In 1936, at the first General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America—later renamed the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC)—official greetings were received from the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church (CRC). These greetings were a boon for the fledgling church in her struggle against modernism. Cornelius Van Til recounts, “The Synod of the Christian Reformed Church of America immediately sent a telegram to the renewed and revived Presbyterian church wishing them God’s blessing. That was heartening to the brothers. Much opposition is being encountered. Just as it was during the Doleantie, the synods are doing everything they can to oppose the new movement.”[1] The Doleantie was a secessionist movement in the Dutch Reformed Church led by Abraham Kuyper in 1886, postdating an earlier secession in 1834 known as the Afscheiding. Van Til recognizes that the purpose for the secession in the Netherlands was basically the same as for the Presbyterian Church of America: not to fall away into modernism but to preserve a truly Christian witness in the world.

It was Van Til who initiated contact with the Synod of the CRC. In the Acts of Synod 1936 of the Christian Reformed Church, we learn that Van Til and R. B. Kuiper sent the following telegram to the Synod: “Presbyterian Church of America, organized yesterday as true spiritual succession of Presbyterian Church U. S. A. General Assembly meeting now. Will conclude its sessions tomorrow. Machen is Moderator. Our Synod could strengthen hands of brethren by sending greetings.”[2] The Synod received the telegram and sent the following reply:

The Synod of the Christian Reformed Church, in session at Grand Rapids, Mich., conscious of the tie that binds us in the propagation and defence of our common Reformed faith, and convinced of the uncompromising devotion to that faith which has led to your organization, extends its Christian greetings and commends you, together with all who stand with you, to the guidance and blessing of the King of the Church. May He lead you as leaders and those who follow with you by His Spirit, strengthen you, and increase your numbers, and gird you on in the battle against our common foes of apostasy and unbelief in these critical times. Synod officially invites a fraternal delegate to attend its sessions next week.[3]

J. Gresham Machen comments,

One of the most joyful moments at the recent first General Assembly of The Presbyterian Church of America was the moment when we received the official greetings of the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church. From no ecclesiastical body in the whole world could greetings have been more welcome, both because of the deep debt of gratitude that we already owe to the Christian Reformed Church—I need only mention the fact that that church has given to Westminster Seminary R. B. Kuiper, Cornelius Van Til and N. B. Stonehouse—and also because of the noble testimony which that church has carried on in the defense and propagation of the Reformed Faith.[4]

Machen proceeds to list five things about the life of the CRC at that time “which have kept it from falling away into the dominant Modernism and have been instruments in preserving its truly Christian witness.”[5] These things remain vital for the church and her witness in the world today. Modernism falsifies religion by situating autonomous man at the center of all things so that even God exists for his sake. But what follows are helps for the church in preserving her truly Christian witness that God is at the center of all things and that man exists for his sake. (The words in quotes in each heading are taken directly from Machen.)

1. “Separation for the Sake of Faithfulness” or Do Not Drink the Cup of Demons

Questions about the legitimacy and necessity of ecclesiastical separation have been around since at least the Reformation. According to Machen, to separate from a compromising association or denomination is not schism but the avoidance of schism. It is the compromising association that is guilty of schism, having separated itself from the true church of Jesus Christ in its doctrine and life. To separate from a compromising association is not to separate from the true church but to return to it. “It is separation undertaken not in the interests of schism but in the interests of the true unity and purity of the Church,” writes Machen.[6] In other words, it is separation for the glory of God and for the sake of faithfulness, even if it costs influence, numbers, and financial security. This was the story of the Afscheiding and Doleantie in the Netherlands and then of the Presbyterian Church of America. It was also for this reason that a group of churches found it necessary to separate from the CRC in the 1990s to form the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA), as the continuation of the church that Machen once commended.[7]

2. “Theological Consistency” or Do Not Be Merely Christian

“The Christian Reformed Church,” observes Machen, “has never been content with being vaguely ‘evangelical’ or ‘conservative’ or ‘fundamentalist,’ but has always endeavored to be truly ‘Reformed.’”[8] The church that is content with mere Christianity or lowest-common-denominator Christianity will inevitably lose its footing and fall away into modernism. It is like a person crossing a river by leaping from one small rock to another instead of by walking across a sturdy bridge—he is bound to land on a slippery rock and lose his footing. It is the church that holds firmly “to that glorious system of revealed truth which is summarized in the great Reformed confessions of faith” that preserves a truly Christian witness in the world.[9] Our Reformed confessions guard the church against gaps and inconsistencies in her theology that would otherwise weaken her walls against the bombardments of modernism.

3. “Indoctrination by the Pastors” or Do Not Teach in a Desultory Way

The practice in the CRC was for the pastor to preach one sermon every Sunday from the Heidelberg Catechism moving consecutively through its three parts of sin, salvation, and service under the theme of our only comfort in life and in death. The catechism was divided into fifty-two Lord’s Days so that it could be taught throughout the year and repeated the next and the next and so on. This resulted in the congregation being “soundly and systematically indoctrinated.”[10] But this orderly method of catechetical preaching contrasts with the popular desultory method that jumps and skips around from one idea to another. The latter method assumes that our theology ought not to be an organized system but a jumble of disconnected ideas. The danger is that it is much easier to smuggle an enemy into a crowded store with people bustling in every direction than into a battalion of soldiers marching in perfect sync. The systematic orderliness of the marching lines reveals when someone is out of place.

4. “Church Discipline” or Do Not Join the Church to the World

The aim of church discipline is the opposite of modernism’s. Modernism aims to join the church to the world. Church discipline aims to separate the church from the world. The holiness and purity of the church can only be maintained when church discipline is properly exercised in accordance with the Word of God. While Machen commends the CRC for exercising church discipline, he still warns that modernism knocks at the door of every church no matter how pure. “Pray God that the door may be kept locked to such an enemy as that!”[11]

5. “Christian Schools” or Do Not Give Covenant Children a Non-Christian Education

The necessity of a thoroughly Christian education for covenant children was ingrained in the mind of the CRC. Machen writes, “In an overwhelmingly predominate way . . . , [the Christian Schools] are conducted and supported by the people of the Christian Reformed Church. . . . . They love God and love their children too much to allow Christian instruction to be tagged on one day in seven as a kind of excrescence upon an education fundamentally non-Christian. They have tried to make the education of their children Christian throughout.”[12] It was often the case that wherever a CRC was planted a Christian school soon followed. While many good things vied for their time, it was for good reason that Van Til, Machen, and others devoted much of their efforts to the promotion and furtherance of Christian education. It honored the God of the covenant whose promises are for us and our children.

Conclusion

Machen recognized that on account of these five things—separation for the sake of faithfulness, theological consistency, indoctrination by the pastors, church discipline, and Christian schools—God had wonderfully blessed the efforts of the CRC. God continues to bless the efforts of those churches today whose ecclesiastical lives are characterized by the same. By them, they are prevented from falling away into modernism and preserve a truly Christian witness in the world for God’s glory.

[1] Cornelius Van Til, “The Presbyterian Church of America,” De Reformatie vol 16, no 46 (14 Aug 1936): 392, my translation.

[2] The Acts of Synod 1936 of the Christian Reformed Church, 19: https://library.calvin.edu/ld.php?content_id=71769097.

