The covenant of grace, the covenant of redemption and the everlasting covenant are all one and the same! God is the God of the ONE COVENANT OF GRACE with his people.
The Hebrew word is BERITH and the Greek DIATHEKE.
The everlasting covenant in a nutshell is the one means by which God establishes friendship with fallen man through Christ forgiving transgression, imputing perfect righteousness and fitting him for eternity with him.
There are sixteen Biblical references to it and I will mention the majority of them:
Genesis 9:16
“And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.” His promise to never again flood the earth and one day renew it.
Genesis 17:7 God initiates the covenant with Abraham
“And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.”
2 Samuel 23:5. God reiterates the covenant with David.
“Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow.”
1 Chronicles 16:15-17
“Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac;And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance;” and Psalm 105:10 “And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant:” The covenant to give them a land-heaven.
Jeremiah 32:40
“And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.”
Isaiah 24:5,6. “The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: “
Hosea 6:7
“ But they like men (Adam) have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.”
Hosea 8:1
“Set the trumpet to thy mouth. He shall come as an eagle against the house of the Lord, because they have transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my law.”
If God’s everlasting covenant is one of unconditional election to salvation worked by himself alone with his people how can human beings transgress that covenant?
“The solution is that it is possible to break the covenant even though it is not established with one personally. There is a revelation of the covenant more widely than only to those with whom it is established personally. This revelation is the sphere of the covenant. Inclusion in the sphere carries with it a greater responsibility, the calling to embrace the covenant in the sphere of which one lives and knowledge of which one has. To despise the covenant then is to break it in biblical language. It will go harder for Jerusalem in the day of judgment than for Sodom and Gomorrah.”-Prof. Engelsma
Any breaking of God’s moral law, either the first command in the case of Adam or the Ten Commandments as they were given to Moses is a breaking of his covenant, because his moral law is part and parcel of the everlasting covenant that binds all men in all ages whether elect or reprobate (the Older Covenant) and the only means of receiving the blessings of that covenant is through faith in Jesus Christ, the means by which God establishes the New or everlasting covenant with man. We have one covenant with different administrations of it. The law is part and parcel of the everlasting copvenant. It has always been the standard, first to convict of sin and second as our rule of thankfulness.
Here’s what Pink says about Adam, “The Divine law was, for the substance of it, originally written in the hearts of mankind by God Himself, when their federal head and father was created in His own image and likeness. But through the fall it was
considerably marred, as to its efficacious motions in the human heart.”
Furthermore…Not only was the impression of the Divine law upon the human heart largely—though not totally—defaced by Adam’s apostasy, but from Cain unto the Exodus succeeding generations more and more flouted its authority, and disregarded its requirements in their common practice. Therefore, when God took Israel into covenant relationship with Himself and established them into a national Church, He restored to them His law, in all its purity, majesty, and terror. This He did, not only to renew it as a guide unto all righteousness and holiness, as the only rule of obedience unto Himself and of right and equity amongst men, and also to be a check unto sin by its commands and threatenings, but principally to declare in the Church the eternal establishment of it, that no alteration should be made in it, but that all must be fulfilled to the uttermost before
any sinner can have any acceptance with Him.
Hebrews 13:20
“Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,”
God could not from eternity make a covenant with the elect in their own persons, inasmuch as then they neither did, nor could exist. Neither could he in time make a covenant with them, immediately in their own persons, but only mediately through a daysman, who can lay his hand upon both parties, Job 9: 33. Being sinners, legally and morally dead, he cannot treat with them but through the intervention of a mediator, 1 Tim. 2: 5. In virtue of his infinite holiness and inflexible justice, he is a consuming fire, Heb. 12: 29, Hab. 1: 13, while they on account of their guilt, are as briars and thorns, Isa. 27: 4, but God from eternity entered into a covenant with his own Son, a covenant concerning the elect, Ps.89: 3, Isa.49: 3-9. In that covenant, conditions were required of him, and promises made to him. The condition was, that he should ” make his soul an offering for their sin.” Is.53: 6, John 10:18. Upon this condition, life, eternal life, was promised unto them, 2 Tim.1: 9, Tit 1:2, the promise was made to him, in their favour: so a promise may be made to a father concerning his children. This promise of eternal life, included all the blessings of Christ as the second Adam, come from being united to him and with all the elect as his seed (West. Larg. Cat. Q31).
