Changing My Pulpit/Preaching Translation

It’s something I should have done a long time ago. Before I came to Arizona (1998-2013), I varied which translation I used for preaching and teaching on a fairly regular basis. The New King James Version was my primary and preferred text, but I used the New American Standard, King James, and English Standard (starting around 2004 or 2005) in the pulpit and classes quite frequently. It never occurred to me that I should choose one translation as my “standard” preaching version. Now I see the benefit of doing so, but I did not think of it at the time. When I moved to Arizona I was using the ESV like most “young, restless, and reformed” preachers. There were things I liked about it and things I didn’t, but I didn’t give it much thought. I assumed I would move on to a different text at some point as I had done before. Then it happened. Everyone in the church began buying ESVs. I should have seen it coming. When it began, I should have quickly switched to the version I preferred. But I didn’t. And so, six years later, inconvenient as it is, I am transitioning. After January 1st, I will be using the NKJV for public Bible reading and (most) of my preaching and teaching.

I say (most), because I like the flexibility of being able to use a different version when and where it better expresses the underlying original. I may (will) still refer to other translations from time to time when teaching a given text. But the last six years have taught me--nay, thoroughly convinced me--the value of having a liturgical standard for Bible translation. The congregation knows what to expect and is able to follow along in the same translation if they choose. The Bible translation read in the pulpit should not vary week to week. There is an advantage to consistency. It promotes memorization. It contributes to the rhythm of weekly worship.

If that is so, why change? Don’t we have this already, to some extent, with the ESV? Yes, to the latter question, but the value of a standard translation for the pulpit does not mean it can never change. (Unless you all would like to use the Geneva Bible. I have a beautiful copy and would be happy to start using it!) We’ve had guest speakers that have used several different translations. Jacob recently started using the NKJV when leading worship and preaching. It was an adjustment, but the congregation easily adapted. Why change from the ESV to the NKJV? I have several reasons, but basically it comes down to the fact that I prefer it. It is the version in which I have done most of my memory work. It has a style and rhythm I am comfortable with having read and preached from it for years. I also prefer its underlying textual basis. For those of you that know something about textual criticism, I am a Majority Text advocate, though I regularly consult and work in the Critical (Nestle-Aland/UBS) Text when studying the NT. Studying textual criticism in seminary (and reading about and following debates over it almost constantly since then) have only made me more convinced of its superiority. It is not a hill to die on or anything that affects fellowship; I am simply convinced of the historical and theological superiority of the majority text tradition. But for all of these reasons, if consistency in the pulpit Bible is valuable, then I would rather be consistently using a translation I prefer.

So what should you do if you have an ESV? I recommend reading it: frequently, carefully, systematically, thoroughly, and repeatedly. Underline, annotate, and study the text. If you use it in the worship assemblies or Wednesday evening study, you will notice some differences starting January 5th. If this makes it difficult for you to follow along, you can always pick up an inexpensive NKJV to use at church. But this is not about undermining or deriding the ESV. The ESV is a good translation, a faithful representation of the Word of God. Yes, it differs in places from the NKJV, and Christian brothers can have reasonable and robust discussions about those differences in the text. But both are the work of conservative, Bible-believing scholars who take a conservative approach to translation and who seek to represent the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek faithfully. I simply prefer the NKJV/KJV, so that is what I will begin reading and preaching from starting Sunday, January 5th.

(We will continue to use the ESV for the Ten Commandments on the first Sunday of each month and the Corporate Confession of Sin from 1 Timothy 1:15 since these are already printed and have been memorized by a large part of the congregation.)

--JME (December 2019)

A Reformed Argument for Musical Accompaniment in Worship

I grew up in an acapella church tradition. We rejected the use of musical instruments when singing any religious song, whether publicly or privately. There are still many aspects of an acapella tradition that I admire and prefer. In an age when so many churches pattern their worship on the world’s music and tastes, the simplicity and beauty of unadorned singing has an aesthetic and other-worldly appeal. But while I would be happy, and truly content, to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs without instrumental accompaniment for the rest of my life, I cannot require it of anyone’s conscience or as a minister of the Gospel claim that such is required by Scripture. What follows is a brief outline of seven reasons (and an eighth observation) I believe instrumental accompaniment is lawful in Christian worship. These reasons have not been elaborated, only stated simply and, it is hoped, sufficiently. At some point I hope to develop this list into a more comprehensive work on the subject.

