Book Review: More Than Heaven

T. Jeff Taylor | 2022 Wipf & Stock

Introduction

In Protestant theology, the doctrine of an individual’s rewards according to works at the final judgment is a thorny one, especially within the stream of Calvinistic and Reformed circles. Many have embraced this doctrine as ‘basic’ to the teaching of the New Testament, even though it creates a cognitive dissidence within the grace-alone-through-faith-alone paradigm. In More Than Heaven, Taylor examines and evaluates this doctrine and argues that it needs to be reexamined. In fact, he argues that it is altogether out of step with the teaching of the New Testament.

Fully aware of the controversy surrounding the issue, Taylor acknowledges that his “book takes the minority view” on this doctrine and therefore seeks to present a comprehensive, biblical case for it (ix). He writes from the covenantal and biblical-theological tradition of Geerhardus Vos and Meredith G. Kline (he shares elsewhere on the Two-Age Sojourner podcast that Kline’s teaching and covenantal framework helped him work through this issue). It is no surprise, then, that this book is heavily ‘Klinean’ in thought. In More Than Heaven, Taylor makes the case that the traditional doctrine of rewards—that there will degrees of reward for believers in heaven according to their good works at the final judgment—has been unhelpful and unbiblical.

More Than Heaven is organized into three sections. Section 1 covers the basics of covenant theology (the theological covenants of works, redemption, and grace). Section 2 traces the history of redemption (the historia salutis), or, in other words, the institution and progress of the covenant of grace throughout history. Section 3 makes a case for the rejection of the traditional doctrine of rewards according to works. This where ‘the rubber meets the road’ for Taylor. Now, let’s dive in.

Book Overview/Summary

Taylor begins his book with a strong defense of federal (covenantal) theology in typical Klinean fasion. He affirms that Adam was created as an image bearer and a priest-king in the garden-temple of God in Eden (see chapter 1). Adam was placed in the garden under a covenant of works with a promise of eternal life upon perfect obedience in his covenantal probationary period. This covenant also threated death upon the breaking its terms. Adam failed to keep the terms and the covenant of works was broken, and all mankind subsequently were counted guilty in Adam as their natural federal representative meriting the wrath of God (chapter 2).¹

Next, Taylor discusses the eternal covenant of redemption (the pactum salutis) made between the Father and the Son. Just as the covenant with Adam was one of works and not grace, so also was the covenant made with Christ the eternal Son of God. The Son was to fulfill the terms of the pactum salutis in time and history, thereby securing the eschatological reward and blessing for the elect of God. Adam failed and earned condemnation; Christ succeeded and earned the reward. Taylor then addresses the covenant of grace and says that it is connected to and yet distinct from the covenant of redemption (76). For Taylor, the covenant of grace is the application of the blessings and benefits procured by the fulfilled covenant of redemption by Christ to the believer (chapter 3). “The gospel is that the Second Adam came and did what Adam failed to do. The Lord Jesus kept the covenant and merited the eschatological blessing for all who put their faith in him. The blessing is received on the obedience of Christ alone” (78).

Section 2 covers the history of redemption. Chapter 4 briefly considers the time between Adam and Abraham. Chapter 5 gives careful attention to the covenant made with Abraham. Taylor emphasizes the gracious nature of this covenant. He also emphasizes the typological and eschatological nature of the covenant. “Did Abraham obey God? His faith was evidenced by his obedience (Jas. 2:21). His faith is seen all the way through by his actions, by his obedience to God. But his obedience was not the basis of receiving the eschatological promise …the covenant was based on what God would do, not would Abraham would do” (111)! Abraham’s “obedience only evidenced his faith. He was justified by faith alone” (121). “Abraham was regarded by God as righteous not because of his obedience and works, but through faith [in Christ]” (122).

In chapter 6, Taylor argues for the typological nature of the Old Covenant nation of Israel. Says Taylor, “The Old Covenant is a covenant made with the nation of Israel on the typological level. It is a covenant of works. …The promised land is typological of the new creation land. The terms of the Old Covenant do not contain any grace. It is Law” (136)! Taylor identifies the Old Covenant proper as the administration of God’s rule under Moses from Sinai on. This he distinguishes from the Abrahamic Covenant. Taylor writes, “Abraham’s life is recounted in the Old Covenant Scriptures, though he lived before the Old Covenant. …The Old Covenant was made at Sinai” (132).

