VOS INTRODUCTION TO THE TWO AGES

PMW 2024-071 by Geerhardus Vos

Gentry introductory note:

This article includes a portion of Geerhardus Vos’s “The Eschatology of the New Testament.” Herein Vos provides us with a helpful introduction to the Two Age structure of redemptive history. Too many Internet theologues are confused on the matter and therefore confused on New Testament eschatology itself. And some have even abandoned historic Christian orthodoxy on the matter. Thus, they even deny the bodily resurrection at the end of history — because they deny an end to history!

Though Vos is a vigorous amillennialist, this is not a necessary result of the Two Age doctrine. Rather it is a possible result. The Two Age view is widely held, especially in Reformed circles. We can see this at work among Reformed postmillennialists such as B. B. Warfield, John Murray, Greg Bahnsen, Keith Mathison, and others. For example, see: https://wordpress.com/post/postmillennialworldview.com/18460

I have a new book (co-edited with my good friend and Vos enthusiast, Bill Boney) titled: Reformed Eschatology of Geerhardus Vos. It is a collection of Vos’ eschatological studies that have been updated in terms of style and grammar. See: https://postmillennialworldview.com/2024/06/21/new-book-on-geerhardus-vos-eschatology/ But now, What saith Vos?

Vos’ “Course of Development” section

In New Testament eschatological teaching a general development in a well-defined direction is traceable. The starting-point is the historico-dramatic conception of the two successive ages. These two ages are distinguished as houtos ho aion, ho nun aion, ho enesios aion, “this age,” “the present age” (Matthew 12:32; 13:22; Luke 16:8; Romans 12:2; 1 Corinthians 1:20; 2:6, 8; 3:18; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Galatians 1:4; Ephesians 1:21; 2:2; 6:12; 1 Timothy 6:17; 2 Timothy 4:10; Titus 2:12), and ho aion ekeinos, ho aion mellon, ho aion erchomenos, “that age,” “the future age” (Matthew 12:32; Luke 18:30; 20:35; Ephesians 2:7; Hebrews 6:5).

In Jewish literature before the New Testament, no instances of the developed antithesis between these two ages seem to be found, but from the way in which it occurs in the teaching of Jesus and Paul it appears to have been current at that time. (The oldest undisputed occurrence is a saying of Johanan ben Zaqqay, about 80 AD.) The contrast between these two ages is (especially with Paul) that between the evil and transitory, and the perfect and abiding. Thus, to each age belongs its own characteristic order of things, and so the distinction passes over into that of two “worlds” in the sense of two systems (in Hebrew and Aramaic the same word ‘olam, ‘olam, does service for both, in Greek aion usually renders the meaning “age,” occasionally “world” (Hebrews 1:2; 11:3), kosmos meaning “world”; the latter, however, is never used of the future world). Compare Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, 1:132–146.

Broadly speaking, the development of New Testament eschatology consists in this, that the two ages are increasingly recognized as answering to two spheres of being which coexist from of old, so that the coming of the new age assumes the character of a revelation and extension of the supernal order of things, rather than that of its first entrance into existence. Inasmuch as the coming world stood for the perfect and eternal, and in the realm of heaven such a perfect, eternal order of things already existed, the reflection inevitably arose that these two were in some sense identical. But the new significance which the antithesis assumes does not supersede the older historico-dramatic form. The higher world so interposes in the course of the lower as to bring the conflict to a crisis.

The Reformed Eschatology of Geerhardus Vos[image error]
Ed. by Ken Gentry and Bill Boney
This collection of several key eschatological studies by the renowned theologian Geehardus Vos will be published in late Summer or early Fall 2024. We have modernized Vos’ grammar and syntax and updated his publications according to modern style conventions (shorter sentences and paragraphs).

For information on the upcoming Geerhardus Vos work, see:
https://axeheadpress.com/pages/coming-soon-vos

The passing over of the one contrast into the other, therefore, does not mark, as has frequently been asserted, a recession of the eschatological wave, as if the interest had been shifted from the future to the present life. Especially in the Fourth Gospel this “de-eschatologizing” process has been found, but without real warrant. The apparent basis for such a conclusion is that the realities of the future life are so vividly and intensely felt to be existent in heaven and from there operative in the believer’s life, that the distinction between what is now and what will be hereafter enjoyed becomes less sharp. Instead of the supersedure of the eschatological, this means the very opposite, namely, its most real anticipation.

Reformed Eschatology in the Writings of Geerhardus Vos, edited by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. and Bill Boney, is available for pre-orders now. https://axeheadpress.com/products/reformed-eschatology-in-the-writings-of-geerhardus-vos

It should further be observed that the development in question is intimately connected and keeps equal pace with the disclosure of the preexistence of Christ, because this fact and the descent of Christ from heaven furnished the clearest witness to the reality of the heavenly order of things. Hence, it is especially observable, not in the earlier epistles of Paul, where the structure of eschatological thought is still in the main historico-dramatic, but in the epistles of the first captivity (Ephesians 1:3, 10–22; 2:6; 3:9, 10; 4:9, 10; 6:12; Philippians 2:5–11; 3:20; Colossians 1:15, 17; 3:2; further, in Hebrews 1:2, 3; 2:5; 3:4; 6:5, 11; 7:13, 16; 9:14; 11:10, 16; 12:22, 23).

The Fourth Gospel marks the culmination of this line of teaching, and it is unnecessary to point out how here the contrast between heaven and earth in its Christological consequences determines the entire structure of thought. But here it also appears how the last outcome of the New Testament progress of doctrine had been anticipated in the highest teaching of our Lord. This can be accounted for by the inherent fitness that the supreme disclosures which touch the personal life of the Savior should come not through any third person, but from His own lips.

Thine Is the Kingdom
(ed. by Ken Gentry)

Contributors lay the scriptural foundation for a biblically-based, hope-filled postmillennial eschatology, while showing what it means to be postmillennial in the real world.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com