1) The Use of Musical Instruments as an Aid to Worship Began Prior to the Law of Moses

We first see musical instruments accompanying the praises of God in Exodus 15:20 where Miriam and the women of Israel sang with tambourines. Like the Sabbath (Gen. 2:3; Ex. 16:26) and tithing (Gen. 14:20), musical accompaniment has precedents prior to the Law of Moses. Their use cannot be limited to the ceremonial law.

2) The Use of Musical Instruments as an Aid to Worship Was Not Limited to Temple Services in the Mosaic Period

Opponents of musical accompaniment in worship often argue their use in the Old Testament was associated with or limited to the Temple system and animal sacrifices. But this is clearly incorrect. David, the sweet psalmist of Israel, played the lyre to soothe Saul (1Sam. 16:22)--maybe he was playing U2 and not the psalms. Are we to assume that David did not play the lyre when writing and singing the psalms he wrote throughout his life, before the Temple and apart from assemblies for worship and sacrifice (e.g. Ps. 6:1; 12:1; 57:8)? The psalms call for the use of musical instruments to accompany the praise and prayers of God’s people and do not limit this to the context of corporate worship (e.g. Ps. 33:3; 98:4-6). Even in Babylon the Jews had lyres for the purpose of singing psalms (Ps. 137:1-3). Such praise belongs to the heavenly Zion, not only the typological, earthly Jerusalem (Ps. 87:7).

3) The Use of Musical Instruments as an Aid to Worship Was Not a Typological Ordinance in the Ceremonial Law

Some will say, “Yes, the psalms speak of musical instruments, but they also speak of altars, animal sacrifices, and incense. Should we use those features of OT worship as well?” The difference here is that each of those features of OT worship are explicitly identified in the New Testament as typological and both fulfilled and abrogated by the mediatorial work of Jesus Christ (cf. Heb. 9-10; Rev. 5:8-10). But musical instruments are never identified in this way as only a shadow of what is to come. They are simply an aid to worship and properly used beyond the cross.

4) The Use of Musical Instruments as an Aid to Worship is Supported by the History of the Verb Psallo (ψάλλω)

The verb psallo means “to pluck” or “pull” referring, most often, to a stringed instrument. The verb eventually came to mean to sing the psalms, but while the verb might be used to refer to unaccompanied singing, this cannot be dogmatically required given that the verb of command Paul uses refers to playing psalms on a harp (Eph. 5:19).

5) The Use of Musical Instruments as an Aid to Worship is Approved by the Command to Sing Psalms

The NT writings specifically command Christians to sing psalms (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; 1Cor. 14:26; Jas. 5:13), which would include the 150 psalms of the OT Psalter (among others). The Book of Psalms calls believers to sing praise to God with musical accompaniment (cf. Ps. 150). Given that nothing suggests this feature of the psalms is no longer valid for Christian worship (as is the case with animal sacrifices and incense), the command to sing the psalms includes the positive authority to sing them accompanied by instruments.

6) The Use of Musical Instruments as an Aid to Worship is Not a Violation of Any Part of God’s Law

The Regulative Principle of Worship states that only what God has commanded may be allowed in worship. I do not believe instruments are a required element of worship, but the Bible clearly allows their use throughout redemptive history. What command of God precludes their use today? Nothing in God’s moral law forbids such a help.

7) The Use of Musical Instruments as an Aid to Worship is Permitted under the Believer’s Liberty of Conscience

It is not legalistic to require strict obedience to God’s revealed law. But we must be very careful that we only require obedience to the laws God, not man, has made. There may be many good and wise reasons to limit or refrain from using musical instruments in worshipping God. An individual or congregation may choose to do so as a matter of Christian liberty--and I will gladly worship with them! But the rejection of their use should not be made a doctrine of the faith or a requirement for church membership because God has not clearly revealed such a doctrine.