[3] The Acts of Synod 1936 of the Christian Reformed Church, 19–20. According to the Minutes from the First General Assembly, “The telegram extended an invitation to the Assembly to send a fraternal delegate to the meetings of the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church.” Van Til was appointed as that fraternal delegate.

[4] J. Gresham Machen, “The Christian Reformed Church,” The Presbyterian Guardian 2, no. 8 (20 July 1936): 170.

[5] Machen, “The Christian Reformed Church,” 170.

[6] Machen, “The Christian Reformed Church,” 170.

[7] This is not to say there were no faithful churches that remained in the CRC to continue the struggle, but the denomination began to teach doctrines that contradicted its own confessional standards—that is, the Three Forms of Unity. It moved away from the inspiration and authority of Scripture and taught the Arminian view of the love of God. Some held that women could hold ecclesiastical office, advocated evolution, and denied some parts of Scripture as the Word of God. This led to thirty-six churches forming a federative unity. In 1996, these churches held their first Synod and adopted the name The United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA).

[8] Machen, “The Christian Reformed Church,” 170.

[9] Machen, “The Christian Reformed Church,” 170.

[10] Machen, “The Christian Reformed Church,” 170.

[11] Machen, “The Christian Reformed Church,” 170.

[12] Machen, “The Christian Reformed Church,” 170.

This the first installment of a quarterly series of interviews highlighting the Lord’s work in the lives and ministries of our Reformed Forum faculty. Up first is Jim Cassidy, president of the Reformed Forum board of directors and pastor of South Austin OPC in Austin, Texas. He sits down with Ryan Noha to discuss growing up Roman Catholic, giving up his life for the gospel, and serving the Lord in his family, church, and the work of Reformed Forum.

Jim, we have many longtime friends and supporters at Reformed Forum who know you well, but for those who are just meeting you for the first time or haven’t heard about your background, tell us how you made your way from Roman Catholicism into the OPC. How were you converted, and then how were you “born again” as one of Machen’s Warrior Children?

I appreciate that question. I think that growing up Roman Catholic has given me a particular perspective on the Reformation. When I was growing up Roman Catholic, the emphasis was very much upon the rules and doing what you’re supposed to do so that you don’t displease God. And if you don’t displease God, then you can get yourself out from underneath his wrath. So everything was geared towards this work of merit, whether it’s in the participation of the sacraments, going to church, not talking in church to your friends, kneeling properly, being an altar boy—you got some extra points for that. Now, they didn’t put it in those terms. But that’s sort of the message that was communicated.

As I was growing up and into college, I was under the impression that if you did enough good works, or if you did more good works than bad works, then you would go to either purgatory or heaven. But if you were a particularly nasty sort that did more bad deeds than good deeds, you would go to hell. Now, nobody I knew, despite the depravity that we exercised in our lives, thought that they were so bad as to be going to hell. And when they did something that was particularly bad, and they knew it, they would joke around and laugh and say, “Ha, I’m going to hell!” But it was not really taken seriously. I had this impression going into college.

It was there in college that I met a Baptist believer who was ministering to me and praying for me. His church’s youth group back home was also praying for me. And he was witnessing to me telling me about the gospel. When I told him my understanding of Christianity as I just explained it, he said, “No, that’s not how you get to heaven. You get into heaven by having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” And now, we know, and I know from hindsight, that that’s not itself the gospel: “Having a personal relationship with Jesus.” That’s more of an evangelical way of saying that it’s not on the basis of your works or your goodness that you get into heaven but by faith in Jesus Christ. And so I remember going to bed that evening and saying to Jesus that I wanted to have a relationship with him. I woke up the next day, and I began to read my Bible and basically haven’t looked back since.

Now at that time, I didn’t fully comprehend the gospel. I knew nothing of the Reformation. So my intent was to be a Catholic—a good Catholic—and to stay in the Catholic Church. My intent was to go around telling everybody that they need to have a “personal relationship with Jesus” because that’s what I was taught. At that point, a Reformed person who was part of a Protestant Bible study took me aside. He began to explain to me the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, and he told me a little bit about the Reformation and “faith alone” and “grace alone” and all of that stuff. And when I went home over Christmas break during my sophomore year, I began to read Galatians. It blew my mind because Paul was articulating everything that I did not believe or that I was not taught growing up. In fact, it was the exact opposite of what I was being taught as I was growing up. It absolutely transformed and renovated my way of thinking about sin and salvation, the gospel—the whole nine yards. I quickly became very angry at the Catholic Church when I thought about the way that they were misleading me. My soul, and the souls of millions, was dependent upon the church proclaiming the truth and the true gospel, and Rome wasn’t doing that. It upset me very much.

I’ve gotten over my anger, but speaking to the issue of Machen’s Warrior Children, perhaps the reason that I am so dogmatically committed to Reformed theology is because I believe that it is as Warfield put it: “Christianity come to its own.” And if Reformed Christianity is “Christianity come to its own,” then we absolutely must stand for it; we must fight for it. Souls are at stake. I would never want our church to lose that message. I think Machen felt that way, too, even though he wasn’t raised Catholic. He was raised within the Presbyterian Church, but he was militant about the truth because he knew that it was a life-or-death situation. And I know it’s a life-or-death situation. So I believe in the Reformed faith and in zealously maintaining it, promoting it, preaching it, and teaching it because I believe truly that lives are at stake.

Amen, brother. I never tire of hearing how the Lord has brought a person to the understanding of that life-giving gospel: the gospel of Jesus Christ crucified, risen, ascended, and coming again. It’s only through union with him that we have any hope of salvation. It’s really that simple. We aren’t Reformed because we’re pugilistic, but because the Reformed faith is the only faith worth contending for. It’s radically consistent with Scripture, and that’s why we love it. That’s why we agree with Machen when he said on his deathbed, “Isn’t the Reformed faith grand?”

Yes. I think everybody has it within them to give their lives for something. We all know the brevity of our lives, and I think I think everybody wants to give their life to something that that counts, that makes a difference. Most of the time people identify the wrong thing to give their lives for. When I found and discovered the truth of the gospel as it was recaptured and re-articulated by the Reformers, I found something where I could say, I’m willing to die on that hill. I’m willing to surrender my life for the sake of that message because it has eternal consequences, even as the message itself is eternal as it says in the Book of Revelation, the “eternal gospel.” Without that understanding, we don’t have the gospel. We only have a man-made imitation of it as Paul says in Galatians, which is “no gospel at all.”

It’s really important for us to understand that we don’t want to be Machen’s Warrior Children, as it were, for the sake of making other people’s lives difficult. Or if we’re being just obnoxious, having a reputation for being that pugilistic guy who’s always looking to fight—we don’t want that. We don’t fight for the sake of the fight; we fight for the sake of the faith. We fight the good fight of faith. It’s important for us to keep our eyes on that because it’s that faith which will bring Christ’s children to maturity. And that’s part of what our goal is at Reformed Forum: to declare the whole counsel of God unto the people of God so that everyone in the church can be brought to the point of maturity in Christ, all to the glory of Christ, for the good of his church, and the evangelization of the lost. That’s something that we have to bear in mind.

