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.

The Ordained Ministry of Teaching and the Sacraments

We celebrate the Lord’s Supper every Lord’s Day in our congregation. Though weekly observance is not commanded in the Scriptures, it seems evident this was the practice of the early church (Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1Cor. 11:17-34; cf. 16:1-2) and that frequent observance is desirable even if not required (Luke 22:19-20; 1Cor. 11:26, 33). The frequency of communion is not mandated by the OPC, so different intervals (including weekly observance) are found in different congregations within the denomination. But so long as circumstances permit, our local church will continue to observe the Lord’s Supper weekly in one of our Lord’s Day services.

In 2015 when our elders began studying the Westminster Confession together, one of the issues that had to be considered was the proper administration of the sacraments. Many of us had been in churches before where the Lord’s Supper and baptism were observed very casually. In modern times it is common for non-ordained persons to administer both sacraments and even for them to be observed privately away from the gathered Church. This is largely a modern practice and result of individualism in western culture. The Reformed tradition in general and the Westminster Confession of Faith in particular take a very different, far more historical view of the sacraments.

There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained. (WCF 27.4, emp. added)

The OPC’s Book of Church Order describes the proper administration of the sacraments:

4. The Sacraments

a. The sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper, as visible signs and seals of the Word of the covenant, are important elements of public worship. They represent Christ and his benefits, confirm his people's participation in him, visibly mark off from the world those who belong to his church, and solemnly bind them to covenant faith and loyalty.

b. Because the sacraments are ordinances of Christ for the benefit of the visible church, they are to be administered only under the oversight of the government of the church. Moreover, in ordinary circumstances they are properly administered only in a gathering of the congregation for the public worship of God, baptism being a sacrament whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and the Lord's Supper signifying and sealing the communion of believers with Christ and with each other as members of his mystical body. Nevertheless, if a session judges that circumstances require otherwise, the sacraments may be administered elsewhere; but, in any event, the church must be represented in the service.

c. Although the efficacy of the sacraments does not depend upon the piety or intention of the person administering them, they are not to be administered by any private person, but only by a minister of the Word. (Directory of Public Worship II.a.4)

Why have the Church in general and Reformed Christians in particular only allowed ordained teachers to administer the sacraments? It is not because of a misguided tradition left-over from Roman Catholicism, nor is it because we believe the effectiveness of the sacraments depends upon the person administering them. As a general rule, we regard a person who is baptized in a Trinitarian context whether by an ordained minister or not as truly baptized. We would regard baptisms by a non-ordained person as irregular, though not invalid, because we believe it is not only historical but biblical under ordinary circumstances to limit administration of the sacraments to ordained ministers. What follows are four reasons for this conviction.

1) Ministers of the Word are stewards of the mysteries of God (1Cor. 4:1). A steward is a servant, but much more than a servant. A steward has special responsibility (cf. Luke 16:1-2) and thus a higher degree of accountability to his master (1Cor. 4:2; cf. Jas. 3:1). Every Christian is a servant of Jesus Christ, but not every believer is a steward of the mysteries of God. Teaching ministers are. What is this mystery committed to their care? It is the gospel of Jesus Christ, the message which brings life and death to those in the world (2Cor. 2:15-16). Ministers are specially “commissioned by God” to administer this mystery of grace (2Cor. 2:17); the sacraments are an intrinsic part of it.

2) The gospel and the sacraments belong together (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 2:36-42). The sacraments are only valid when coupled with the gospel message. There is no spiritual power or value in getting a person wet or eating bread and wine, but when these rituals are combined with the gospel message, the water becomes a sign of the “washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Tit. 3:4-5; cf. John 3:3, 5). The bread becomes Christ’s body and the wine becomes His blood, not literally and metaphysically but spiritually and symbolically (1Cor. 11:23-25). When the Church celebrates the sacraments it confesses its faith in Christ (1Cor. 11:26). The gospel, the sacraments, and the gathered Church belong together (Acts 2:41-42; 20:7; 1Cor. 11:33). Though some may be baptized outside of the gathered Church in unusual circumstances, there is no biblical evidence of the Supper ever being eaten apart from the assembled local church. The unity of the gospel, sacraments, and local church strongly support the administration of those sacraments by an ordained minister of the word (cf. Heb. 13:7, 17).

3) Pastors and teachers are given by God to the church to edify it (Eph. 4:11-12). This is a special function, ordained by God. How is the Church edified? By meeting Christ in the Word and sacraments (Acts 2:42; 20:28; 1Pet. 5:1-5). The local church is not a democratically determined association. Shepherds and teachers are given by God to the Church for its up-building and welfare. Since the sacraments are central to the local church’s faith, worship, and practice, it makes sense their administration would belong to the stewards given to them by the Lord.