The promises made unto him, respecting them, that they should be quickened, justified, etc. he turned into a testament in their favour. Whatever the Father thus promised to him, he bequeathed unto them by the blood of his covenant (called the new covenant).
Accordingly, the promissory part of the covenant respecting them, became a testament, Rev.2: 26, 27. And in this point of view, the constitution of grace, is partly federal, and partly testamentary: federal, as to Christ; testamentary as to the elect, Luke 22: 29, or as the Westminster Assembly express themselves, ” The covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the scripture, by the name of a testament,” WCF Chap.7 iv,v . It is so, however, with respect to the elect only. For as to Christ, he behoved to purchase, before he could bequeath, 1 Cor.6: 20. Eph.1:5, whereas all is given to them freely, without money, and without price, Is. 55: 1, Rev. 22: 17. Hallelujah!
The blood of Christ is called the blood of the covenant, Matt. 26:28. because his bloody death ought to be considered, not only as that of the testator, but also as that of the priest of the covenant: for, inasmuch as it was bloody, and availed as a propitiatory sacrifice, Rom.3: 25, Col.1: 20, Heb.10: 6, 9. it sealed the covenant of grace and reconciliation; but so far as it is considered simply as death, it ratified the absolute promises of the same covenant as testamentary, the covenant, all the benefits of redemption, from the infusion of spiritual life, to a seat in glory. The Son was appointed to purchase redemption, and the elect to be partakers of it, 1 Thess. 5: 9. But while such inestimable privileges were promised them, and faith, repentance, and new obedience, were also secured to them by promise, John 6: 37, Zech.12:10, these stipulations are not conditions required of them in point of duty. As the promises of assistance to the Son, bore no prejudice to the conditions demanded of him neither were the promises of grace to the elect, inconsistent with the requiring of duty from them. From what God does in the application of redemption, we can be assured of what he did in purposing, promising it and applying it. He by the Spirit fulfils all that is required of men. The promise is the certain key to the application, so we can see that the covenant is monergistic from conception to fulfilment with man initially being passive in regeneration which is the incorruptible seed that contains all required to grow the fruitful believing tree.
Hence it appears, that in this covenant, Christ was the head and representative of the elect. He engaged to pay their debt with his blood as he was in time, to beget them again by his Spirit. Standing as in their place, substituting himself in their stead, charging himself with all their debt, whether of punishment, or of obedience, the Father gave them to him to be his seed, promising him “a name above every name,” Phil. 2: 9, and them an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away,” 1 Pet.1: 4. And thus, the Westminster Assembly accurately express the matter, “The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.”
The Westminster Confession teacheth, ” that in the covenant of grace, God freely offereth (proclaims) unto sinners, life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith (but granting it!) in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit to make them able and willing to believe,” chap. vii. 3. Hence, as the promises made to Christ in favour of the chosen, bore no prejudice to the duties which were to be required of them; neither can they, when assuming the nature of a testament. The precious legacies bequeathed, are ever attended with a law, viz. that of the ten commandments, in the hand of the Mediator. On no supposition can the rational creature be exempted from obligation to obedience. The legacies of the testament do not ” in any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation.” WCF chap. xix. sect.5. Accordingly some very properly call it, a federal testament, and a testamentary covenant. In proof of this, when God says, that he will make a covenant with returning sinners, ” even the sure mercies of David,” that is, the blessings promised to him, purchased by him, and laid up in him: he immediately adds, ” Behold, I have given him for a Leader and Commander to the people,” Is. 55: 3, 4. The testator is also a lawgiver, and his laws accompany his legacies. It is not inconsistent with the nature of a testament, that certain things be enjoined to the legatees: which therefore may be called the law of the testament. Hence the two testaments (Old and New) dovetail each other-JK And thus they are not without law to God, but under law to Christ, 1 Cor.9: 21, Gal. 6: 2, and that because the law as prophesied was put in their hearts (Heb.8:10, Jeremiah 31:33
“but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.” Note the covenant formula (italicised).