We’re supporting the Great Commission of the church. We’re not the church; we’re not doing the Great Commission. Rather, we’re seeking to come alongside the church to support its mission to preach the gospel. And without understanding exactly what it is that the Scriptures teach about the gospel, we have nothing to offer the world. We have no evangel, no gospel to preach, unless we are clear, concise, and accurate in our proper reading of the Scriptures, aided by the Holy Spirit through the testimony of the church in the past and all the greats upon whose shoulders we stand. Without that, we don’t have a message that is worth living for. It’s not worth dying for. It doesn’t aid in the work of evangelism.

That’s right. Without that message, it’s not even evangelism at all. Now, on that note of discipleship, I’d love to hear how this all works out in your family life. Would you give us portrait of your family and then share a bit about how you seek to lead in such a way that the Lord would draw your wife and children into these glorious truths that we hold so dear?

My wife, Eve, is a great helpmeet to me. She has been there by my side in ministry for the last 20 years. I’m so very grateful. We’ve known each other longer than that, but we’ve been married in ministry for 20 years. We have three wonderful children, Caitlyn, Ian, and Anna, and they’re all great kids. I love them dearly. In terms of your question about discipleship, it’s a little bit different now because the kids are older. Eve has a job outside the home, and I have a job, of course. So we’re all going every which way, and our time together for regular, regimented family worship is not in the same pattern as it was when the kids were younger. We were very regimented. After our evening meal, we would have Bible reading, catechesis, and prayer. Now, my pastoral instinct to try to mitigate the awkward schedule of having older kids, one of whom is in college, is to take every opportunity to talk to them about the things of the Lord and to pray with them. I drive my daughter to school every day and we pray on the way to school; we talk about the things of the Lord and about the church. My kids are inquisitive, so they like to ask questions. I try to maximize those questions to illuminate the faith.

It’s much more dynamic, living as it is now in terms of ministry to the family, but I have to emphasize the importance of catechesis. My kids have a bedrock, a foundation, in the Catechism that they learned when they were younger. If I were to be honest and sober, I would say that they probably wouldn’t be able to recite word for word the vast majority of the Q and A’s that they learned as they were growing up, but the substance is there. And there are a few very key questions and answers that the kids still very much have burned or etched within their memories, such that it would go rote if I were to ask the question at random. Sometimes I’ll say, “What does every sin deserve?” in the course of conversation, and the kids instantly say, “the wrath and curse of God,” which is from the Children’s Catechism. There are some of those questions that are really familiar: Who made you? What’s your chief end? And however you might rephrase that question, they’ve got it; they know it. So it gives us something to build on as they as they grow older and as they mature in the faith.

Catechesis was the kind of thing that I did not grow up with. Catholicism would say, we do catechesis; the Catholic Church has a Catechism. But really, catechesis is a Protestant Reformational practice. When I was growing up, we read very little Bible. Even in Catholic parochial school, which I went to from first grade right through college, we studied very little in the Scriptures. And we certainly didn’t get regular, regimented catechesis, learning questions and answers in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We were not well instructed at all. Despite the fact that we had religious training all throughout, we didn’t learn the faith systematically.

Nonetheless, that’s a beautiful thing that you can look back on God’s faithfulness today and see how he has worked through the “foolishness” of catechesis in your own family, in the next generation. You can share in the great joy that the Apostle John spoke about when he heard that his children, his flock, were “walking in the truth.” Tell us about your own church, your own flock. Where do you serve and how is the Lord using the means of grace to gather and perfect his people there?

Thank you for that. I love my church very much. And it’s a joy to be able to talk about the congregation and the work here in South Austin. I came here in 2014. The congregation in Pflugerville, Texas, which is just to the northeast of Austin, not very far outside city limits—that was the original South Austin Presbyterian Church actually. They were originally meeting in locations on the south side of the city. Then they were able to get a piece of land and build a building, but it was to the northeast in Pflugerville. They ended up moving up there, leaving the south side somewhat untended in terms of Reformed witness. Glen Clary was the pastor there before I arrived at Providence in Pflugerville. And they had a group at that church that was meeting for Bible study down on the south side. There were about 20 to 25 people that were traveling north from South Austin up to Pflugerville for worship on Sunday, and they were desirous of starting a work on the south side.

That Bible study had been going on for five years when they finally called me to come as a church planter. We started worship services in July of 2014, and we became a particular congregation in 2015. From there we began to grow and to develop as the Lord continued to add to our numbers. A couple of years ago, we were able to purchase the building where we now carry out our ministry. Not long after we started worshiping, after we particularized, we had a couple of families come to our church from the New Braunfels area, which is about 45 minutes south of here towards San Antonio. We ministered to those families, and they were desirous of starting a work in New Braunfels. This was funny, because we were praying from the very beginning that the Lord would allow us to become a church-planting church plant. We didn’t want to wait very long to start praying and thinking about the next church plant. And so that’s what ended up happening. Within five years, we ended up starting the work down in New Braunfels. And now in a couple of weeks’ time, Lord willing, the New Braunfels church is going to particularize as a new and regular congregation. We’re really excited about that.

South Austin OPC itself is a very mature congregation. The folks are very serious about the word. They’re absolutely committed to Reformed worship, to the inclusion of Psalms in worship—not exclusively, but inclusive psalmody—and to Reformed orthodoxy. Our elders are very good shepherds. They take good care of the people and are very attentive, patient, kind, and loving. Our deacons are the same. They’re attentive to the needs of the congregation and have done a great job tending to the flock. Anyway, that’s a little bit about us. It’s a congregation that I’m so very much in love with.

What are you preaching and teaching through these days in terms of sermon series or Sunday school, and what fruit is your ministry bearing in the congregation?

In the morning, we are going through the book of James. That has been very useful for all of us, myself, especially. James’ exhortation with regard to the use of our words has been transforming for me, and I think for others, as well. As Reformed Christians, we are a very principled people, and rightly so. We believe that we are to live on the basis of God’s Word, and so we live in a very principled way. And we believe that we can know God and how he wants us to live. But sometimes, when a principled mindset combines with the old nature, we can very quickly allow our zeal to overtake our holiness, our self-discipline, and our restraint. Then sometimes we speak out of a desire to be principled, to stand for the truth, but we do so perhaps in a way that’s not loving and kind and proper and biblical.

James’ exhortations on what it means to suffer have also been a tremendous help to me personally. He’s one of the few places outside of the Book of Job that you can find reference to Job. James is very concerned to instruct the congregation who is obviously suffering. They are suffering persecution and opposition from the world, and James is concerned to teach them what it means to suffer righteously. Sometimes, suffering righteously means guarding your words in such a way that when you’re attacked, you don’t return attack for attack and so forth and so on. That’s been very helpful, I think, to the congregation.

In the evening, I’ve been preaching on 1 Chronicles. We’re going to get to 1 Chronicles 5 this Sunday, Lord willing. The congregation has been remarkably receptive to that series. I thought it would be a flop, quite frankly, because, as you know, the first nine chapters of 1 Chronicles is just a list of names except in chapter four where you have the prayer of Jabez. Of course, much has been made of that by some. I did a two-part series on chapter four, focusing exclusively on the prayer of Jabez. There were some little polemics in those sermons, which is appropriate in this instance.