4) The administration of the sacraments has historically been limited to teaching ministers and elders since the earliest days of the Church. Evidence from Justin Martyr and Tertullian demonstrates this as well as the later, codified instructions in The Apostolic Constitutions. In fact, it is hard to imagine this issue even being debated—unless among some heretical sect—until the Reformation during the revolutionary movement led by the Anabaptists. In western culture we take individual liberties to such an extreme that we almost imagine any distinction of functions to be unchristian, but we should recognize that there are different roles in the Church without any difference in personal value (e.g. 1Tim. 2:11-3:13). Though we are all equal in Christ, not all Christians are elders, and not all who are elders are devoted or appointed by God for the ministry of the Word (1Tim. 5:17). The sacerdotal errors of the Roman Catholic Church with an exaggerated clergy-laity distinction and a diminishing or denying of the priesthood of all believers is clearly wrong, but denying this error does not mean opening the sacraments and pulpit to anyone and everyone who professes the name of Christ. There is a biblical and historical balance to be found between those two extremes.

This is why we agree with the Westminster Confession that baptism and the Lord’s Supper should only be administered by a lawfully ordained minister, one recognized, called, and confirmed by the Church, not one who made himself a minister by starting a church in his living room. The sacraments belong with the teaching ministry of the Church, the preached Word, and that ministry belongs to those whom God has gifted, called, and set apart for that work and purpose.

There are consequences of this conviction. On the rare occasions when our congregation is without an ordained teaching minister on the Lord’s Day, the Lord’s Supper will not be celebrated. For example, the elders might invite a licentiate to preach on those days, but because he has only been licensed to preach and not formally ordained, the congregation would not observe the Lord’s Supper on those Sundays. This is unusual when a church has become accustomed to weekly observance, but it is important that we understand why we abstain on those Lord’s Days. Eating the Lord’s Supper is a privilege of God’s people, but when circumstances do not permit its proper observance, there is no fault in abstaining from its celebration. Just as we would not permit private observance of the Supper if a family simply decided to stay at home on the Lord’s Day, neither should we provide the Supper without the proper context for its celebration under the ordained ministry of the Word. –JME (September 2016)

Simple Strategies for Devotional Bible Reading

Our primary study and intensive learning of the Bible should come in the context of the Church’s teaching ministry. After all Christ gave the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers to equip the saints and edify the body (Eph. 4:11-12). But this does not mean you should never read or study the Bible outside of church gatherings or organized Bible studies. Every Christian can benefit from regular time set aside to read and meditate on God’s Word. As you do so, here are some helpful ways for getting more out of what you read.

1) Keep a Bible Reading Journal

This can be a simple notebook, journal, or even an app or program on your laptop, tablet, or smartphone. Record the date, the passage(s) read, and any of the following observations you choose to make. This journal will help you assess the consistency of your Bible reading and will preserve a record of what God has been teaching you through it.

2) Look for Three Things Each Time You Read

Whenever you sit down to read, look for three things to help you pay attention and actively learn as you read. First, look for something new that you don’t remember seeing before. We should expect to learn when we read the Bible. Second, identify your favorite part. Bible reading should be enjoyable; it is a delight, not merely a duty (cf. Psa. 1:2). Third, note at least one practical application from your reading. We aspire to be doers of the Word, not merely hearers of it (cf. Jas. 1:22).

3) Take a T.R.I.P. through Your Bible as You Read

T.R.I.P. is a simple acronym that suggests four issues to be mindful of as we read. Pay attention to passages that should prompt thanksgiving, repentance, intercession, and praise. If you keep a detailed journal, these passages can be noted for later review or added to a weekly prayer list. These four points can be especially helpful in identifying practical applications. Giving thanks, repenting, interceding in prayer, and praising God are all appropriate ways of applying Scripture.

4) Pray About What You Read

Pray for God’s blessing before your read (Psa. 119:18), then take a few minutes to pray about what you have read when you finish. Give thanks to God for his Word and for what you have learned, pray for others to enjoy the blessings promised, and seek his grace to be obedient.

5) Choose a Portion To Memorize and Meditate on Each Week

Some verses you encounter may stay with you the rest of the day, but consider a disciplined habit of identifying at least one verse to commit to memory each week. This will help you meditate on the Word of God, and whether you retain the verse or not, you will benefit from repeating it often to yourself during the week. Soli Deo Gloria! –JME

Rejoice! There are Churches in Corinth and Rome

I try very deliberately to be careful about what I say in public regarding specific political leaders, candidates, and elections. This is not because I believe in an arena of moral neutrality or that the concerns of Church and State should never overlap. It is not because I choose not to engage with substantive issues online. And it is not because I do not have strong opinions about politics. It is because as a Minister of the Gospel I not only represent myself and my family; I also represent Christ and his Church, and I never want to appear to misrepresent them in unbiblical or undiscerning ways. So I do not publicly endorse candidates as a minister—though I might sometimes be willing to do so as a private citizen—and generally I am careful about how I discuss political footballs in the public square. But readers should not infer from this that I do not think politics matter. Politics do matter, and the political leadership and policies of a nation are important issues. They are just not always important in the way or for the reasons or to the degree many people think.

