Tag: eschatology

“The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John” by Larry Helyer

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

Author: Larry Helyer
Publisher: IVP
Format: Hardcover
Pages: 432
ISBN: 9780830828883
Stars: 4 of 5

When I received The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John: An Exploration in Biblical Theology by Larry Helyer, I noticed the book looked like a college or seminary text book. After reading it, I feel like I have earned some college credits!

The book is eminently suited for a text book, because it is really a course on a Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Helyer opens the book with a question that looms large in New Testament studies today: Is the New Testament unified in its message? It is common for liberal or modern NT scholars to claim Paul’s theology is opposed to Christ’s, and John’s concerns were opposed to Matthew’s. In response to this problem, Larry Helyer sets out to trace the theology of Jesus, Paul and John as found in the New Testament. Then he compares each of their emphases and puts the question to rest, in my opinion. There are different emphases but the basic message of these three primary movers in the NT remains largely the same.

Along the way, Helyer explains exactly what Biblical Theology (BT) is, and he describes the problem of the overall unity of the Bible by tracing a history of theology from the time of the Apostles to today. He then moves on to discuss the two basic evangelical systems of BT, Covenant Theology (CT) and Dispensationalism. His chapter defining BT helpfully discusses how the canon shapes our BT, and provides a helpful method for doing BT. His historical sketch of how the Christian church has dealt with the unity of the Bible opened my eyes to some of the big players in Biblical scholarship of the last couple hundred years. He explained the influence of Bultman, Von Rad, Robinson and others, with particular stress on the development of BT. In his discussion of CT and dispensationalism, I was helped by his comparison of the growth and development within CT with the rise of progressive dispensationalism. He doesn’t come and spell out his overall conviction in the matter, but takes care to follow the clear theological teaching of Scripture. From what I can tell he ends up more in line with the progressive dispensational or revised CT perspective.

The bulk of the book is his examination of the theology of Jesus (as seen in the Synoptic Gospels), Paul and John. This examination is strengthened by Helyer’s familiarity with 2nd temple Judaism and the similarities and differences such Jewish thought has with the New Testament. Helyer also explains the theological development of various key terms as he goes along. He is abreast of the points of controversy, and he navigates them with care.

In his section on the Gospels, I found his discussion of the Kingdom extremely helpful, especially with regard to working out how the Testaments are unified. He compares the different phrases “kingdom of God” , “kingdom of Heaven” , etc. and convincingly demonstrates they are synonymous. The kingdom is explained in terms of inaugurated eschatology, and Jesus’ use of the kingdom is shown as both similar and different from the Judaism of his day.

Helyer’s discussion of Paul begins by explaining that we only have insights into Pauline theology extracted from his overall thought. Paul’s letters are occasional documents, addressed to a specific church in a specific situation. After discussing the question of a center of Pauline theology, he handles the matter of justification and the new Pauline perspective quite well. He is careful to appreciate the new insights into Pauline thought, yet with his familiarity with 2nd temple Judaism he explains why he thinks the NPP goes to far in overturning Reformation thought. His discussion of Paul’s view of the Law was masterful, even though he took just a couple short pages to survey Paul’s view of the relationship of the believer and the law of Moses. He explains that while Jews are “under the law” , the Christian is “not under law” . The law has run its course in redemptive history. The Spirit, now, is the “moral governor of the Christian life” . “For Paul, the new covenant operates under a new law, the law of Christ, the law of love, which, while embodying underlying moral principles of the old Mosaic legislation, should not be strictly identified with it.” (pg. 266-268).