The emphasis that I’ve been trying to underscore, however, is that we are the people of God. Our identity in Jesus Christ is found with the people of God under the old covenant. So when we read these genealogies, we have to understand that they are our genealogies. We’re living in a day and age where there seems to be a renewed interest in family lineage and genealogy. You can take a prick of blood or saliva, send it to some company, and they’ll tell you who your people are. But that’s DNA. We’re talking about something that’s deeper than DNA, which is the covenant of grace. We’re emphasizing our unity in the covenant of grace with the people of old and now showing the way in which the people of God are a people of every tribe, nation, and tongue.

During Sunday school, we’ve been working through R. B. Kuiper’s book on the doctrine of the church, The Glorious Body of Christ. And I talked about that a little bit recently on a Christ the Center episode. That’s been really helpful, especially in the area of church authority and power. I think there’s a lot of confusion out there about what church power and authority is or is not. Kuiper gives us a tonic to avoid an evangelical sort of no-churchism on the one hand, and then a kind of Roman Catholic-authoritarian-dominating kind of approach to authority and power on the other. He gives us the Reformed position. That’s been very helpful and sparked a good deal of interesting conversation in our congregation.

Another area where Kuiper is so good is on the indestructibility of the church. Persecution not only does not destroy the church, but persecution is actually the seed bed of the church. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. The church grows from persecution. The world can’t destroy the church; rather persecution will only advance the cause of Christ in this world. When we suffer righteously, we are identifying most intimately with our savior in his sufferings. The pinnacle point at which we are to imitate Christ is precisely here, in our willing suffering. That doesn’t mean that we go out and ask for it or look for it. Some of the early church fathers were somewhat guilty in this regard, but normally nobody wants to suffer. At the same time, we are willing, like Jesus, and as he calls his disciples to do, to lay our lives down for our friends, the glory of Christ, and the building of the church.

That foolishness of the cross will never become less foolish to the world, but to those who are God’s elect, it is the power of God unto salvation. So keep preaching it, brother! Now we could continue discussing and rejoicing in the Lord’s good work through your ministry in the local church, but I’d love to hear how you are also striving to serve the church in her Colossians 1:28 work through your labors here at Reformed Forum.

My role at Reformed Forum is somewhat supportive, which is great because that’s what I think I’m good at that. I’m not the sort of person that excels at leadership and taking charge and making things happen. Our dear brother Camden, our Executive Director, is excellent at organization, administration, execution of tasks and what not. He’s got the big vision; he knows what he’s doing. I’m here simply as a board member, and as the president of the board, to support him and our faculty—to cheer everybody on and to assist in anything that needs to be done to accomplish our mission.

As a faculty member, I’ve been working on a number of things, including a class on the Gospel of John that I hope to be able to roll out sometime later this year. I also do blog posts and Christ the Center episodes. I try to encourage our Van Til cohort students on Discord (our chat platform). I just see myself as playing a supporting role, throwing myself in anywhere that the Lord opens up for me to encourage, help, and assist. Everybody over there at the new office is doing a great job in terms of getting my material for the Westminster Shorter Catechism classes [Qs. 1–38 and Qs. 39–107] into published, book form. I’ve been working on that manuscript, and hopefully that will come out later on this year.

With the busyness of the pastorate and family, finding time to be able to execute on those projects that I have on my desk is something that is moving along way too slowly. I wish that I was able to produce more as a faculty member, but I remain blessed. The Lord has been gracious and kind. I love what Reformed Forum is doing. To be involved at all is a privilege and an honor. I’m sort of like the free safety in football—just kind of standing by waiting to make an interception or to maybe a tackle. I’m looking to be there when I’m needed and then to fill in that gap as those needs arise. But really, if I aspire to anything, it’s to become the water boy.

That’s one thing that I love about working with you. And the same is true for the other brothers at RF. You have a servant heart. You’re just seeking to live coram Deo and to serve the church. I love that that’s in our mission statement. It’s in our blood, our spiritual DNA. We don’t want to be big shots or to replace the church; we want to be servants to her and to labor unto the glory of our Head, even Jesus Christ, who by his Spirit and word perfects his bride. It’s such a joy to labor with you as a like-minded brother in Christ, to know the bond of peace that we have by the Spirit.  

Psalm 133. It’s better than the oil going down Aaron’s beard and robe. Amen, and amen. And the feeling is mutual brother. Thank you for the great work here that you’re doing for Reformed Forum. We are exceedingly grateful and regard you as a gift from the Lord.

All that I’ve received is from him, and I praise him for that. As we look together unto the Lord to provide the increase for all of our labors, are there any particular things that our listeners and supporters can lift up in prayer on your behalf?

We always covet prayers, the prayers of the saints wherever they may find themselves, for our church and ministry in South Austin. We covet the prayers of God’s people everywhere for the ministry of Reformed Forum for everything that we’re doing, from recording classes to rolling out books and blog posts. Pray that the work of Christ by His Spirit would continue. And I would ask even that it would increase in my heart, so that as I become more like Christ, I will be more effective at showing others how to walk with Christ.

The relationship between the kingdom of God and the church, in the words of Geerhardus Vos, is a “delicate and eminently practical question.”[i] In fact, different ecclesiologies have even arisen because of the various ways the church has construed this relationship.[ii] It has implications for the church’s identity and mission (to say the least), which makes it a question well worth wrestling with. Two prominent theologians who have done just this are Herman Ridderbos (1909-2007) and Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949). Ridderbos and Vos wrote in a theological climate in which liberalism and exclusive (or over-realized) eschatology looked to reduce on opposite ends of the spectrum the wholesome picture the Scriptures provide regarding the relationship between the kingdom and the church in their present and future dimensions.[iii] Vos writes in his article, “The Kingdom of God,”

“Did [Jesus] mean by the kingdom a new state of things suddenly to be realized in external forms … or did He mean by it … a spiritual creation gradually realizing itself in invisible ways? For convenience sake these two conceptions may be distinguished as the eschatological and the spiritual-organic conception. … In modern writings both have in turn been pushed to an extreme in which they become exclusive of the other. The tendency at present … is to make [Jesus’] conception of the kingdom largely eschatological. On the other hand … the opposite tendency appears, viz., to eliminate as much as possible the eschatological elements and ascribe to Him the idea of a kingdom entirely spiritual and internal” (Shorter Writings, 307).

Likewise, Ridderbos observes,

“The liberal theology asserted that, as a visible gathering of believers with a certain amount of organization, the church lay entirely outside the field of Jesus’ vision. Jesus was only supposed to be the prophet of the “inner” religion. … According to [the eschatological] interpretation, it is quite out of the question that Jesus took account of an earthly development in which there would be room for the life of a church and for its organization” (The Coming of the Kingdom, 335-36).

While liberalism sought to remove all future aspects to form an exclusively internal heart religion making the organized church unnecessary, exclusive eschatology sought to relegate the kingdom only to the future without any present intrusion of it so that the church and kingdom are unrelated. In either case, the church lost its identity and mission. In liberalism, the church simply became a sociological phenomenon. In the exclusive eschatology camp, the church became the consequence of the failure of the kingdom to come.[iv] Jesus preached the kingdom, but what came instead was the church.[v] Ridderbos and Vos sought to set forth mediating positions that properly took into account the present and future dimensions of the kingdom and church by setting them within an already-not yet paradigm. In a previous article we considered Ridderbos’ formulation, so now we turn to the slightly different approach of Vos, primarily found in his excellent book The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church.

