development of the church as end-time Israel is worth the price of the book. He continues his approach of reading Scripture from a grammatical, historical approach – treating the books as the original recipients would have, understanding the genre and tracing out the history of intertestamental biblical interpretation (as an insight into possible ways the NT authors would have understood OT Scripture), and methodically builds an air-tight case for the NT as presenting the church as the heir of the promises made to OT Israel. At this point, I’d like to take some extra time to restate his case for the sake of my readers. And to be clear, Beale is not claiming the church replaces Israel, but that it actually is “the transformed and restored eschatalogical Israel,” being made up of Jew and gentile believers, alike.

Beale finds a “presuppositional basis” for the church being true Israel in some of the hermeneutical presuppositions he claims underlie the exegetical approach of the NT authors. Chief among these is the concept of “the one and the many.” In the OT we often find kings, prophets, or family heads representing their families, or nations who will receive blessing or judgment because of the actions of the “one” representing “the many.” Rom. 5 and 1 Cor. 15 make a similar argument with Christ and Adam. Secondly, Jesus is presented in Scripture as “the true Israel.” And He thus represents the church. Beale elaborates:

Those who identify by faith with Christ, whether Jew or gentile, become identified with him and his identity as true eschatological Israel…. people are identified by faith with Jesus as God’s Son, and so they become “adopted sons of God.” …people become identified by faith with Christ as being in the eschatological image of God, so they begin to regain that image. (p. 652)

And since Israel was a corporate Adam — God’s firstborn — living in its own “garden of Eden,” tasked to do what Adam had failed to do, it follows that Christ as the Second Adam, actually fulfilled what both Adam and Israel was meant to do. Christ as such, is the New Israel – and Beale shows how numerous themes in the New Testament attest to this fact. Then Beale shows how repeatedly throughout the Old Testament, Gentiles were included in Israel and her mission — and now with Christ’s bringing the end-times upon us, the identifying marks required to be a part of Israel of old (circumcision) have been replaced by that of spiritual circumcision and spiritual unity of Christ — who is the head of the church. Beale points out that it is thus the “legal representative” or “corporate” hermeneutic which under-girds this identification of the church as true Israel, rather than an “allegorical or spiritualizing hermeneutic” (p. 655). What Beale then goes on to systematically demonstrate, is that the Old Testament prophecies that Gentiles will become part of the Latter-Day True Israel, using such passages as Is. 49, Ps. 87, Is. 19, Is. 56, Is. 66 and others. Then he shows how the New Testament repeatedly claims that it is in the church that specific prophesies about the restoration of Latter-Day Israel are coming to pass. I appreciate also how he delineates the variety of specific names and descriptors of Israel from the Old Testament are applied to the church – and with so many OT descriptors of Israel given to the church, it is not surprising to see the actual term Israel bestowed on it as well, in Gal. 6:17.

With the land promise, Beale once again unpacks how the Old Testament itself leads us to expect that the land is typological, pointing to a greater reality, and that it will become greatly expanded and universalized. And the New Testament shows us just this, as it also brings the church in to the recipients of that very promise (see Rom. 4:13, Matt. 5:5 and others).

Additional Themes

Beale’s work covers a host of additional themes my review cannot cover in detail. He highlights how the expected tribulation of Israel was being experienced by the New Testament church, and still is in most parts of the world today. He gives space to the new-creational marks of the church such as Sabbath observance (although his view on this finds it radically altered through Christ’s work), worship, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, church office and the NT Canon. He looks at the work of the Spirit as part of the inaugurated end-time new creation as a chief theme in the NT story. He also gives space to the Temple and to idolatry and the image of God being restored. He also explores questions such as how much the Old Testament saints would have enjoyed this same experience we do in the NT. And he concludes his book focusing on the glory of God as the purpose for the very storyline itself.

Evaluation

I was told that you don’t pick up a book like this and read through it. You just use it as a resource. And for many that is going to be how they will encounter Beale’s work. Thankfully, it is organized in a very clear way with helpful indexes and a detailed table of contents that is sure to help such a reader. Those who want a taste of Beale’s work could read the first few chapters, and chapter 27 – which recaps the entire work giving each theme a brief yet fairly detailed overview. Others might find it more useful to read through Beale’s section on resurrection or justification, or the question of Israel and the church as they study that topic out further. The footnotes will point you to other important discussions in the book so that you won’t miss something you need in getting Beale’s take on a given subject.

I differ with Beale on a few matters, most notably baptism, but I found the exercise of plodding my way through his work to be immensely helpful. My copy of the book has numerous notes, underlines, and countless dog-eared pages. I have already turned back to parts of this book for the second or even third time now, and know I’ll be returning to this book for many more years in the future. This truly is a monumental work, and one that even a layman like me can appreciate. Granted, I have had some theological training, and at times this book does go deep. But for the most part, Beale’s work is accessible and has takeaways that pastors and teachers as well as students, will benefit from. More importantly, Beale helps one find a compass through the maze of the two testaments of Scripture. And his work is detailed enough to stand the test of time. It carefully explains how the New Testament authors arrived at the conclusions they did, and follows their thoughts after them, reading the Old Testament in a careful and ultimately Christ-centered way. I encourage you to find some space on your shelf for Beale’s A NT Biblical Theology. Dip your toe in, get wet, then take the plunge and bask in the beauty of a fully developed Biblical Theology. You won’t regret it.

Author Info:
G. K. Belae (PhD, University of Cambridge) is professor of New Testament and biblical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He is the coeditor of the Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament and the author of numerous books, including the Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament and commentaries on Revelation and 1 and 2 Thessalonians.

Where to Buy:
  • Westminster Bookstore
  • Christianbook.com
  • Amazon
  • direct from Baker Academic