In closing, let me offer one final observation.

8) The Use of Musical Instruments is Not Made Unlawful by the Antipathy of Patristic and Reformation Fathers

It is true that the majority of early Church fathers and many Reformation-era leaders rejected the use of musical instruments in worship. This fact is often cited by opponents of their use today. But this is a selective and misleading use of historical sources. The patristic writers not only rejected the use of musical instruments in Christian worship, they rejected their use everywhere else and all secular forms of music whether accompanied or not! They did so not on the grounds of later opponents of instrumentation but in reaction against their association with paganism and the immorality of the Roman world. Similarly, Reformation leaders who rejected the use of instruments in worship did so because of their association with Roman Catholicism. (Zwingli went so far as to reject the use of all songs, accompanied or not, in corporate worship.) When I see the degradation and carnality of many contemporary church services, I have sympathy for the view of our fathers in the faith. But this is not a biblical argument; it is a pragmatic and, if we are not careful, a Pharisaical one. The fact that instruments are frequented abused and misused in worship to the neglect of obedience to God’s commands does not mean their use is always unlawful. (Churches misuse their buildings, bank accounts, and ecclesiastical authority. Should we abandon these as well?) It is anachronistic and misleading to use the early Church fathers and early Reformation leaders in support of modern arguments against musical accompaniment. Some second generation Reformers did make such arguments, but the earliest opponents to musical instruments in worship did not.

--Joel M. Ellis, Jr. (June 2019)

What is "New" About the New Covenant?

HEBREWS 8:6-13: WHAT IS “NEW” ABOUT THE NEW COVENANT?

INTRODUCTION

The division of our Bibles into the Old Testament and New Testament is a well-established tradition, but it is misleading in a number of ways. One might question the propriety of using the term testament to describe these two portions. At the very least, the division of our Bible and the naming of them in this way suggests more of a division and discontinuity between the two than is valid. The Bible is one book. It is not two books that are entirely distinct from one another. There are differences, important ways in which the administration of God’s Covenant of Grace differs in the time of ancient Israel and the time of the post-Pentecost Church. But we should not mistake these differences for an actual division in the overall purpose and plan of God to redeem a united people, chosen from the foundation of the world, by the effectual work of his Son and sovereign redemption of those individuals in every time and place. There is one people of God, not two, and they are united to Jesus Christ and receive the benefits of his atoning work. In a very real sense, the people of God in the OT may rightly be referred to as the “Church” (cf. Acts 7:38), even as in the NT the Church is referred to by Paul as “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16).

The Bible does speak of a “new covenant.” Our text today is quoting Jeremiah 31:31-34, and this text is arguably the most significant text for discussing the differences between “old” and “new” covenants. Not only that, but Jeremiah 31 is arguably the single most important text for the covenantal differences between Reformed Baptists and Reformed Presbyterians. Baptist brethren interpret the prophet’s words as indicating that all members of the New Covenant, in distinction from the old, are regenerate (i.e. born again); they all know the Lord. Therefore, whereas the old covenant was a national covenant with Israel, encompassing both believers and their children, the New Covenant is not structured this way. In this view the NC is the invisible, universal Church.

The Reformed Presbyterian view differs on this question, believing such an interpretation of Jeremiah 31 amounts to an over-realized eschatology. It is true that only those who are born anew will enter the kingdom of God. But the NT describes the Church in the present age as living in an “already, but not yet” tension. Already the New Covenant has been made. Already the new creation has begun. Already Christ reigns over his kingdom. Already believers have entered into eternal life. But none of these realities are yet fully manifested as they will be one day. They have been inaugurated, but not yet fully consummated. The visible Church in the present age has not been fully purged and perfected. There are still some within the visible company of Israel that do not truly belong to Israel (Rom. 9:6). Moreover, the promise of God is given both to believers and their children, as in the former covenants (Acts 2:39; 16:30-34). No one will be saved simply by being born in a Christian family, but there is an advantage and covenantal significance to being so.