The Kingdom and the Church Defined

Vos writes, “The church is a form which the kingdom assumes in result of the new stage upon which the messiahship of Jesus enters with his death and resurrection.” Also, he states, “The church is that new congregation taking the place of the old congregation of Israel, which is formed by Jesus as the Messiah and stands under his Messianic rule.”[vi] This congregation could not begin until Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection were accomplished and he was subsequently exalted to the Father’s right hand as the Messiah (cf. Acts 2:36). Vos, unlike Ridderbos, does not see the element of community as foreign to the definition of the kingdom. He writes, “The kingdom is indeed a community in which men are knit together by the closest of bonds, and especially in connection with our Lord’s teaching on the church this is brought out.”[vii] He clarifies though that the kingdom is not limited to this; in fact, he recognizes that this aspect of the kingdom receives little emphasis in Jesus’ teaching (cf. Matt. 13:24-30, 47-50). He goes as far to say that this aspect “is not ultimate because not the union of men as such, but that in God which produces and underlies it, is the true kingdom-forming principle.”[viii] The kingdom exists not merely where “God is supreme, for that is true at all times and under all circumstances, but where God supernaturally carries through his supremacy against all opposing powers and brings man to the willing recognition of the same. It is a state of things in which everything converges and tends towards God as the highest good.” Within this sphere of the kingdom is divine power, divine righteousness, and divinely bestowed blessedness. The kingdom reveals itself as power “in the acts by which [it] is established,” as righteousness “in the moral order under which it exists,” and as blessedness “in the spiritual blessings, privileges and delights that are enjoyed in it.”[ix]

The Church and the Keys of the Kingdom in Matthew 16:18-19 and 18:17

Matthew 16:18, according to Vos, deals with the church “for the express purpose of introducing it as something new, of describing its character and defining its relation to the kingdom.” The occasion for this new revelation was Peter’s confession of Jesus being the Christ, which stood in stark contrast to the multitude who abandoned him. “It is this rock-character … that is praised by Jesus, that, when others wavered, he had remained true to his conviction.”[x] The giving of the keys of the kingdom to Peter, “as the foundation of the church, and therefore to the church,” does not mean that he (or the church) “had been given the power in some way or other to open and shut the gates of the heavenly kingdom.” This interpretation would make the church the gatekeeper of the kingdom. “The binding and loosing do not refer to heaven itself, as if heaven were shut or opened, but refer to certain things lying within the sphere of heaven, and not of heaven alone but of earth likewise.” Vos argues that the keys are not to the outer door, but to the entire house. The church is not here referred to as a gatekeeper, but “the house-steward, and therefore symbolize the administration of the affairs of the house in general.”[xi] From this relationship, Vos sees the kingdom of heaven “existing, in part at least, on earth.” The keys are of the kingdom of heaven, but they bind and loose on earth. So what Peter “does in the administration of the kingdom here below will be recognized in heaven.”[xii] Vos sees the two statements of Jesus (“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” [Matt. 16:18] and “I will give you [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven” [Matt. 16:19]) as having the same referent or figure, namely, that of the house. He writes,

First the house is represented as in process of building, Peter as the foundation, then the same house appears completed and Peter as invested with the keys for administering its affairs. It is plainly excluded that the house should mean one thing in the first statement and another in the second. It must be possible, this much we may confidently affirm, to call the church the kingdom.[xiii]

This provides the exegetical ground from which he formulates the relationship between the kingdom and the church as being identical.

The Kingdom and the Church are Identical

Vos argues that Jesus’ view of the kingdom as an organism of men, a church, is found subtly in his earlier teaching. He maintains that “sayings like Matt. 20:25; Mark 9:35; Luke 20:25, at least suggest the idea of the kingdom as a society.” Jesus’ gathering of the disciples, according to Vos, is what the kingdom of God was always intended to be, namely, an aggregate of men. This is supported by the parables of the wheat and the chaff (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43) and the fishnet (Matt. 13:47-50). “This ‘kingdom of the Son of man’ agrees with the ‘church of Jesus,’ in that both phrases make the kingdom a body of men placed under the Messiah as their ruler.” If such was always the intention of the kingdom, then the church, being external and visible, is clearly an advancement of it since it only previously had been internal and invisible. For this reason, Vos argues that the advance “must be sought in something else than the mere fact of its being a body of disciples.” He puts forth two points concerning this. First, the Old Testament church that rejected the Messiah must be replaced and “therefore receive some form of external organization.”[xiv] Vos continues,

This [viz., external organization] the kingdom had not hitherto possessed. It had been internal and invisible not merely in its essence, but to this essence there had been lacking the outward embodiment. Jesus now in speaking of the house and the keys of the house, of binding and loosing on earth, and of church discipline, makes provision for this.[xv]

Second, Vos contends, “Our Lord gives to understand that the new stage upon which his Messiahship is now about to enter, will bring to the kingdom a new influx of supernatural power and this makes out of it, not only externally but also internally, that new thing which he calls his church.” Vos looks for support of this claim in Jesus’ words regarding the gates of Hades. He posits that the phrase should be translated: “the gates of Hades shall not surpass it.” He understands the gates of Hades as “a figure for the highest conceivable strength, because no one can break through them.”[xvi] So Jesus is saying that the church’s power will excel even that of the highest conceivable strength. For Vos the church’s strength is owing to its being built upon a rock. This new influx of power is also spoken of the kingdom (cf. Matt. 16:28; 26:64; Mark 9:1; 14:62; Luke 9:27; 22:69), hence the church and kingdom are identical.

The Son of Man Coming in His Kingdom (Matt. 16:27-28)

In fact, Jesus’ words to his disciples are emphatic about this: “The Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” (Matt. 16:27-28). The imagery of angels and the glory of the Father denotes power. But in what sense will the kingdom be seen by Jesus’ disciples prior to their death? Vos believes “we can interpret these sayings of the coming of the kingdom in the church.” Jesus’ statement is so emphatic because the power of the Holy Spirit that was at work in the early church anticipates “in some respects the phenomena that will be observed at the end of the world. … The church actually has within herself the powers of the world to come. She is more than the immanent kingdom as it existed before Jesus’ exaltation. She forms an intermediate link between the present life and the life of eternity.”[xvii]

Conclusion

The above analysis leads to this conclusion: “The church is a form which the kingdom assumes in result of the new stage upon which the Messiahship of Jesus enters with his death and resurrection.” Vos takes it further saying, “Jesus plainly leads us to identify the invisible church and the kingdom.” He appeals to John 3:3-5, which explicitly teaches that to be born again is a requirement for anyone who would see or enter into the kingdom. “The kingdom, therefore, as truly as the invisible church is constituted by the regenerate; the regenerate alone experience in themselves its power, cultivate its righteousness, enjoy its blessings.”[xviii] If the invisible church is equated with the kingdom, then what is the relationship between the visible church and the kingdom? Vos answers, “Our Lord looked upon the visible church as a veritable embodiment of his kingdom. Precisely because the invisible church realizes the kingship of God, the visible church must likewise partake of this character.” The keys of the kingdom bring some sort of visible manifestation to the kingdom. And Jesus by conferring this power acts in the capacity of King over the visible church. Vos further draws the identity of the visible church and the kingdom when he says, “In Matt. 13:41 the kingdom of the Son of Man … is nothing else but the visible church. The visible church is constituted by the enthronement of Christ as the King of glory.” The invisible forces of the kingdom that exist in the invisible sphere “find expression in the kingdom-organism of the visible church.”[xix] In the end, Vos identifies the kingdom with church since for him the church is the externally organized kingdom.