Chapter 7 discusses the New Covenant. He says:

The Lord Jesus is the faithful Second Adam who passed the probabtion of the Pactum Salutis; so now he confims to his disciples the kingdom in the New Covenant. The kingdom is his, so it is theirs. This is the promise God gave Abraham. His seed would receive the kingdom, so Abraham would receive the kingdom. On the typological level, his seed received the kingdom. But that was but a toy and temporary. …The Gospel writers provide the person and work of the Second Adam as federal head of the kingdom of God. …The kingdom promised to Abraham (Heb 6:13) has become the kingdom of all who believe through the New Covenant in Christ. (151-153)

He goes on to state that “Like the Abrahamic promise, so is the New Covenant fulfillment: both are unconditional covenants based on the meritorious obedience of the Lord Jesus under the Pactum Salutis. The New Covenant blessings are received by faith, not covenant obedience” (157). Taylor is clear in the subsequent material that there are no curse sanctions in the New Covenant. Those are only proper to the covenant of works. This is the true beauty of the New Covenant in Christ.

Taylor then discusses the ordo salutis (the order of salvation) as it relates to the historia saultis (the history of salvation). One important observation is made when he says that believers in the New Covenant are not now under a covenant of easier law-keeping in order to receive heavenly blessings. Rather, the New Covenant provides the believer the finished covenant-keeping righteousness of Christ (165). This is truly glorious! “The legal merit of Christ is given to all who believe. Sinners are counted covenantally righteous through faith by grace” (170). This is the only way that sinners may truly experience peace with God (Rom 5:1).

Chapter 8 begins Section 3 and enters the discussion about eternal rewards. This is where Taylor argues for and defends his thesis. Essentially, if I have read him correctly, his thesis may be summarized this way: the concept that believers are saved by grace and then rewarded for works on the Day of Judgement is foreign to the pages of Scripture. I will not rehearse all the detail of his biblical argumentation to this end, but there several critical thoughts that must be noted. Firstly, the Greek word commonly translated as “reward” in English translations of the New Testament convey the idea of payment for work rendered (just like a weekly paycheck from an employer) rather than additional bonus compensation for going above and beyond the proverbial the call of duty. A paycheck is simply what is owed to the employee for services rendered previously agreed upon between them (180). He then states that “The Bible does not have a category for “reward” outside of the blessing offered in the covenant” (181). After looking at the biblical data in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, he summarizes his findings this way:

The modern use of “reward” does not serve well to translate the actual Greek and Hebrew words that have been translated “reward.” The Greek and Hebrew words are unyieldingly linked to the idea of recompense or paycheck for something done. The words in themselves do no carry weith them the modern notion of recognition of the quality of the deed done. (186)

He goes on and presses the controversial issue of so-called mansions prepared for believers in heaven. “There are not multiple houses in heaven that differ in size and delightfulness awarded in proportion to the believer’s works” (192). He then discusses the famous text in John 14 where Jesus seemingly says just the opposite! However, Taylor seeks to show that what Jesus is implying is not degrees of reward contingent upon earthly faithfulness, but rather that there is plenty of ‘room’ in heaven for all who are His (193). Here he leans upon the work of New Testament theologian Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary who wrote an article titled ‘Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven?’ in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society from June of 1992 (194, footnote 22).² Taylor echos Blomberg’s sentiments. Much more could be said about this chapter, but brevity is the aim of this review. Readers who are interested are encouraged to pick up a copy of the book and wrestle with Taylor’s argumention for themselves.

