This is more than just the telling of a life (though it does that); this
biography is also a theological reflection on Vos’ thought through a
consideration of his works in chronological order. It was fascinating
to me to have a good survey of each work (most of which I’ve read), and to see
the work in its context in Vos’ life. I didn’t know the man wrote poetry. I was
vaguely aware of the struggle he faced opposing the creep of theological
liberalism at Princeton, but appreciate it all the more now knowing the
fullness of the story. Getting to know the man behind the theological works was
rewarding for me.
I am passionate about what is known as Biblical Theology, or, as Vos
preferred to call it, “the history of special revelation.” I spend so much time
in teaching and preaching trying to show the progressive revealing of God’s
work in Christ from cover-to-cover in the Bible (I get chuckles from the
congregation in Wednesday night Bible study when I say “turn to Genesis 1-3,”
because they know it’s coming at some point). Edmund Clowney is quoted in the
book expressing exactly how I feel out this approach: “Biblical theology, truly
conceived, is a labor of worship” (Edmund Clowney, quoted on pg. 209). Vos was
a significant figure in Biblical Theology (to understate it), and it was
meaningful to familiarize myself with his life.
In the 1880’s Vos had been offered teaching positions in the U.S.
(where his parents had moved) and in his native Netherlands. His preference
would have been to stay in Europe, but, as he says in a letter, “the
circumstances, as they have formed themselves under God’s rule, apparently do
not allow that” (pg. 22). Later he wrote, “I am going to America with the
feeling that my place is not there.” Vos’ preference and his sense of
belonging-to-place were both outweighed in the decision-making process by a
commitment to honor his parents, who wanted him with them in the U.S. In a “take care of yourself,” “follow your
heart,” and “you be you” age, this difficult commitment to the 5th Commandment
(Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16; Ephesians 6:1-3) is striking, and, as Vos
recognized, was part of “God’s rule” in his life. This is an illustration of
the priority that should be normal, not outstanding, in the lives of believers.
Vos’ example here also reveals wisdom in seeking God’s will for our lives: the
foundation of discovering that will is not in new revelation, but in His
revealed Law for His people. That chapter ends pointing out that Vos never
returned to the Netherlands.
Teaching in America, Vos’ estimation of Christianity in the U.S. is far
from outdated. For Vos, “what is most practical in the life of the believer is
the cultivation of communion with the triune God” (pg. 30). This is in stark contrast
to what he saw to be the focus of American Christianity, which was a reign of the
practical at the expense of the theological revelation contained in the Bible. He
regarded this pragmatism as “a lack of confidence in [the] truthfulness of the
Word of God…if we believed [the Bible], we would think more and with greater
liking, and maintain the thoughts of God over against the thoughts of the
world” (pg. 31). Pragmatism must be ubiquitous among ministry students, for this
same gravitation to the practical against doctrinal knowledge was something I
witnessed in seminary – and, to be honest, is something I struggle against
internally with the pressure of pastoring a church to “success.” I loved Vos’
continual thought about the truly “practical” in ministry: “It was
heavenly-mindedness that sought the cultivation of one’s communion with the
living God” (pg. 212). Again: “Vos would say that biblical theology yields the
highest fruit of practical theology. It points the believer to life with God in
heaven, which is the goal set before humanity from the beginning” (pg. 160).
A cousin to pragmatism is perhaps the dominance of “social gospel”
ministries. Over a century ago, Vos spoke a truth that I have tried to proclaim
many times: “The ministry of the Word…should not be the promotion of the social
gospel, but preaching Christ as the only remedy for sin” (pg. 201). This
concept is echoed in what I think is one of the most important sentences in my
denomination’s confession (and an idea mostly ignored in practice by most of
its members in this highly political age): “Means and methods used for the
improvement of society and the establishment of righteousness among men can be
truly and permanently helpful only when they are rooted in the regeneration of
the individual by the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ” (Baptist Faith &
Message [2000], XV).
Vos made an interesting observation comparing the Judaism of Jesus’ day
to modern liberal tendencies in Christianity. Just a few quotes:
• “Israel’s error of making eternal that which was meant to be
temporary” (pg. 223).
• “Jesus believed the Messiah existed for the sake of God. The
Judaistic mindset believed that the office existed for man. ‘Not God but Israel
was in it the chief figure of the world to come, and the Messiah appeared as
the agent who would raise Israel to this greatness’” (pg. 247). And, in
footnote 40 on the same page, “liberalism shared the same spirit and reversed
the creator-creature distinction. The result was a mindset that believed that
if God exists, he exists to serve me.”
These quotes, made concerning the liberalizing tendency Vos was
fighting at the Princeton of his day, could be made concerning much popular
Christianity today.
In contrast to Abraham Kuyper, a fellow Dutchman (and eventual Prime
Minister of the Netherlands), Vos believed the Bible teaches the consummation
of this creation rather than its transformation. He was a man who was strongly
focused on heaven. “Kuyper’s focus was on this creation, Vos’ focus was
increasingly on new creation” (pg. 95, footnote 72). This biography presents
this theme throughout. I appreciate it. It has always seemed to me that the New
Testament teaches believers should have a heavenward focus (Colossians 3:1-4,
for example). While it is clear that this is normative New Testament
Christianity, the general attitude of our day seems to see heaven as a
postscript to this life rather than the source of true life now.