The method of salvation being in the gospel revealed unto sinners for their acceptance, 1 Tim.1: 15, and they accepting it accordingly, God is said to make a covenant with them; Isa. 55: 3. which is expressly declared to be ” the sure mercies of David,” i. e. all the benefits purchased and bequeathed by Christ, Acts 13:34. They are all made over in possession, or in title, to returning sinners. These were promised to them in the covenant as made with Christ, and now they are again promised to them in their own person, they closing with him in all his characters: believing his testimony as a “Witness”, treading in his steps as a Leader, and obeying his law as a Commander. There are two Adams, 1 Cor. 15: 47, but ONE covenant, by which Adam and we ourselves are saved. The so-called OLD covenant was added because of transgressions and by itself cannot save, except it points the convicted sinner to Christ. The command to repent and believe, duties of the covenant incumbent on us, are not conditions required of us. A condition must be performed previous to any right to those benefits of which it is the condition; inasmuch as it is that alone which gives a right to them. And if so, respecting the right to them, then also as to the possession of them. God is said to have made a covenant with his Son, Ps.89: 3, Is. 49:1-12 in which grace was given, i. e. promised unto us, 2 Tim.1: 9, Tit.1: 2, He is also said to make a covenant with us, 2 Sam. 23:5, Isa. 55: 3. He promises and he fulfils all ”conditions”.
The commands associated with the gospel so far from being the condition of the covenant, presuppose its fulfilment. Faith itself is a leading blessing of the covenant; the golden key, which unlocks that precious cabinet. In the administration of the covenant, indeed, God says to sinners, ” Hear, and your soul shall live,” Isa. 55: 3. But they must have life before they can hear. For how can the dead hear? It was an important question, which none but he who put it could answer, ” Can these bones live?” Ezek. 37:3. The dead sinner must, in the order of nature live, before he can hear. The life previous to hearing is as much the subject of a promise, John 5: 25, Eph. 2: 1-5, as the life subsequent to it. For before the sinner can do what is here required, a gracious God must do as he has promised. He must take away the stony heart, and give him an heart of flesh, Ezek. 36: 26. He must give him ears to hear, otherwise he cannot hear, Deut. 29:4. He must restore the sinner’s withered hand, before he can actively receive the tried, the all-enriching gold, Rev. 3: 18. Precious faith is certainly the gift of God, Eph. 2: 8. Now, if the covenant of redemption be distinct from that of grace, Christ’s surety-righteousness being the condition of the one, and the believer’s faith, that of the other, the necessary consequence is, that in virtue of the promise of one covenant, we fulfil the condition of another. It seems, however, more like the unity of the covenant to teach, that in virtue of its previous promises fulfilled to us, its duties are performed by us. I say its previous or absolute promises, such as the quickening Spirit, the new heart, etc. presuppose the right response to, “Hear, and your soul shall live; Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved,” Acts 16:31, where life, viz. in a state of justification and of comfort, is suspended on hearing; and salvation on believing. Thus, I think it evident, that as Christ and his people are one; he, their head, and they, his body, so the condition exacted of him, and the promises made to him are two parts of the same covenant
Infralapsarianism is wrong as Christ was actually constituted Mediator and declared as such in eternity past as he was the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world-i.e. supralapsarianism.