What is “new” about the New Covenant? What makes it different from the “old” covenant and how God dealt with his people at earlier times in history? This is a more difficult question than it seems at first. Oftentimes the answers given by well-meaning believers are overly simplistic or simply wrong. The Bible says very explicitly: the New Covenant is new and it is a better covenant established on better promises. But what does that mean? That is what I want to address today.

ANSWERS THAT ARE SIMPLISTIC OR SIMPLY WRONG

Those who take this question lightly or think they can answer it quickly have usually not given it sufficiently serious thought and study. For example, some say sins in the OT were not truly forgiven but were simply rolled forward year after year through the animal sacrifices of the Mosaic Law. This is based on a misinterpretation of Hebrews 10:1-4. God clearly promised, provided, and performed the forgiveness of sins in the OT (Psa. 103:8-12; Lev. 4:1-6:7; 2Sam. 12:13). The point in Hebrews 10 is that sins were not ultimately forgiven on the basis of animal sacrifice but on the basis of the atoning work of Christ yet to be performed (Heb. 9:15; cf. 1Pet. 1:20-21).

Others will say believers in the old covenant were saved by obeying Law whereas in the New Covenant believers are saved by grace through faith. But there has always only been one way of being saved, and Paul uses both Abraham (before the Law of Moses) and David (under the Law of Moses) to demonstrate that it can only be by grace through faith alone (Rom. 4:1-8).

Some will say the old covenant was physical whereas the new covenant is spiritual. But did God not require the heart in the old covenant (Hos. 6:6; Joel 2:12-13; Rom. 2:28-29)? Does he not still represent and mediate his grace and promise in the sacraments (Rom. 6:3-4; 1Cor. 11:22-26)?

It is common to hear explanations for the distinctiveness of the New Covenant in terms of the gift of the Holy Spirit. This at least has some basis in the text because John 7:39 indicates the giving of the Spirit awaited the glorification of Christ in some way. But does this mean believers in the OT did not receive the Holy Spirit in any way? Clearly not. The Spirit is said to come on many persons in the OT, moving them to act or speak in various ways. David prays in Psalm 51 that the Lord will not take the Holy Spirit away from him (Psa. 51:11). How did OT believers come to faith? How were they convicted of sin and awakened and enabled to seek the Lord? Is this not the work of the Spirit in every age, or are we prepared to affirm that what men in the New Covenant must have the Spirit of God to be able to do, men in the OT were able to do on their own without him? There certainly is a difference between the old and new covenants in terms of the Spirit, but we should not overstate that difference.

Remember that the distinctions drawn between the old and new are primarily exhortational and rhetorical. They are found in prophetic and apostolic literature that is urging the people of God to see their need for Christ to fulfill and receive what the former law and covenantal administration never could do. This is not to downplay the distinction, but it is to put it in its proper context. The distinction is not a radical divorce. Rather, it is a matter of homiletical and theological emphasis.

THE NEW COVENANT IS NEW IN ITS FULLNESS

While many of the blessings of the New Covenant were already enjoyed by the people of God prior to its confirmation, the NC is new in the fullness with which those blessing are received and known. This is certainly the case with the Holy Spirit. OT believers possessed the Holy Spirit. They could never come to faith otherwise. But the fullness of the Spirit in the NC is much greater than before. The difference is not necessarily quantitative (i.e. we have more of the Spirit than they did) but is rather qualitative (i.e. we have the Spirit in new ways). The Spirit applies to us the work of Christ, bringing the gospel and its promises to our hearts and minds. But whereas this ministry in the OT was constrained by the fact that Christ had not come--it was only anticipated-- in the NC the Spirit applies to us what Christ has already done. In the OT the Spirit assured God’s people of what he would one day do, but now the Spirit reminds us of what he has done.