[i] Vos, Geerhardus, The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom and the Church. PTR 2:335-336. [ii] Cf. Morgan, Christopher W., and Robert A. Peterson, The Kingdom of God (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2012), 179. [iii] For a brief discussion of these two positions Vos and Ridderbos are responding to see Millard Erickson, A Basic Guide to Eschatology, pp. 21-22. [iv] Ridderbos adds, “The church is then supposed to owe its origin to the fact that those who had been waiting for the coming of the kingdom in vain had no other alternative in the continuation of history than, as Jesus’ disciples, to form an organization” (Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, 337). [v] The implications of these two systems of thought are massive since the church in both cases becomes a mere human invention and severed from its relationship to the kingdom. [vi] Vos, Geerhardus, The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church, 79, 85-86. [vii] The full quote: “We must reject as inadequate the favorite modern explanation that in the figure of the kingdom the point of comparison lies primarily in the mutual association of men so as to form a moral or religious organism. The kingdom is indeed a community in which men are knit together by the closest of bonds, and especially in connection with our Lord’s teaching on the church this is brought out. Taking, however, the kingdom-teaching as a whole this point is but little emphasized, Matt. 13:24-30, 47-50. Besides, this conception is not nearly wide enough to cover all the things predicated of the kingdom in the Gospel, according to which it appears to consist as much in gifts and powers from above as in inter-human relations and activities. Its resemblance to a community offers at least only a partial explanation of its kingdom-character, and so far as this explanation is correct it is not ultimate because not the union of men as such, but that in God which produces and underlies it, is the true kingdom-forming principle” (Vos, The Teaching of Jesus, 49). However, Vos defines the kingdom differently with respect to this community aspect in his review of Das Reich Gottes nach den synoptischen as “a gift of God (not a task, a goal, an ideal or a community); the attitude of man with reference to it is purely receptive, not productive; the kingdom is wrought by God; human activity comes into consideration only in so far as it conditions the reception or loss of the kingdom … the world receives the kingdom in so far as the latter steps forward out of its hidden state and by drawing the world into its sphere becomes manifest; God brings the kingdom, though in Christ, and Christ through the power of God, these two being synonymous” (Vos, Geerhardus, and James T. Dennison, The Letters of Geerhardus Vos, 54). It should be noted that this definition was written in 1900, while the Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom and the Church was published in 1903. [viii] Vos, The Teaching of Jesus, 49 [ix] Ibid., 50, 52 [x] Ibid., 78 [xi] Ibid., 80-81 [xii] Ibid., 81 [xiii] Ibid. [xiv] Ibid., 82-83 [xv] Ibid., 83 [xvi] Ibid. [xvii] Ibid., 84 [xviii] Ibid., 85-86 [xix] Ibid., 87. Vos is sure to clarify the above conclusion noting that the church is not the only expression of the invisible kingdom. He writes, “Undoubtedly the kingship of God… is intended to pervade and control the whole of human life in all its forms of existence.” The kingdom, then, manifests itself in the various spheres of life (e.g., science; art; family; state; commerce; industry; etc.) when it comes under “the controlling influence of the principle of the divine supremacy and glory.” Jesus looked upon every province of human life as being intended to “form part of God’s kingdom,” though he did not see subjection to the visible church as the way it would be accomplished. For the kingdom to penetrate any sphere of life and manifest itself there, including in the church, the principle of regeneration must be there from which it supernaturally empowers it. “While it is proper to separate between the visible church and such things as the Christian state, Christian art, Christian science, etc., these things, if they truly belong to the kingdom of God, grow up out of the regenerated life of the invisible church” (Vos, The Teaching of Jesus, 87-89).

The complexity revolving around the question of the relationship between the kingdom and the church is largely due to varying definitions. So before setting forth Herman Ridderbos’ formulation in his magisterial work on the gospels, The Coming of the Kingdom, we’ll first consider his definition of the church and the kingdom.

The Church Defined

Ridderbos succinctly defines the church (Gk. ekklesia) as “the name of those who have been united into one community by the preaching of the gospel.”[i] In other words, the church is the people of God who have been called out to a single assembly by means of the Word and Spirit. Although Jesus does not use the term “church” often (cf. Matt. 16:18; 18:17), the idea of the church, according to Ridderbos, is “a very essential element in the scope of Jesus’ preaching and self-revelation.”[ii] This raises the question: where did this idea of the church in Jesus’ teaching originate from? Scholars have appealed to the Son of Man’s symbolic representation of “the people of the saints of the Most High” in Daniel 7[iii] and “the remnant” of the people of Israel (cf. Isa. 10:22ff). But Ridderbos (though not necessarily rejecting these connections) sees them as superfluous starting points for the origination of the idea in Jesus’ teaching.[iv] Instead, he argues, “The idea of God’s people has a much more general foundation in Jesus’ messianic preaching of the basileia [kingdom]. … [It] occupies a much more central place in it than can be made plausible on the ground of such special connections.”[v] He goes on to provide three grounds that he finds more suitable on which to build the idea of the church. First, there is “the a priori messianic viewpoint.” The Messiah must have a people, “a kingdom-of-God-community.” He must act for, answer to and be united with a people—a people whom he will confess before his Father (Matt 10:32-33), whom he calls his brothers (12:50; 25:40) and who are children of the messianic bridegroom (9:15). It is for this reason Jesus says, “my church” (Matt. 16:18)—“it is the ‘my’ of the Messiah speaking of the people to whom he has given his grace and whom he rules.”[vi] The fact that the kingdom has come, means that this people is not a purely eschatological entity, but a present reality that is being gathered even today (cf. Matt. 10:34-38; 12:30; Mark 9:40; Luke 9:50; 11:23; 12:51-53). Second, Israel’s rejection of the Messiah warrants “the concomitant new formation of God’s people”—something that “has already begun to be realized with the coming of Jesus.” The rejection of Israel as the people of God is seen in the parable of the wicked tenants (Matt. 21:33-44; cf. Isa. 5:2). Israel’s own rejection of Jesus as the Messiah catalyzes the ripping of the kingdom from their possession and the giving of the kingdom to “a people producing its fruits” (Matt. 25:43). “By this ‘people’ is… [meant] the new people of God to whom, in passing over the old Israel, he will give the salvation of the kingdom.” Ridderbos recognizes that here the two concepts—the kingdom of God and the gathering of a new people of God by the Messiah—are apparent. “The revelation of the kingdom is directed to the formation of a people that will replace Israel in the history of salvation.”[vii] This finds further support in the fact that Jesus gathers twelve disciples to form the nucleus or foundation of the new Israel, the new people of God. The point Ridderbos seeks to make here is that Jesus’ messianic mission was, in fact, directed and determined by this idea of forming the new people of God, his church. Third, the idea of the church arises from “the basic motif of the covenant and of the people of God.” This is found in the definition of ekklesia as “the gathering together of the people of the divine covenant.”[viii] These people who belong to the Covenant Lord are the people of the Messiah and vice-versa. These three observations lead Ridderbos to define the church as

the community of those who, as the true people of God, receive the gifts of the kingdom of heaven provisionally now already since the Messiah has come, and one day in the state of perfection at the parousia of the Son of Man.” In other words, “the ekklesia is the people elected and called by God and sharing in the bliss of the basileia.[ix]

