Reformed Dogmatics

Ecclesiology, The Means of Grace, Eschatology

Geerhardus J. Vos, Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.

• Publisher: Lexham Press
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781577997337
• Topic: Theologie & Religion
• Subtopic: Christliche Theologie

"Like books, people can become 'classics.' Great in their day, but richer and more fulfilling with time. Not yet a classic, Vos's never-before-published Reformed Dogmatics is more like a lost Shakespeare play recently discovered."
--Michael HortonUntil recently, Reformed Dogmatics was only available in its original Dutch. But now you too can access Geerhardus Vos' monumental work of systematic theology. This brand-new English translation was edited by biblical theologian and Vos expert, Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.In Volume Five: Ecclesiology, The Means of Grace, Eschatology, Vos discusses:
--The essence and organization of the church
--The Word of God, baptism, and the Lord's Supper as means of grace
--The doctrine of last things in both individual and general terms

PART 1

Ecclesiology: The Doctrine of the Church

1. Essence

1. What is the nature of the transition from soteriology, handled previously, to the doctrine of the Church?

Everything discussed so far has had reference to the individual believer and to what the Spirit of God brings about in him as an individual. As such he was called; as such he was regenerated; as such he believed and was justified; as such he is an object of sanctification. But the individual believer cannot remain by himself. The work of the application of the merits of the Mediator also has a communal side. A root of unity is latent among those individuals. This unity originates not only in retrospect but existed beforehand. Believers were all reckoned in Christ, regenerated by the Spirit of Christ; they were all implanted into Christ in order to form one body. Therefore, now that what concerns the individual has been handled, what is communal ought to be discussed. This takes place in the doctrine of the Church.

Evidently connected with this doctrine is that of the sacraments, for they, too, do not have an individual character. They are inseparable from the Church, proceed from it, and point to it. By baptism a relationship to the Church is represented and established. One is not baptized as a solitary individual but in connection with the Church of Christ. Likewise, no one can hold the Lord’s Supper by himself and for himself; the Supper refers to the communion of the saints.

Now, one could still ask whether it is not necessary to deal with the doctrine of the Church before individual soteriology. Does not the individual Christian exist from the outset if he is born into the covenant of God, according to and under what is communal? This would, in fact, be the case if we taught, with modern theology, that the life of the children of God resides in the church and is passed on from the church to those who join it. With Rome, too, that must be the sequence. Here it is not believers who form the church, but the church forms believers, and that not only in an external sense through the ministry of the Word and sacraments in the covenant of God, but in the most real sense, to the extent that all grace must come through the material substance of the sacraments, which the church has at its disposal. Someone is regenerated through his baptism, and in the array of sacraments he receives in succession from the treasury of the church all the grace necessary for his salvation.

This is not the case according to the Reformed conception. Although we believe in the ministry of the covenant of grace and attach great value to that ministry, it is still firmly established that real re-creating grace passes not from one believer to another, not from the church to the individual, but from Christ directly to the one called. Through this unity with Christ, believers also become one with each other. In this way, too, the ministry of the covenant of grace originates. God calls efficaciously, and then establishes His covenant with them and with their seed. He has done so with Abraham. This is why we have the doctrine of the Church following soteriology.

2. Which words in Scripture are used for the concept “church”?

The proper word for “church” is ekklēsia (ekklēsia), from ekkalein (ekkalein), “called out.” For the Greeks this ekklēsia is the gathering of free citizens who make decisions about matters of the state and who are called together by a herald.

In the Old Testament, this word is now used by the Septuagint for the translation of the Hebrew qahal (qahal), which has the similar derivation: “gather, call together.” It means, then: (1) the Israelite nation in its entirety as a church-state, even when it was not called together (e.g., Lev 4:13, “If now the entire congregation of Israel will have gone astray”); (2) an assembled gathering of this Israelite nation (e.g., 1 Kgs 8:65, “At the same time Solomon also held the feast and all of Israel with him, a great congregation”).

In the books of Moses, qahal is rendered, where it appears, as synagōgē (synagōgē). However, in these books it is mostly replaced by another Hebrew word, namely, ‘edah (edah), which likewise means “assembly.”

For the New Testament use of the word ekklēsia, attention must now be paid to different things, namely:

a)The use of the word in antithesis to the name that the Jews used for their assembly.

b)The use of the word in the mouth of the Savior in the Gospels.

c)The connection between the concepts “church” and “kingdom of heaven.”

d)The differing meanings in which the word itself appears in the New Testament.

3. Is there a contrast with the assembly of the Jews in the word ekklēsia?

Yes, a few times in the New Testament the term ekklēsia also appears for the Jewish church; for example, “This is he [Moses] who was in the congregation of the people in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38). But here it looks back to the old Israelite church. On the other hand, for the present Jewish assembly, synagōgē is generally used: “And when the synagōgē was dismissed” (Acts 13:43). In antithesis, on a single occasion the gathering of believing Christians is called a synagōgē: “If a man with a golden ring on his finger comes into your gathering” (Jas 2:2). But those are exceptions. As a rule, it is the case that the assembling of Jews and of Christians are contrasted with each other as “synagogue” and “church.”