In detailing John’s portrayal of Christ’s person and work, Helyer takes pains to explain John is countering a proto-Gnostic error. There is a polemical thrust behind John’s presentation of Christ. On the question of John’s use of the term “Logos” , Helyer explains that the term has as much of an OT and 2nd temple Judaistic background as it has roots in Greek thought. In examining John’s writings, the emphasis on eschatology goes up a notch, of course. Yet an already, but not yet view of the kingdom is still inherent in John’s thought. Helyer’s treatment of Revelation was excellent. I especially liked his chiastic outline of the book (from pg. 353):

    A.  The Inaugural Vision: The Risen and Reigning Christ (ch. 1)
        B.  Messages to the Seven Churches: The Church Militant (chs. 2-3): What is the
          present prospect and promise for the church?
            C.  Vision of the Throne Room (chs. 4-5): Who is in charge?
                D.  Visions of the War for the Throne (chs. 6-16): The Wrath of the Lamb
                    1.  Seven Seals
                    2.  Seven Trumpets
                    3.  Seven Bowls
            C’.  Vision of Babylon the Great (chs. 17-18): Who will lose charge?
        B’.  Vision of the King and His Kingdom: The Church Triumphant (chs. 19-21):
          What is the future prospect and fulfillment for the church?
    A’.  The Final Vision: The Returning and Rewarding Christ (ch. 22)

His discussion of Rev. 20, also almost pushed me back into historic premillennialism. His exegetical treatment was clear and forceful. It forces me to go back and study that passage again in more depth.

At the end of the book, Helyer ties up the various strands of theology that Jesus (the Synoptics), John and Paul have been developing. Within the overarching and unifying theme of the Kingdom, Helyer finds a great degree of unity in this NT witness. Helyer is right to conclude by the end of his book that “enough… has been said to counteract the lopsided insistence that diversity and contradiction drown out any meaningful sense of unity and harmony.”

After sitting through Helyer’s “class” , I have a greater understanding of NT theology, and biblical theology in general. If you pick up the book, you will be glad you entered his course as well.

Disclaimer: this book was provided by the publisher for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to provide a positive review.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com or direct from IVP.

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Unity across Eschatological Positions

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

We’ve been discussing whether eschatological positions should hinder our unity in a local church, or beyond. Mark Dever recently challenged pastors to not let this hinder unity, even calling doctrinal statements that detail a specific millennial position, sinful.

In light of all this, I was struck when I read the following words from Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones in a book I finished this weekend. Speaking on the phrase “let all things be done with charity” (1 Cor. 16:14), he addresses the question at hand directly.

In standing fast in the faith, if we are not animated by the spirit of love, we may not always differentiate as we should between faith in its essence and certain peculiar interpretations and expositions of our own. Here is a theme which might very easily occupy our minds on many occasions. There is nothing so tragic, I sometimes think, in certain circles as the way in which men fail to differentiate between that which is of the essence of the faith and certain other matters about which there can be no certainty. You cannot, I am told, be a member of the World Fundamentalist Association unless you believe in the “pre-millennial” return of our Lord and if you happen to be a “post-millenarian” you cannot be a Christian! If you are an “a-millenarian” you are just unspeakable. There you have an illustration of the importance of differentiating between the essence of the faith and the interpretation of a particular matter about which there has always been a difference of opinion. There is the same difference of opinion as to when the rapture of the saints is to take place. Men separate from each other about matters of that nature, where there is no certainty, and where there can be no certainty, though the return of the Lord is certain. Who can decide who is right, whether those who hold the pre-millennial, or those who hold the post-millennial view? I could mention great names on both sides, equally expert theologians. Surely these are matters where there can be a legitimate difference of opinion. Let us bear in mind the adage: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” “Stand fast in the faith.” Yes, but in a spirit of love.

[from The Christian in an Age of Terror: Selected Sermons of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones 1941-1950 (previously unpublished sermons, edited by Michael Eaton) — Kregel, pg. 264 ]

I think we see Lloyd-Jones agreeing with Dever here. As for me, I think we should leave the question open for membership, but we can define what our church will teach. But as we teach we should be careful with how we deal with opposing views.

I think this does shape how we approach Scripture (or how we approach Scripture shapes this issue). So it is emphatically important. But we should be careful to elevate our preferences and doctrinal conclusions on a matter that is not crystal clear, over and above the points of doctrine which are universally held and powerfully clear. When you elevate every position to the place of major doctrine, you minimize what Scripture presents as truly central.

