Reading Challenge, Book 1

The first book of Tim Challies’ reading challenge for 2019 is a biography. I chose to read Geerhardus Vos: Reformed Biblical Theologian, Confessional Presbyterian, by Danny E. Olinger. It was published by Reformed Forum. I have learned a lot over the years from their podcast, Christ the Center. I was excited to read their first published monograph.

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.