The NC brings a much greater clarity to the work and promises of God. For example, think of the resurrection. The OT does clearly anticipate the resurrection of the dead (cf. Ex. 3:6; Job 19: 23-27; Psa. 16:9-11; Dan. 12:2), but how much more does the Lord say in the NT! OT saints had a dim foresight of what lay beyond the grave, but Christians are given a far greater understanding of the last things, the state of the dead, and the hope of eternal glory. We might say the same about every aspect of God’s work of salvation. Election, effectual calling, regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification. Each of these are represented in the Hebrew Bible. The OT saints could know something about all of these. But the fullness of knowledge we now enjoy comes from the greater revelation of the NC. It is, indeed, a better covenant established on better promises, not different promises as though God said one thing in the OT but something else in the NT. No, these are better promises because they are clearer, greater, and more numerous promises. The seed of promise in the OT has grown into a mighty oak in the New.

THE NEW COVENANT IS NEW IN ITS EXTENT

The NC applies covenantal blessings much further than any prior administration of God’s Covenant of Grace. The kingdom of God is opened to the nations, and Gentiles flock to Jerusalem. No longer is covenantal communion with the true God the exclusive property of one ethnic group. Now all men in all places can enter into fellowship with God. The Spirit is given to all of God’s people without differentiation: sons and daughters, young men and old men, male and female slaves. Earthly distinctions are irrelevant. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:28-29). Peter was the first apostle to carry the gospel to the Gentiles. He announced, “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him” (Acts 10:34-35). When the gospel went to Samaria, “both men and women were baptized” (Acts 8:12). We think nothing of this statement, but do you see how remarkable it is that the covenant sign was now given to both men and women? When the gospel was carried to the Gentiles, entire households were baptized, the same household principle we see in the Abrahamic covenant, but they were accepted by faith and baptism without having to be circumcised.

As above, the greater extent was not unprecedented. Women enjoyed covenant grace in the OT, and it was given also to Gentiles who believed in Yahweh and who were engrafted into Israel. But such graciousness is remarkable in the OT, in part, because it is the exception rather than the rule. Israel knew the kingdom would be a light to all the nations, but they assumed the blessing could only apply if/when the nations became part of Israel. This was the Judaizing error: Gentiles can be saved by believing in Jesus and being both baptized and circumcised! They must be Jews. But the NC says salvation is not only for Jews (by birth or conversion). The gospel is for all.

THE NEW COVENANT IS NEW IN ITS CONSUMMATION

The former covenants were typological; they pointed ahead to the greater administration of salvation that was yet to come. But the NC is that greater administration. It is the fulfillment of all that the former covenants anticipated. In the NC God’s Covenant of Grace has finally reached the stage of consummation. We are no longer awaiting the coming of a Savior. We are only waiting for the return of the Risen, Victorious, All-Glorious King.

The covenants in the OT were all incomplete. This is the “fault” found in them (Heb. 8:6). It is not that something was wrong with any of them. These were God’s covenants, and they were exactly as he intended for them to be. But they were not the final program. They were only stages of preparation. But this is not so in the NC. There are no more stages of redemptive development. The progress of God’s self-revelation is complete. We are still waiting for the Second Advent. We are waiting for the final consummation of all things in the judgment of this world and the ushering in of the new heavens and earth. But these are only bringing the promise and work of the NC to its eschatological completion. New creation has begun (2Cor. 5:17). The Age to Come has dawned. There will not be another prophet, another revelation, another period of preparation. It is finished. Christ has won.

Everything in the OT is forward looking, but the NC is the eighth day, the eternal Sabbath. Like the creation week, the OT looked ahead to rest, but in the NC the Church has entered into the sabbath rest. We work from grace; we work in this rest: rest from sin, sorrow, and death. The next thing to happen is the eternal state. This structure helps expose the weakness of dispensational conceptions of God’s redemptive work. There cannot be a third Temple because Christ has built the eschatological Temple, and anything made by human hands in the present world would be a regression to typological forms. The argument of Hebrews is you can’t go back. The NC is here.

WHAT IS NOT “NEW” ABOUT THE NEW COVENANT?

It is Not New in Bringing Salvation to God’s Elect

People were saved in the OT. They didn’t “wait” to be saved until Christ came. There is certainly a fullness to their experience of salvation now that Christ has died and been raised. Some have argued there are even eschatological benefits they have received only after the death of Christ and because of his victory on Calvary. But however much greater the manifestation, application, and enjoyment of salvation may be in the NC, the fact of it is unchanged. Salvation is of Yahweh, and he has saved his people in every period of redemptive history and in every generation.