It appears that barring an unforeseen (but much hoped for) change to the ballot, our next President will be an arrogant, godless, immoral, and violent human being, a vile and impenitent person without the fear of God who is foolish, incompetent, and completely disqualified for the office of dog catcher, much less higher office. If you think I am describing a particular candidate, you are mistaken. The above description fits both of the major party candidates, and to think otherwise is naïve, at best, and dangerously undiscerning, at worst. Of course, once elected to office, she or he will be worthy of the respect that corresponds to that office (Rom. 13:1-7) and rightly the subject of public prayers in pulpits across the nation every Lord’s Day (1Tim. 2:1-7). Until then, we can hope and pray that God may yet save us from the miserable choices he has given to us, the moral and political disaster which we have created for ourselves. God rules over the nations. He raises up rulers and brings judgment upon them (Exod. 9:13-17; Prov. 21:1; Dan. 4:17, 34-37). It cannot be denied by anyone with a biblically informed worldview that the present state of our Presidential election is proof of God’s wrath against our nation’s sin. He has given us the leaders we desired, and we can expect that we will continue to reap what we have sown.

Our next President will almost certainly not be a God-fearing person. But neither is our current President. The faith of the 43^rd President of the United States might be debated—I accept his profession prima facia but would quibble with his Methodist theology more than a little. But the simple fact is that God-fearing Presidents have been few and far between in this American experiment, and even those that might have been often governed much as they might have if they were not. We did not live in a “Christian nation” prior to the ascendancy of Barak Obama, and there is no candidate or future election that could make us one. We are governed largely by secularists and have been for a long time. Those who think otherwise would do well to put down David Barton and start reading legitimate history.

Having said all of that, I come to the point of today’s post, that there is good news. There were faithful churches of the Lord Jesus Christ in both Corinth and Rome in the first century. Think about that for a moment before you lightly dismiss it. Both cities were cesspools of immorality and vice. The Roman emperors were pedophiles and profligates. Nero’s perversity makes today’s transgendered, pansexual, (im)moral revolution look almost tame. Going to worship in first century Corinth sometimes involved fornicating with a temple worker appointed for that purpose. (I wonder how long it will be until the evangelical-ish Church Growth Movement packages and markets that one.) Yet in the midst of rampant depravity and perversity, the Gospel was being preached, received, believed, and obeyed. Yes, there were problems in those churches. Yes, Paul had to correct the Corinthians for adopting carnality learned from their culture. But in the same letter he expresses confidence in their faith and fellowship with the Lord (1Cor. 1:2-9) and leaves them with a benediction of grace and love (1Cor. 16:23-24).

What is the Church to do in these terrible times for our nation? Take a moment, step back, obtain some historical objectivity, repent of trusting in a “Christian heritage” more imagined than real, repent of trusting in politicians and policies more than the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and accept that we are and have been in a situation much like the global Church throughout her history. We are strangers in a strange land. We are pilgrims and sojourners. We do not truly belong here. Our citizenship is in heaven. Presidents come and go, and so will the United States of America. But Christ’s kingdom will stand forever. Soli Deo Gloria! –JME

Proclaiming the Kingdom, Not Building Castles

The Church belongs to Jesus Christ. It is not mine; it is not yours; it is not even ours. The Church is the Body of Jesus Christ. He purchased it with his own blood (Acts 20:28). He rules it (1Cor. 14:37), protects it (Rom. 16:20), provides for it (Eph. 4:11-12), guides it (Heb. 12:1-2), and will one day return to be reunited it (1Thess. 4:13-18). The Church is both visible (1Cor. 1:2) and invisible (Heb. 12:22-24). It is organically related by brotherhood (Eph. 2:19-22) and institutionally connected by its doctrine and officers (Acts 15:1-32). The one Church holds in common a confession of faith, sacraments of grace, and hope in the Lord’s return (Eph. 4:4-6).

Sadly today many churches and Christians seem more interested in building castles than the Lord’s kingdom. There is a sense, of course, in which we cannot build the Lord’s kingdom. That is God’s work, not ours. We are looking for a city whose builder and maker is God (Heb. 11:10). We are not constructing the eschatological city or ushering it in with the works of our own hands. But we are called to proclaim Christ’s kingdom, that he is Lord of all (Acts 2:36; 17:30-31). The Church is commissioned to preach the Gospel under the authority and direction of Christ (Matt. 28:18-20), and the Gospel is God’s means of regenerating hearts (1Pet. 1:23), imparting faith (Rom. 10:17), and transferring men from the power of Satan to the kingdom of Christ (Col. 1:13).

In a culture full of mega-churches, church growth strategies, and celebrity-driven ministries, the confessing Church must think seriously and biblically about our true purpose, strategic aims, and ministry methods. Are we promoting Christ or ourselves? Are we proclaiming his kingship or protecting our own fiefdom? Are we taking the message of our King’s victory into enemy territory, seeking to free captive souls held under the power of the Devil, or are we enlarging towers, digging deeper moats, and contenting ourselves with merely beautifying and maintaining our own castle? Brothers and sisters, we need a larger vision for Christ’s Church and not only our own local congregation. We need think in terms of the kingdom and not only in terms of our own castle. We need to see ourselves in terms of the larger mission and not simply pass the time. We are waiting, praying, and longing for the return of the King. There is work to be done in the meantime. –JME