Unity and the End Times

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

Should one’s end times’ views limit their unity with other Christian believers? Should churches and denominations spell out their particular end times’ theology, as a matter of their statement of faith? Should adherence to premillennialism, for instance, be considered a hallmark of the faith, a non-negotiable test of one’s submission to Christ?

Mark Dever doesn’t think so. In a recent sermon on Revelation, he commented:

I am suggesting that what you believe about the Millennium””how you interpret these thousand years””is not something that it is necessary for us to agree upon in order for us to have a congregation together. The Lord Jesus Christ prayed in John 17:21 that we Christians might be one. Of course, all true Christians are one in that we have his Spirit, we share his Spirit, we desire to live out that unity. But that unity is supposed to be evident as a testimony to the world around us.

Therefore, I conclude that we should end our cooperations together with other Christians, whether nearly (in a congregation) or more at length (in working together in missions and church planting and evangelism and building up in the ministry) only with the greatest of care, lest we rend the body of Christ, for whose unity he’s prayed and given himself. Therefore, I conclude that it is sin to divide the body of Christ””to divide the body that he prayed would be united.

Therefore, for us to conclude that we must agree on a certain view of alcohol or a certain view of schooling, or a certain view of meat sacrificed to idols, or a certain view of the Millennium, in order to have fellowship with one another is, I think, not only unnecessary for the body of Christ, but it is therefore unwarranted and, therefore, condemned by Scripture.

So if you’re a pastor and you’re listening to me, you understand me correctly if you think I’m saying you are in sin if you lead your congregation to have a statement of faith that requires a particular Millennial view. I do not understand why that has to be a matter of uniformity in order to have Christian unity in a local congregation.

I tend to agree with Dever’s assessment. I think a church could explain their preference, but to demand an end-times’ belief of any who would join with the church, seems too much. Of course there are Christian end times’ beliefs that are universally agreed upon. But I’m talking about your particular thoughts on when the rapture, or if a “rapture” will occur, and what kind of millennialism you hold to.

This is akin to baptism, but on that point Dever does draw the line of church fellowship tight. So would it would be reasonable for a church to draw their own lines on both baptism and eschatology, and yet admit they will fellowship in the gospel with all who carefully differ with them on these matters? Should baptism be more consequential than millennialist views? Which is more clear in Scripture?

I’m not sure I have all the answers here. Any thoughts? Others are hashing out these questions in the comments on the links below.

(HT: Justin Taylor, Ben Wright & Caleb Kolstad)

A Future for Israel

~ fundyreformed ~ 9 Comments

I came across an excellent article dealing with the question of whether there’s a future for Israel. Lately I’ve discussed how Christians should understand the land promise. I’ve also stressed that America, and Israel are both pagan nations. But what I stumble along in a wordy way trying to say, Dr. Russell Moore of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary spells out in a succinct and truly superb manner in his blog post: Is There a Future for Israel? (HT: Paleoevangelical.)

He argues that all the promises for Israel are fulfilled in Christ, the true Israel of God. And the church receives these blessings only because she is organically united to Christ by faith. So Jesus possesses the future of Israel; and since we share in His inheritance, we do too. I encourage you to read Moore’s short piece for yourself.

“Beyond Creation Science” by Timothy Martin and Jeffrey Vaughn

~ Bob Hayton ~ 11 Comments

Beyond Creation Science, click to view on Amazon.com
Authors: Timothy P. Martin & Jeffrey L. Vaughn
Format: Softcover
Page Count: 527
Publisher: Apocalyptic Vision Press
Publication Date: 3rd edition, 2007
ISBN: 0979914701
Rating: 2 of 5 stars

I want to thank Timothy Martin for providing me with a complimentary review copy of his book, Beyond Creation Science. It was a pleasure to read and interact with this book.