It is Not New in Applying the Saving Work of Christ

Moreover the basis of salvation for OT and NC saints is the same: Christ’s atoning work. It was not animal sacrifices that purchased redemption for Abel, Abraham, Moses, and David. Their sins were atoned for by the blood of Jesus. The NT is explicit on this point:

And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. (Heb. 9:15)

The blood of Christ flowed forward and backward in time. But this does not mean their sins were merely “rolled forward” or their pardon postponed. God promised and gave them forgiveness for their sins based on the future, certain work of his Son. There was no possibility that he would not come and succeed in his mission. The blessings of the promise could be given to them based on the certainty of God’s decree. There were not two plans for salvation. There are not two ways to have peace with God, either then or now. There always has been and always will be one way, only one, and that way is Christ (John 14:6).

It is Not New in Its Visible/Invisible Covenantal Structure

In the OT, we clearly see a three-fold structure in God’s relation to humanity. These can be represented by three concentric circles in which the relations exist within and not separate from one another. The three circles depict a narrowing and progressively greater communion with God.

The first and largest circle encompasses all human beings. “We are [all] his offspring,” Paul admits in his preaching in Athens (Acts 17:28). We are not all the children of God by redemption and adoption. We are not all sons and daughters by grace. But all souls belong to God. They have a relationship as creatures to the sovereign Creator. Their original obligation to him is covenantal (i.e. the Covenant of Works), and in this sense, and this sense alone, every person “knows” God (cf. Rom. 1:18-25 - this is not only informational but relational).

The second circle encompasses those visibly and externally set apart by the revealed word of God with its promises and commands. This is Israel in the OT, the visible Church in the NT. This includes men like King Saul and King David. It includes Judas and Peter. All are outwardly consecrated. Each wears the mark of the covenant distinguishing them from the rest of the world. God places his Name upon them and says they belong to him in a unique way. But none of this means they are saved. Salvation has come to them, in one sense. They live in close proximity to it (cf. Rom. 3:1-2; 9:1-5). But salvation will not be personally enjoyed unless received by faith.

The third and innermost circle depicts the remnant chosen by grace, God’s elect. Those in the second circle are all in Israel, but they do not all belong to Israel, i.e. God’s true sons (Ro. 9:6). This third category includes those who are elect from the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4), born from above (Jn. 1:12-13; 3:3, 5), justified once and for all time (He. 10:10, 14), and inevitably and finally sanctified and glorified (Ro. 8:30). They cannot perish because God keeps them (Jn. 10:28). He preserves them through faith (1Pe. 1:5). They are saved and therefore always will be.

Now here is the controversial part. (You think it’s the next part that is controversial, but it’s actually here. If you get this, the next part is a non-issue.) All of us agree these three circles depict covenant categories in the OT, but the Bible indicates the same categories apply in the NC. All souls belong to God, but some souls are visibly set apart and outwardly consecrated by an external connection to Christ. Jesus uses the analogy of a vine and branches to depict this in John 15:1-7. This is not a new illustration by the Lord; it is an old illustration. Isaiah (5:1-7) uses it to depict Israel as distinct from the nations. Paul makes it clear that the vine, or olive tree, is the Israel of God, at least, the visible manifestation of it (Romans 11:17-23). But notice what both Jesus and Paul say. Some branches that are connected to the vine will be cut off and burned! Some branches of the olive tree will be cut off and taken away. This is not referring to OT ethnic Israel, brethren. This is referring to the followers of Jesus in the NC! Does this mean a person can lose his/her salvation? NO! What does it mean then? How can one be connected but cut off for unbelief?