Chapter 9 tackles the ‘Judgment According To Works.’ This is where Taylor really shows his work. He is thorough in his treatment of the relevant scriptures that the reader would have questions about. The Final Judgment is the adjudication of the covenant of works (not the covenant of grace) made with Adam and the rest of the human race (215). Those outside of Christ at the Final Judgment will receive just condemnation as covenant-breakers. Believers, on the other hand, are counted as righteous on the basis of Christ’s covenant-keeping in the covenant of grace. It is Christ who will represent all who are His on the Final Day. According to Taylor, Christ underwent the covenant terms and bore the sanctions for covenant-breaking. But Christ perfectly fulfilled the terms of the covenant, and this means that believers may be found righteous before God according to the completed, meritorious work of Christ on their behalf. In this chapter, like the ones previous, Taylor is strong on gospel clarity and justification by faith alone in Christ alone. Praise God that all believers stand covenantally righteous before God in Christ Jesus! And for Taylor, this means there are no surprises at the Final Judgment that await them. Christ Himself will be their reward.

This brings us to an important issue: for Taylor, there is no final or second justification awaiting believers according to their good works in this life. Believers have already been judged and declared righteous by the imputed righteousness of Christ in the Covenant of Grace. Therefore, it is contradictory to also affirm a second, final justifictation—as if the the ‘initial justification’ at conversion is incomplete—that is still yet to come. For Taylor, “In the death of Christ, the believer was judged according to his [Christ’s] works, and the sanction of damnation was rendered” (232). Says Taylor, “Everyone who believes in the Lord Jesus has already gone through the final Judgment Day. …Believers have already been judged in Christ and given eschatological life in Christ” (233). What good news this is! There is much, much more that could be mentioned from this chapter, but I trust what has been shared already will be sufficient to communicate the essence of Taylor’s work.

Chapter 10 gives special attention to 1 Corinthians 3, an important passage utilized by those who affirm a final judgment according to works. Taylor does much exegesis and seeks to show that even this seminal text does not teach what has been commonly assumed that it teaches. He examines the Greek term misthos (μισθός) commonly translated as “reward” in 1 Corinthians 3:12-15. He then shows that misthos denotes a simple wage rendered for work. He writes, “Paul doesn’t use some word equivalent to the modern-day notion of “reward.” As Has already been argued, misthos is the common word for a wage earned, not a bonus for doing a good job. …Paul is simply saying a faithful worker is paid his wage. Complimenting this language is the penalty for the unfaithful worker” (252). Taylor then offers exegesis of the subsequent relevant verses of 1 Corinthians 3. I leave it to the interested reader to read Taylor for themselves in order to evaluate his exegetical soundness. He closes the chapter beautifully with an important reminder, “But the gospel is that the Lord Jesus has paid for the believers’ sin and has merited the eschatological inheritance as federal head, federal representative, of the elect. All things are his, so all things are the believer’s” (266).

The book ends with a brief chapter on the eschatological hope that awaits the believer in the New Heavens and the New Earth. Referencing 2 Peter 3, Taylor reminds the reader that it is Christ alone who “brings the redeemed to eschatological glory, where heaven and earth are one” (268). “The new cosmos will be filled with the Glory of God, and the glorified, physically luminous redeemed enthroned with the Lord Jesus over the angels of God’s court” Says Taylor, “This glorified Eden (Rev 22:1ff) is the realization of the sabbath glorification enthronement of believers” (269). Indeed, we all eagerly await that magnificent day when our Conquering King will make all things new and we will reign with Him forevermore!

Conclusion

As a personal fan of Meredith Kline’s work and legacy, I am thankful to have been able to read this fine volume from Jeff Taylor (himself once a student of Kline at Westminster Seminary, California). Because any good book review needs some measure of charitable critique in it, here a few brief negative comments even though it was difficult finding much material of which to offer legitimate critique. Firstly, because I knew what the book was about before reading it, I was disappointed that I had to wait 8 chapters before he started dealing with the nitty-gritty of the matter! I was ready to engage his provocative thesis earlier on, but I understand he needed to lay the appropriate groundwork. Certainly the front matter was helpful, but I felt it was a bit longwinded. Of course, this is one person’s opinion and it does not in any way diminsh the excellent content of the book. However, I imgaine that many readers who know the issue that Taylor addresses would want to get right to the point.

Secondly, on the heels of the first criticism, I think the book could have been shorter. Again this is just my opinion. And the fact of the matter is that writers almost always struggle with clarity and brevity (someone may even desire to lob the same criticism at this review). However, I think the length of the book is likely due to Taylor’s desire to be thorough so as to show his exegetical receipts.