Thus it must be of significance when the Lord and His apostles refrained from the use of the word synagōgē and reverted to a word that, although entirely scriptural, had nonetheless fallen more and more into disuse by the Jews. That the Jews made use of synagōgē had various reasons. For them the word ekklēsia had a pagan flavor. Moreover, the word synagōgē was the usual word in the law of Moses. Since Judaism after the exile now thought it had to focus on keeping the law with the exertion of all its powers and so had degenerated into a legalistic Judaism of holiness by works, it surely had to give preference to this term from the law. When we take this into consideration, then the choice of ekklēsia by the Lord acquires a deeper sense. He chose a word that transcends the legalistic meaning of Israel, that points to the call of God, that causes one to think back to the call of Israel, that thus from the outset places the New Testament dispensation of the covenant of grace on a basis that is no longer limited to a single nation; see Acts 2:39: (a) for the promise comes to you and to your children, and (b) to all who are far off, as many of you as the Lord our God will call.

With this it is not maintained that the synagogues of the Jews fell outside the circle of the Old Testament dispensation of the covenant. This was clearly not the case. Christ himself went into synagogues; later the apostles found a point of contact for their missionary work in the synagogues. They did not break off the line of the ministry of the covenant, even after the resurrection of the Lord and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

One thing must not be lost from view here. The synagogue of the Jews was not a solely religious gathering everywhere. The Jews in the Diaspora naturally had no civil power, and when they gathered it was as a religious community. This was the case even in Palestine, everywhere where a mixed population was found. There were, however, many places where the civil government of the elders and the administration of the synagogue coincided. Thus, in such cases, notwithstanding the abolition of the Jewish state, the Old Testament identification of state and church continued. In this respect as well, the concept of the church will have formed a antithesis to that of the synagogue.

4. What is the distinctive meaning of the word “church” in the mouth of the Savior?

In the Gospels, ekklēsia is used by the Lord only twice:

a)Matthew 16:18: “And I also say to you, that you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it” (epi tauta tē petra oikodomēsō mou tēn ekklēsian).

b)Matthew 18:17: “And if he does not listen to them, then tell it to the church (eipe tē ekklēsia), and if he also does not listen to the church, then let him be to you as a pagan and tax collector.”

Here, both times, the congregation in view—that is, “the church”—is spoken of as something future: “I will build my church.” In Matthew 16, almost immediately following the Word of the Lord cited, is the prediction of His suffering, His death, His resurrection. The building of the church is thus indisputably related to that. Earlier, it was always “kingdom of heaven”; now, where the prophecy of the suffering and the resurrection occurs, it suddenly becomes “church.” It is likewise so in Matthew 18:20—“For where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them”—something that evidently refers to the absence of the exalted Mediator in His human nature. Thus, on the one hand, the church is something future. On the other hand, there is present in the word itself, pointing back clearly enough to the church of Israel, that it is not something absolutely new. It has existed earlier but will now come in a new form; it will now be His church par excellence—that is, the church in the form that He Himself, having appeared in the flesh and as duly authorized by the Father, has given it. In essence, the church under the old and new covenant is the same; in form and manifestation there is a difference. And this difference resides in more than one thing.

a)The church under the old dispensation was more than church; it was equally state. The Old Testament covenantal dispensation had two faces, something that at the same time had the dependence of the church as a consequence. Just because the church was more than church, it could not be completely church. The church did not receive its own form, was not something separate and distinguished from all other things.

b)The church of the old covenant was not only a state church; it was also essentially a national church—that is, limited to one nation. A pagan who wanted to belong to it could only join by becoming a Jew. It is certainly true that this particularism is used in the design of God for a purpose encompassing the entire world, but in itself, it was still a limitation.

c)The outpouring of the Holy Spirit, as it is specific to Pentecost and could only follow the accomplished work of the Mediator, likewise distinguishes the Old and New Testament church. It is not as if earlier there had been no activity of the Spirit. Prior to that outpouring, the Spirit also regenerated and led to the Mediator and effected being united to Him by faith. But in the particular form in which this now happens, it forms a distinction between the Old and the New.

5. What does it mean when the Savior says, “I will build my church”?

In the first place, this image is without doubt suggested by that of the rock, which is applied to Peter’s confession. At the same time, there appears to be yet another thought present, namely that of the house-family connection. For the person in the Middle East, house means his family as well as his dwelling. That the church is a house connects it with the administration of the covenant. It is continued by God in the line of families. In Scripture, then, the church appears in this sense as the “house of God” (cf. 1 Tim 3:15; Heb 3:6, 10:21); the members of the church are “family” (Gal 6:10; Eph 2:19; Matt 10:25).

6. What is the connection between the two concepts “kingdom of heaven” and “church”?

This connection is twofold:

a)On the one hand, “kingdom of God” is the narrower, and “church” the wider concept. While the Church has both a visible and invisible side, and so can often be perceived of an entire nation, the kingdom of God in its various meanings is the invisible spiritual principle. It is the lordship Christ exercises over our souls if we truly belong to Him, our submission to his sovereign authority, our being conformed and joined by living faith to His body with its many members. It is the gathering of these true members and subjects of Christ. It is called the “kingdom of heaven” because it has its center and its future in heaven. All the spiritual benefits of the covenant are linked to it: righteousness, freedom, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit [cf. Rom 14:17]. As such a spiritual entity, it is within man and does not appear with an outward face. Understood in this sense, the kingdom of heaven equals the invisible church, but then in its New Testament particularity, for Christ preached that the kingdom of heaven had come near, namely, through His coming. He is the king, and through His clear self-revelation and through His completed work, the invisible church also receives a new glory that it did not have previously, so that even the least in this kingdom is still greater than John the Baptist [Matt 11:11].

b)On the other hand, the “kingdom of God” or “of heaven” is a broader concept than that of the ch...