Another fundamental flaw of many, following the lead of the Westminster Confession, is to hatch a covenant of works that they say God made with Adam before the fall, that upon full compliance (i.e. perfect obedience) Adam would merit eternal life after a probationary period. The problem here is that this covenant is nowhere to be found in Scripture. God was Adam’s covenant friend in creation, through Christ the mediator of the everlasting covenant (Gen.3:8) who walked and talked with him but being earthy he had no right or any possibility of inheriting or meriting everlasting spiritual/eternal life. However as soon as he fell, the triune God promised him the messiah and made a typical animal sacrifice on their behalf so as to clothe them. Adam and Eve were born again to believe in their Messiah.
And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; Luke 22:29
And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: (for those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec by so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. Hebrews 7:20-22 Christ covenanted with his Father taking upon himself and engaging in our name with the Father, to keep the covenant (law) for us ; and propitiate his father’s righteous wrath because of our sin, which having performed, he might engage to us for the Father, concerning grace and glory to be bestowed upon us
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect…. Galatians 3:17. The unconditional covenant of God with Abraham and his seed Christ concerning the promised inheritance of the world, and the kingdom of grace and glory is made with the head, together with the mystical body (reaching back to Adam and forward to the last elect) to be their God and father was confirmed in Christ.
Being saved “in the way of a holy life of obedience”
The synod of the Protestant Reformed Churches in America in 2018 constructed a wonderfully beautiful and concise statement concerning the faith of our fathers. “We experience the Father’s fellowship on the basis of Christ’s perfect work, through a justifying faith in Christ, and in the way of a holy life of obedience” (2018 Acts of Synod, p. 81, Article 62, B, 2, c, 3). I say this is beautiful and concise because it explains that life within God’s covenant is based entirely on the work of Jesus Christ alone in his death and resurrection. This statement also explains that we experience the Father’s fellowship because we are justified by (through) faith alone without works. Finally, this statement explains that enjoyment of that life within the covenant is in the way of a holy life of sanctification revealed in obedience to the Word of God and God’s commandments. All the elements are there, including Christ’s work of sanctification.
Since the synod of 2018 the last phrase of this beautiful formula has been brought into question. A protestant to the synod of 2019 wrote: “Considering that there is much confusion and misunderstanding with respect to the meaning of the phrase ‘in the way of obedience we experience covenant fellowship,’ as well as with respect to the correct relationship between obedience and our experience of covenant fellowship, I believe that it is important and would be helpful for synod to replace all such indistinctive language with distinctive language that clearly and consistently indicates that the only relationship between obedience and fellowship is that obedience is the inevitable fruit of experiencing fellowship with God by faith alone” (2019 Acts of Synod, p. 214). We are thankful that synod would have none of this!
However, even though this protest was rejected, suspicion continues among some (especially those who have left) regarding the phrase, “in the way of a holy life of obedience.” An example of such suspicion is found in a letter sent by a consistory to its congregation. We quote: “The phrase ‘in the way of.’ We must be warned that this phrase cannot be used without explanation. Just because our Reformed fathers used this phrase, its use does not automatically guarantee it to be orthodox. In this controversy the phrase was twisted and used in support of false theology that made obedience a condition to covenant fellowship with God, compromised justification by faith alone, and displaced Christ’s work. As a result, the phrase needs careful explanation if it is used.” Now, there is nothing wrong with this warning in itself. We always must be warned about the misinterpretation of various concepts of Scripture. When defining the term “grace” we need to be careful not to give it a definition that is not in keeping with Scripture. Or perhaps better yet, when defining the term “love” we need to be very careful to define this word in a Reformed and biblical way. The same is true when using the phrase “in the way of.” Suspicion with this phrase is created, however, when it is explained only as something that “our Reformed fathers” used, rather than it being a Scriptural concept.