Thirdly and finally, as a Particular Baptist affirming 1689 Federalism, I found much to agree with regarding Taylor’s Klinean articulation of covenant theology, though there are naturally a few areas in which disagreement should not be surprising. One of those areas is the nature of the Abrahamic covenant. As a 1689 Federalist, I take issue with identifying the covenant made with Abraham and the Covenant of Grace (which is the New Covenant in Christ). This of course does not constitute a true point of critique of Taylor’s work, but is a general point of natural disagreement that should be noted. For more on this, see Samuel Renihan’s article on the distinct 1689 Federalist perspective on the Abrahamic covenant. I agree with Renihan when he says that it is “an unavoidable dilemma (and conclusion) of making the formula “I will be a God to you and your children” the substance of the covenant of grace.”³ But to add a quick point of agreement, I heartily affirm his rejection of the Mosaic covenant as being an administration of the Covenant of Grace. Taylor, I think rightly, affirms that the Old Covenant as a whole was a works covenant (if I understand him accurately, he would not identify the Abrahamic covenant to be properly a part of the Old Covenant).⁴

Now for positive comments. In many ways, I must admit, this was a refreshing and invigorating read as Taylor sought to highlight the marvelous beauty of the gospel of Jesus Christ along with the benefits received from our personal union with Jesus Christ in the Covenant of Grace. In More Than Heaven, Taylor provides us with white-hot gospel clarity. Now, as mentioned above, the doctrine of rewards according to works is understandably a challenging one, and history shows that it has indeed been controversial. I was both challenged and encouraged to consider how the view offered by Taylor might impact life practically. I have wondered about this doctrine in the past and, frankly, have not known how to think about it well.

Taylor’s book seemed to confirm the inconsistencies in my own mind (the same ones, in fact, I realized that Dr. Blomberg addressed over thirty years ago in his above mentioned article) as I wrestled with how sola fide, sola gratia, and solus Christus could be reconciled with a final judgment according to works, implying the need for a measure of covenant-faithfulness from the believer in order to finally be welcomed into heaven at the Last Day. The implication being that this functionally turns the covenant of grace into a new covenant of works for the believer, altogether making null and void the concept of free grace in Christ.⁵

So whether one agrees or disagrees with Taylor, is one matter. I am certain that he doen not expect everyone to agree with him on this issue. But he makes a convicing and pastorally sensitive case for his view that is worthy of consideration and contemplation. In sum, this book is an important call to revisit and even reconsider the commonly received doctrine of the so-called final judgment according to the good works of the believer. True joy in Christ, inward peace with God, holiness of life, the perseverance of the saints, and gospel assurance are all at stake.

1. For more on the covenant of works, see my article here.

2. I have tracked down and scanned through the article from Blomberg and it is apparent that Blomberg and Taylor have seen the same inconsistencies and danger in holding to a doctrine of rewards according to works at the final judgment. Blomberg says in the article’s introduction that “though few would put it so baldly one is left with justification by faith and sanctification by works.” What is more, Blomberg’s stated thesis is essentially Taylor’s stated thesis in More Than Heaven.

3. https://pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2019/03/21/i-will-be-a-god-to-you-and-to-your-children/

4. For more on the Abrahamic covenant and 1689 Baptist Federalism see Pascal Denault, The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, Revised Edition (Vestavia Hills, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2016), Samuel Renihan, The Mystery of Christ (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2020), and Jeffrey D. Johnson, The Kingdom of God (Conway, AR: Free Grace Press, 2023).

5. As I understand it, this is precisely what happened with the Auburn Avenue Theology (the Federal Vision) movement of the early 2000s which was born out of the theological implications of the covenant theology of John Murray, and subsequently, Norman Shepherd. Meredith Kline sounded the warning bell about this very thing in an article in 1994 which can be found here. For more on a critique of Federal Visionism, see Guy Prentiss Waters, The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2006). The Federal Vision theology resembles greatly the theology of the New Perspective on Paul led by men such as James D. G. Dunn and N.T. Wright. Both systems are to be rejected as they do damage to sola fide and thereby the very gospel itself.