I appreciate your clear writing on this topic, as it is very important. How do you interpret passages like Ezekiel 37:24-28 and Jeremiah 32:38-41, which seem to include children of Christians in the new covenant? Thanks!
I want to concede something up front to my Presbyterian brothers: these passages absolutely contain an eschatological dimension. The New Covenant age is one of inaugurated fulfillment, not consummated perfection. There is already a true and established covenant reality, though not yet the final consummate state. Thus, the existence of hypocrisy or apostasy within the visible church does not by itself settle the question.
Where I would likely differ is in how these promises are identified and applied. I believe passages such as Jeremiah 31, Jeremiah 32, and Ezekiel 37 are fundamentally promises made to Israel. The question, then, is not whether the promises belong to Israel, but how Israel itself is defined under the New Covenant.
In one sense, Christ Himself is the true Israel, the faithful Son, servant, and seed to whom Old Covenant Israel pointed. He is the telos of the covenantal structures, institutions, and people that preceded Him. Likewise, those for whom He died are His covenant children, brought into historical reality through the God-given instrument of faith. Believers therefore become the children of Abraham and heirs of the promises, not by mere genealogical connection, but by covenantal union with Israel’s King.
This, I believe, is the decisive transition. Under the former covenants, covenant membership operated in part through genealogical and national structures. But in the New Covenant, membership is defined by the covenant’s own terms. The promises of inward law, definitive forgiveness, perseverance, and universal knowledge of God are not grounded in continuity with prior covenant administrations as such, but in union with the Mediator who fulfills them.
On the other hand, I would not deny continuity altogether. The Church truly is Israel, not as a replacement for Israel, nor as a separate people alongside Israel, but by union with the true Israelite, Christ Himself. Because believers are united to Him, they share in His inheritance, His covenant status, and His promises. Yet precisely because covenant identity is now mediated through union with the risen Christ, I would argue that New Covenant Israel can only properly be identified as those who possess the faith that God Himself gives. The former genealogical principle no longer defines covenant membership in the way it once did.
I appreciate your clear writing on this topic, as it is very important. How do you interpret passages like Ezekiel 37:24-28 and Jeremiah 32:38-41, which seem to include children of Christians in the new covenant? Thanks!
I want to concede something up front to my Presbyterian brothers: these passages absolutely contain an eschatological dimension. The New Covenant age is one of inaugurated fulfillment, not consummated perfection. There is already a true and established covenant reality, though not yet the final consummate state. Thus, the existence of hypocrisy or apostasy within the visible church does not by itself settle the question.
Where I would likely differ is in how these promises are identified and applied. I believe passages such as Jeremiah 31, Jeremiah 32, and Ezekiel 37 are fundamentally promises made to Israel. The question, then, is not whether the promises belong to Israel, but how Israel itself is defined under the New Covenant.
In one sense, Christ Himself is the true Israel, the faithful Son, servant, and seed to whom Old Covenant Israel pointed. He is the telos of the covenantal structures, institutions, and people that preceded Him. Likewise, those for whom He died are His covenant children, brought into historical reality through the God-given instrument of faith. Believers therefore become the children of Abraham and heirs of the promises, not by mere genealogical connection, but by covenantal union with Israel’s King.
This, I believe, is the decisive transition. Under the former covenants, covenant membership operated in part through genealogical and national structures. But in the New Covenant, membership is defined by the covenant’s own terms. The promises of inward law, definitive forgiveness, perseverance, and universal knowledge of God are not grounded in continuity with prior covenant administrations as such, but in union with the Mediator who fulfills them.
On the other hand, I would not deny continuity altogether. The Church truly is Israel, not as a replacement for Israel, nor as a separate people alongside Israel, but by union with the true Israelite, Christ Himself. Because believers are united to Him, they share in His inheritance, His covenant status, and His promises. Yet precisely because covenant identity is now mediated through union with the risen Christ, I would argue that New Covenant Israel can only properly be identified as those who possess the faith that God Himself gives. The former genealogical principle no longer defines covenant membership in the way it once did.