It’s a rare book that aims to confront its readers thinking and challenge their deep set assumptions and beliefs on an important topic. In Beyond Creation Science, Timothy Martin and Jeffrey Vaughn attempt to do this on two fronts, with the young-earth / old-earth creationism debate and end-times theology (eschatology). With such a daunting aim, it would be surprising if the book succeeded in both goals with every reader.

While the book did not overturn my thinking completely on both ends of the Bible, it did stretch my mind and give me cause to evaluate what I believe in light of the Bible’s entire teaching. The authors present their case well in a coherent manner, and they deserve a hearing.

The work is subtitled “New covenant creation from Genesis to Revelation”, and the authors do succeed in convincing the reader that Genesis and Revelation are inextricably linked. How one thinks and interprets Genesis directly impacts how he thinks of eschatology and Revelation.

A strength of the book is its stress on biblical theology–seeing all of Scripture in light of the redemptive story. I also share a suspicion of dispensationalism with its authors. I found their claim–that the same scientifically literal approach, championed by dispensationalists, which results in a full-fledged futuristic approach to Revelation (pre-trib, premillennialism) also leads them to subscribe to young-earth creationism–convincing.

While I am not completely convinced of old-earth creationism, this book certainly gave me more respect for that view. The authors show how young-earth creationism, was in large part advanced after the threat of Darwinism surfaced, and with the benefit of dispensational hermeneutics. I was shocked to learn that the hugely influential book The Genesis Flood (by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris), was based to a large degree on an earlier work by a Seventh Day Adventist (who would certainly be biased toward a literal 24-hour day view of the creation week), one George McCready Price who wrote The New Geology in 1923.

What was especially fascinating for me was the authors defense of a local flood view. I’ve always just assumed the flood was global. The evidence does seem quite compelling when you examine the terminology used and some of the Biblical and scientific questions which arise when one holds to a global flood. In our scientific age we are biased to see global-sounding terms as unequivocally global. In days gone by, that is not how such terms were understood, and this book explains why.

Another interesting element in the book was the discussion of the antediluvian lifespans. The book shows how it was only Seth’s descendants who were said to have long ages. It also points to millennial lifespans mentioned in Isaiah and Revelation and concludes the biblical ideal life is one thousand years old.

I must admit I was wary of this book’s advocacy of full preterism. I had hardly been exposed to partial preterism before reading this, so full preterism was hard to swallow. In one sense I can see the evidence for partial preterism (the view that the Olivet Discourse has largely been fulfilled in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70). But as the arguments were pressed further for a full preterist view that the resurrection is solely spiritual (i.e. regeneration), and the new heaven and new earth are fulfilled in a Christian’s existence today, I had to balk. In Acts, the angels say Jesus will return visibly like the disciples saw him go into heaven, and in John 14, Jesus says he’s building a place for us and will come back to bring us to be with him. These are just two passages which in my mind directly contradict a full preterist view.

To be honest, this book is not attempting a full fledged defense of full preterism. The book focuses more on Genesis than Revelation. And it doesn’t attempt to answer all the counter arguments for both issues. It aims to show how one’s views of prophecy influence one’s views of creation and the flood. It succeeds in that respect.

I found the book fascinating but remain unconvinced. Often I thought the argumentation was somewhat weak. Authors were quoted as if simply providing their quote proved the point. When trying to disprove the notion that death could not exist before the Fall, the book did not adequately deal with some of the key theological and exegetical supports for that view. This being said, I can understand many of the Biblical arguments for these views now. I can appreciate the authors’ desire to follow Scripture wherever it leads. This is what all of us should aim to do. And to that end, studying out the claims of preterism and evaluating them Biblically is no waste of time.

I would recommend Bible students read this book. But I would caution them against the full preterist view. It runs counter to the historic church creeds and seems to deny some important truths. At the least be wary of it and do more research before adopting that view as your own.

Disclaimer: this book was provided by the author for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to provide a positive review.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com or direct from beyondcreationscience.com.