The Kingdom Defined

The kingdom is defined by Ridderbos as “the revelation of God’s glory (Matt. 16:27; 24:30; Mark 8:38; 13:26, etc.).” Ridderbos notes that basileia can be translated as “kingdom,” “kingship,” and “kingly dominion.” The spatial interpretation is to be seen as secondary to the kingly dominion sense. From here Ridderbos argues that the kingdom of God has a “personal connotation” for it is “the coming of God himself as king.” He appeals to the parables of the kingdom for support since a personal character always stands at the center of them, not some static, impersonal force (cf. Matt. 13:24ff; 18:23ff; 20:1ff; 21:33ff; 22:1ff; 25:14ff). This is consistent with the Old Testament conception of the coming of the kingdom as a coming of a person, generally conceived of as the Messiah.[x] Nevertheless, dominion must create or maintain a territory where it can operate, which makes “kingdom” a legitimate translation of basileia. Therefore, the coming of the kingdom has both a spatial (a territory) and an ethical (a power of dominion) connotation. In Jesus’ coming, the kingdom is revealed as (1) a power seen in Jesus’ miracles and ruination of Satan’s reign that brings judgment, salvation, and restoration to the created order, (2) a message of salvation that is preached to the poor in spirit, and (3) a gift that the people of God, the church, may delight in. In summary, “the basileia is the great divine work of salvation in its fulfillment and consummation in Christ.”[xi] The question that now presents itself to us is: How does the church, the people elected and called by God, relate to the kingdom, the great divine work of salvation?

The Kingdom and the Church are Complementary

Ridderbos strongly stresses that the kingdom is not to be identified with the church. He writes, “The concept basileia nowhere occurs in the sense of this idea of the ekklesia … [nor is it] used in the sense that the kingdom of God in its provisional manifestation on earth would be embodied in the form and organization of the church.”[xii] However, the kingdom parables (e.g., Matt. 13), which keep the gospel central, seem to suggest the coming of the church. Calvin even tried to apply some of them to the church (e.g., the wheat and tares and the fishing net). The issue that is often at hand when these parables are taken up is the “mingling of the wicked and the good in the church.” This application is still widely popular in contemporary interpretation of the parables. However, Ridderbos rejects such un-nuanced application since “the field in which the wicked and good are growing up in together is the world,” not the church. The parables are much more broad, encompassing “the universal work of the divine salvation.” To limit them to the church is to unduly narrow them. This does not necessarily have to exclude the church, for, as Ridderbos comments, “this progress includes the salvation of all those who will inherit the kingdom.”[xiii] For Ridderbos, then, the relationship between the kingdom and the church is clear with regard to their connections and differences:

The basileia is the great divine work of salvation in its fulfillment and consummation in Christ; the ekklesia is the people elected and called by God and sharing in the bliss of the basileia. Logically, the basileia ranks first, and not the ekklesia. The former, therefore, has a much more comprehensive content. It [the kingdom] represents the all-embracing perspective, it denotes the consummation of all history, brings both grace and judgment, has cosmic dimensions, fills time and eternity. The ekklesia in all this is the people who in this great drama have been placed on the side of God in Christ by virtue of the divine election and covenant. They have been given the divine promise, have been brought to manifestation and gathered together by the preaching of the gospel, and will inherit the redemption of the kingdom now and in the great future.[xiv]

In Jesus’ coming, the kingdom is revealed as a power, message, and gift. The church, then, reveals the kingdom “in its redeeming and saving significance, in all the gifts and treasures promised and granted now already in and through Christ.” The church is “as far as humanity is concerned… the soteriological goal” of the kingdom. The salvation that the kingdom is bringing is universal and cosmic, restoring all of creation as far as curse is found, “in which the church is herself included.”[xv] That is to say, the church does not reveal the kingdom comprehensively, only in part—the kingdom is far more encompassing than the church. The church and the kingdom do not oppose one another, as if only one can exist, but neither are they to be construed as identical. The salvation that the kingdom brings “bears both a messianic and a historical character.” The Messiah must have a people and since the kingdom is already being realized in history, the church takes on a present, historical nature. “The ekklesia is the fruit of the revelation of the basileia; and conversely, the basileia is inconceivable without the ekklesia. The one is inseparable from the other without, however, the one merging into the other.”[xvi] The kingdom has a universal scope in which the church shares but which she never encompasses. The church is the fruit of the kingdom, not the kingdom itself. Raymond Zorn, in his helpful book, Christ Triumphant: Biblical Perspectives on his Church and Kingdom, writes in agreement with Ridderbos, “The church is to be found within the kingdom but is not co-extensive with it.”[xvii]

Conclusion

Ridderbos’ formulation of the church from the viewpoint of the kingdom leads to three conclusions. First, the church is the community that awaits the full salvation of the kingdom. Second, it is the place where “the gifts and powers of the [kingdom] are granted and received.” Third, it is the instrument of the kingdom as she professes Jesus as the Christ, obeys his commandments, and fulfills the Great Commission by preaching the gospel to the ends of the earth. “In every respect,” then, “the church is surrounded and impelled by the revelation, the progress, the future of the kingdom of God without, however, itself being the basileia, and without ever being identified with it.”[xviii]

[i] Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, 343. [ii] Ibid., 347. [iii] G.K. Beale argues that “the Son of Man is both an individual and also a representative for a community” (A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2011], 394ff). Also, in the book of Revelation the saints of the Most High, i.e., the church, shares the authority and dominion of the Lamb (1:6, 9; 2:26-27; 3:21; 5:9-10), which seems to be consistent with Daniel 7. [iv] cf. Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, 347-348. [v] Ibid. 348 [vi] Ibid. [vii] Ibid., 351-53 [viii] Ibid., 354 [ix] Ibid. [x] Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, 24-27. [xi] Ibid., 354 [xii] Ibid., 343 [xiii] Ibid., 344-47 [xiv] Ibid., 354-55 [xv] Ibid., 355 [xvi] Ibid. [xvii] Raymond O. Zorn, Christ Triumphant: Biblical Perspectives on His Church and Kingdom, 71 [xviii] Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, 356