One important biblical-theological principle that was a mainstay for
Vos’ theology was the idea that God’s purpose in redemption is not just to get
His people back to a pre-Fall state, but to take them to a consummation beyond
that. This telos/eschaton (end-goal) was something which was promised in the
tree of life, so that the ultimate goal of God for His people in Christ is
something that was present before the Fall and before the revelation of
redemption.
• “The goal put before man at creation, full communion with the living
God forever, forfeited in Adam’s sin, has been achieved for believers though
the person and work of the second Adam, Jesus Christ…Scripture teaches that it
is the Holy Spirit’s intention to bring those whom the Father has chosen and
for whom Christ died to the realm of the Spirit, the heavenly Jerusalem above”
(pgs. 76-77).
• “…the goal set before man from creation, full communion with God on a
higher estate” (pg. 145).
• “The eschatological is an older strand in revelation from the
soteric” (pg. 153). In other words, the higher promise symbolized by the tree of
life (Genesis 2:9) preceded the revelation of a Savior (Genesis 3:15).
• “The life of heaven is the fulfillment of the hope set before Adam in
the garden” (pg. 184).
• “Ever since the goal set by the covenant of works came within his
ken, man carries within him in all his converse with the world the sense of
belonging to another…the lower may never supplant the higher, for the heart of
man calls for eternity” (pg. 206).
• Ah, footnotes! Richard Gaffin’s observation of this eschatology from
the beginning observes something about the Fall of man that is massive:
“…salvation brings to the eschaton a Christological cast or complexion that
would not have been present apart from the fall” (pg. 147, footnote 13). I’m a
highlighter junkie when it comes to reading a book. Highlighting wasn’t enough
for me on this quote; I broke out the black-ink pen and did some underlining
and dramatic exclamation marks. While the tree of life pointed Adam to a
greater reality beyond just blissful life in the garden, it took the Fall to
bring Jesus into view in that ultimate beatitude as the Way to achieve it. The
Fall put the focus on Jesus (I’m hearing the songs of Revelation 5 in my head
now)!
Speaking of Him: “Jesus, the one true interpreter” (pg. 205). I like
this as a name for our Lord. I will be using it.
Olinger, discussing the beginning works of Vos, makes this powerful
statement about religious legalism: it “lacks the supreme sense of worship (‘it
obeys but it does not adore’)” (pg. 57). We exist for God’s sake, and are
called to obedience to His revealed will, but for the believer in Christ this
should lead to joy and worship, not the relationship-breaking coldness that
marks so many legalists.
In Vos’ resistance to changing the confessional standards of his
denomination to conform to contemporary sentiments, he reaffirms a timeless
truth: “It is a well-known fact that all heresy begins with being a partial
truth” (pg. 111). He then speaks of the all-to-common game played by heretics
ancient and new, where orthodox words are used but filled with heterodox
meaning.
Ultimately, a book is “good” if it fills me with an excitement to read,
study, or teach God’s Word. This biography of Geerhardus Vos did that. Similar
to this beautiful concept is the reflection of former student John DeWaard on
Vos’ teaching legacy: “His courses were commentaries on the Bible, his lectures
were exegeses of the Word. I loved him when I studied there; I love him more
now, not because he has given me a number of valuable interpretations of the
Word, but rather because he has given me through his lectures a desire to study
the Word itself” (pg. 228). What a crown!
Related to that, becoming familiar with his life and engaging his works
in a chronological manner equipped me to read his work with more confidence and
a deeper level of understanding.
I will admit, too, to feeling the poignant weight of his life as he
lost friends to death, was rejected by the majority of students at Princeton
because of the depth of his teaching (and the U.S. cultural reaction to those
perceived to be German between the world wars), the seemingly fruitless battle
against theological liberalism in his academic life, and the normal fading into
the twilight of this life.
Let me say a few words about reading challenging things (not the
biography, but Vos’ work). We don’t work to understand anymore, it seems. If
it’s not “easy listening” or quickly accessible, there is a tendency not to
bother with it. I’m just as guilty of this as anyone else. I try, however, to
incorporate disciplines in my life to counteract this contemporary life that
feels like floating in a quick-running stream. For example, when I get a new
album, I will listen to it repeatedly for at least a week, even if I don’t care
for it on my first listen. By repeatedly experiencing the work, I try to
understand what the artist was trying to do. It’s rare that I don’t come to
eventually appreciate that which was first a temptation to reject. As I
mentioned already, I’ve read a lot of Vos – repeatedly. After this, I will
continue reading Vos, and especially those parts of his work that still confuse
me. In a way, doing that is not really about his theology, but about discipling
myself. Such discipline will bear fruit in other areas of my mental life, even
as I’m tempted to scroll unthinkingly through headlines or news feeds.
I prefer holding a physical book (though I have done plenty of digital
reading). It disciplines me further to resist distraction, with a single
possible exception: footnotes. I love footnotes, and this book is
footnote-heavy. Sometimes I wonder if the distractions of multiple screen
windows and apps find their predecessors in long footnotes.
To wrap this up: I have to work to read Vos at times, but it’s proven
to be a worthwhile venture for me in my growth as a reader of the Bible.
Olinger’s biography has helped me eager to read more Vos and to re-read what
I’ve already read. I don’t read that many biographies. This was well-worth it.
Speaking of weak areas in my reading habits, the next book on Challies’
reading challenge is a novel. This will not be familiar territory for me…but
that’s the point in doing this.