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame. (Heb. 6:4-6) 

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Heb. 10:26-31) 

Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. (Gal. 5:1-4) 

For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A dog returns to his own vomit,” and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.” (2Pet. 2:20-22) 

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” (Matt. 7:21-23) 

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. (1Jn. 2:19)

Does the NT describe the New Covenant as composed only of regenerate believers elect from the foundation of the world? No. It describes those outwardly connected to Christ who are not truly, inwardly saved by him. Judas was made an apostle by Christ (Matt. 10:2-4). He was sent out with the power of the Holy Spirit to preach the gospel, heal, and cast out demons (Mk. 6:7-13). He is also described as the “son of perdition” (i.e. destruction), one of whom Jesus said “It would be better for that man if he had never been born” (Jn. 17:12; Mk. 14:21). Could Judas truly say, “Lord, didn’t I prophesy in your name, cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?” Yes, he could. And how would Jesus answer him? Not that he did not do enough. Not that Judas did the wrong things. Jesus would say, “I never knew you.”

Are there some who will be externally connected to Christ but not savingly so? Yes. This is made very clear, not by the OT referring to Israel, but by the NT referring to those in the visible administration of the New Covenant, i.e. the visible Church. Some will know the truth but turn back. They will “fall from grace.” They are branches connected to Jesus, consecrated (outwardly) by Jesus, but never truly converted and caused to be born anew by Jesus. They are in but not of.

It is Not New in Its View of the Children of Believers

The children of believers are outwardly consecrated by their place within the administration of God’s Covenant of Grace. Jesus welcomed the infants of those who sought him--notice these are not pagan kids, they are the children of disciples--and he said, “The kingdom of God belongs to such as these” (Lk. 18:16). Did he mean to say, “Such as these, but not these. Mature people like them, but not these actual infants”? Paul says the children of a believer are holy (1Co. 7:14). This does not mean saved, elect, or regenerate. It means holy, i.e. consecrated, set apart, in covenantal relation to God. Will our children be saved? Yes, if they are elect from the foundation of the world, if they are born from above, if they personally trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. But not merely if they are our children or strictly because they are our children. Is it a coincidence they are our children? Is there any real difference between our children and those of our unbelieving neighbors?

When Paul writes to the saints in Ephesus, he writes to wives, husbands, children, parents, slaves, and masters (5:22-6:9). Was he only speaking to kids at an age of accountability, whatever that is? Or was he addressing them the same way God has addressed children in every covenant period (cf. Gen. 18:19; Deut. 6:6-9; 31:10-13; Prov. 1:8ff)? Baptists and Presbyterians may debate the exact meaning of Peter’s words on the Day of Pentecost, but how would a Jewish male in the first century who came to Jerusalem to attend the Feast hear and interpret them? “For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call” (Acts 2:39). Do you hear the echoes from the Abrahamic and OT covenants?

“They shall be My people, and I will be their God; then I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever, for the good of them and their children after them.” (Jer. 32:38-39)

This is the same section in the Book of Jeremiah that we read from earlier. It is describing the New Covenant. Who would be included? Those to whom God gave one heart… and their children.

“David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children’s children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever. Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore.” (Ezek 37:24-26)

Ezekiel is describing the New Covenant. Who is included? Those who have David [Christ] as their shepherd, who walk in his commandments, who dwell with God in a covenant of peace. They… and their children.

“As for Me,” says the LORD, “this is My covenant with them: My Spirit who is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your descendants, nor from the mouth of your descendants’ descendants,” says the LORD, “from this time and forevermore.” (Isa. 59:21)

Isaiah is talking about the promise of the Spirit that would come upon, empower, and abide with his people in the New Covenant. To whom is this promise given? You… and your children, “from this time and forevermore.” How would a first century Jewish audience trained in the Hebrew Scriptures have understood Peter’s statement in Acts 2:39? As if he said, “The promise is to you and your children if and not until the Lord calls them and they respond with a credible profession of faith”? Is such an interpretation consistent with the OT context and its NT elaboration?

CONCLUSION
What is “new” about the New Covenant? We have suggested its newness is primarily in three senses. First, it is new in the fullness of the blessings, promises, and experience it offers and applies. Second, it is new in the extent of the blessings, promises, and experience it offers and applies. Third, it is new in the consummation of the blessings, promises, and experience it offers and applies. The New Covenant is, indeed, a “better covenant, established on better promises.” But it is not new in the sense of being divorced from and entirely different than the gracious covenantal administration of God in the OT. Rather it continues that administration and brings it to fulfillment.