In the Old Testament, the altars of the patriarchs, the tabernacle constructed under Moses, and the temple built by Solomon were all sufficient and efficacious means by which the people of God experienced the covenantal and joy-full presence of the Lord their God. All of the spectacular and mighty acts of redemption that God worked on behalf of his people were always unto this end of union and communion. In other words, redemption served the covenant promise: I will be your God and you will be my people. This promise is the refrain played on the pages of Scripture as the mighty hand of God beats down upon the enemies of his people and gently orchestrates Israel’s entrance into the land of Canaan. Notice, for example, how the exhortation in Psalm 105 to seek the LORD’s presence continually (v. 4) arises from God’s work of (1) rescuing his people from their Egyptian bondage and (2) bringing them into the land in which he promised to dwell with them. He brings his people out with joy, as the Psalmist recounts in v. 43, for he brings them out to dwell in his presence in which there is fullness of joy (Ps. 16:11). Nevertheless, while these means of God dwelling with his people in the Old Testament were good as both sufficient for the time and effectual in administering the covenantal presence of God, they were still only temporary and provisional (Heb. 8:13). They ultimately foresignified Christ to come, as foretold by the prophets (see Westminster Confession of Faith 7.5). In the incarnation, the Son of God “tabernacled” among us as the true and eternal, the final and permanent dwelling place of God (John 1:14). For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily (Col. 2:9). With this redemptive-historical transition from what was good, yet provisional, to what is now better and permanent, that is, from the shadows to the substance, which is Christ, the joy-full presence of God is experienced in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, even extending to all nations (see Westminster Confession of Faith 7.6). With all that in mind, we can consider the event of Pentecost with its momentous background as the Holy Spirit is poured out upon the church by the risen and ascended Lord, Jesus Christ. If it is by a Spirit-kindled faith that we share in Christ (Belgic Confession art. 22; Heidelberg Catechism Q/A 53), who is himself the end-time temple of God, then what does that tell us about the nature of the church?

Pentecost and the Church as the Temple of God

The apostle Peter writes, “As you come to [Jesus Christ], a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house” (1 Pet. 2:4-5; cf. Isa. 8:14; 28:16; Ps. 118:22). In a similar vein, the apostle Paul asks the Corinthian church, “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you…?” (1 Cor. 6:19; cf. 3:16; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:20-22; Rev. 3:12; 11:1-2). The point is that as believers are united to Jesus Christ by faith they too are built up as the temple of God. The church is the eschatological temple where God now dwells in the power of his Spirit. This is the reality that the tabernacle and temple prefigured. However, God is not just dwelling with his people, as he did in the past, but within them in an unprecedented way. This indwelling of the Spirit in the church transforms the church into the dwelling place of God, which takes place at Pentecost. Pentecost closely parallels the Sinai theophany when Moses received the blueprint for building the tabernacle.[1] But rather than Moses coming down from the mountain with a blueprint to construct a shadow of the heavenly reality, Jesus comes down from heaven in the power of the Holy Spirit[2] with the heavenly reality itself. Pentecost also parallels those occasions in the Old Testament when God came to fill with his presence the tabernacle (Exod. 40:34-35) and temple (1 Kgs. 8:10-11). This is why Peter on the day of Pentecost uses the prophecy of Joel to explain the significance of this extraordinary event (Joel 2:28-32). The church as the eschatological temple of God is totally dependent upon Jesus Christ and filled with his resurrection joy (Ps. 16:11). Clowney helpfully writes,

The church’s existence as the body-temple depends totally on the resurrection body of Christ in which the church is raised up, and on the Spirit of Christ by which the church lives. Paul’s appeals for the unity of the church are drawn from the unity of the body of Christ as the true and final temple. For Paul the body and the temple go together: the breaking down of the middle wall of the temple creates one body; the New Temple grows as a body (Eph. 2:21); the body is built as a temple (Eph. 4:12, 16). Christ is the cornerstone of the structure, the Lord in whom the New Temple exists.[3]

Pentecost and the Mission of the Church

The substance has superseded the shadow, the church has superseded the Solomonic temple as the eschatological end-time temple with people from all nations being built up as a spiritual house. “Subsequent to Pentecost, when people believe in Jesus, they become a part of Jesus and the temple, since Jesus himself is the locus of that temple.”[4] Consequently, as the church expands throughout the earth by Christ’s Word and Spirit, God’s dwelling place is also extended and the creation mandate is fulfilled in the form of the Great Commission (note, for example, the allusion to Gen. 1:28 in Col. 1:6).[5] G. K. Beale powerfully captures the impact of this theme on the mission of the church today:

Jesus … becomes the cornerstone of the new temple, and Christians are like living stones being built into the dwelling place of God (Eph. 2:22; 1 Pet. 2:5), which ‘grows into a holy temple in the Lord’ (Eph. 2:21) through the proclamation of the word of God during the church age. Through faithful witness, even in the midst of suffering, the church expands with power, eventually to fill the entire earth.[6]

Pentecost tells us most emphatically that God is a missionary God (Ezek. 20:34; John 3:16; 4:23) who has sent his missionary Spirit (John 16:8ff) to testify to and apply the work of his missionary Son (Luke 19:10) to form a missionary people (John 20:21; Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 2:9) to fulfill his mission for the world (Gen. 1:28; Matt. 28:19-20). At Pentecost the church became the eschatological temple set ablaze by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the gospel during the already-not yet until the mission of God is complete.   For more on this topic check out this episode of Vos Group with Drs. Camden Bucey and Lane Tipton as they expound upon the insight of Geerhardus Vos regarding the redemptive-historical significance of the tabernacle and God dwelling with his people.

[1] For a defense of relating the two events see G. K. Beale, “The Commencement of the Spirit’s Building of Believers into the Transformed Temple of the End-Time New Creation,” in A New Testament Biblical Theology, 592ff. [2] For a discussion of the close relationship between Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit see Richard B. Gaffin, “Pentecost: Before and After,” Kerux 10, no. 2 (September 1, 1995): 3-24. [3] Clowney, “The Final Temple,” WTJ 35 (1973), 184-85. [4] Beale, New Testament Biblical Theology, 634. [5] It can be said that the church inherits the creation mandate in the form of the great commission. [6] Beale, God Dwells Among Us, 135-36.

In episode 31, your hosts Rob and Bob, continue their discussion about Dispensationalism. In picking up our discussion of Dispensational Theology once again, we discuss “The Dispensation of Grace” a.k.a. The Church Age. What is the Dispensation of Grace? Why is is also known as the Church Age? How does it relate to the Dispensation of Law? How does it relate to the Mosaic Covenant? Why did Jesus come into the world? We’ll discuss these and other related questions in this episode of Theology Simply Profound. Theology Simply Profound is a podcast of Westminster Presbyterian Church, an Orthodox Presbyterian Church, serving the western suburbs of Chicago, where God powerfully speaks through his means of grace. Music credit: pamelayork.com. Thank you, Pamela York, for the use of your beautiful jazzy rendition of “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God.” We encourage our listeners to check out her website and consider purchasing some of her music.

Participants: Rob McKenzie, Robert Tarullo

Welcome to Theology Simply Profound: a Podcast of Westminster Presbyterian Church, an Orthodox Presbyterian Church, serving the western suburbs of Chicago. Theology Simply Profound is where simple Christians discuss the profound things of God. On episode 14, your hosts Rob McKenzie and Bob Tarullo, discuss questions like, “What should Christian expect from the society they live within? Should coffee houses cater to Christian’s at Christmas-time with special cups? Is that what we should expect? We’ll discuss these and other related (unrelated) topics in this episode of Theology Simply Profound Music credit: pamelayork.com. Thank you, Pamela York, for the use of your beautiful jazzy rendition of “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God.” We encourage our listeners to check out her website and consider purchasing some of her music.  

Participants: Rob McKenzie, Robert Tarullo