It is true that during the controversy of 1953 Rev. H. Hoeksema wrote: “Let me suggest that instead of using that Pelagian term ‘condition’ we use the term ‘in the way of.’ We are saved in the way of faith, in the way of sanctification in the way of perseverance unto the end. This term is capable of maintaining both the absolute sovereignty of God in the work of salvation and the responsibility of man” (Standard Bearer, Vol.26, No.6, p. 125). Again, he writes: “We are not saved on condition of faith, or of the obedience of faith; but we are chosen to faith and the obedience of faith, and, therefore, we are saved through the instrument of faith, and in the way of obedience. That, and that only, is Reformed language” (SB, Vol 26, No. 4, p. 77). Since Rev. Hoeksema is our Reformed father it is true that our Reformed “fathers” (PR ministers both during and after Rev. Hoeksema’s ministry) used this phrase. But it was not merely a phrase used in order to avoid the error of conditional theology. This phrase, “in the way of a holy life of obedience,” is Scriptural and, therefore, a necessary part in the statement used by Synod 2018.
It is Scriptural and therefore necessary, in the first place, because it takes into account the work of Jesus Christ through his Spirit in our sanctification. Leave the phrase out and one overlooks the obligation God places on his children in the covenant to walk a new and holy life. This, in turn, skirts the truth that by God’s grace and on the basis of Christ’s work in us through his Spirit the believer is called (exhorted) in his life within the covenant to walk a holy life of obedience to God’s Word and commandments (good works). Neither does this deny the reality that such obedience proceeds only out of a true and living faith.
The phrase “in the way of” is Scriptural and a necessary part of the statement of Synod 2018, in the second place, because Scripture uses this phrase, especially in the Psalms and Proverbs. The term “way” in the Hebrew refers to a well-traveled course that leads in the direction of a certain objective. When used in the phrase “in the way of a holy life of obedience,” for example, it refers to that holy course of life the regenerated believer walks that leads to obedience to God’s Word. The believer’s way is the opposite of the way in which the ungodly man walks since the wicked man walks in way of disobedience and unrighteousness. Psalm 1:6: “For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.” In a number of Psalms the term “way” is used together with the term “path.” This Hebrew word, which means “familiar or customary road,” is most often used metaphorically to refer to the course of ones living, the direction of his life. Psalm 25:4: “Shew me thy ways, O LORD; teach me thy paths.” Or again, in Psalm 119:35: “Make me to go in the path of thy commandments; for therein do I delight.” Rev. Cory Griess quotes from Proverbs to prove this same point in his Standard Bearer article of April 1, 2021, Volume 97, p. 302-304.
The point is: the experience of fellowship with God, the joy and peace that accompanies such fellowship is rooted in the work of Christ, imparted through a justifying faith in Christ, and enjoyed as the believer walks in the way of, down the path of, a holy life of obedience. This Scriptural terminology is necessary for the reasons Rev. Griess points out in his article. (The reader would well equip himself to read that article as well as all of them in his series.) For that reason, we may not look at this phrase with suspicion as if it is “indistinctive language” or “the phrase needs careful explanation if it is used.” Of course, it needs to be defined. So do the terms grace or love. The phrase “in the way of a holy life of obedience” must be above suspicion. When a believer through the weakness of his faith gives in to his old man of sin and walks in the way of disobedience and sin, God by his grace withholds from him the joy and peace that he experiences when walking in the way of obedience. God does this in order to bring his child back to him in the way of repentance.
Synod was dead right in retaining the use of this Scriptural terminology.
—Rev. Wilbur Bruinsma
While it be true that Heaven cannot be earned by the sinner, it is equally true that Heaven is not for idlers and loiterers. God has to be “diligently sought.” To enter the strait gate the soul has to agonize (Luke 13:24). We are called upon to “labour” for that meat which endureth unto eternal life (John 6:27) and to enter into the heavenly rest (Heb. 4:11). Such efforts God “rewards,” not because they are meritorious, but because He deems it meet to recognize and recompense them. There are those who teach that in serving God we ought to have no “respect unto the recompense of the reward” (Heb. 11:26), but this verse refutes them, for the apostle explicitly declares that this forms a necessary part of that truth which is to be believed in order to our pleasing God. It only remains for us now to add that the ground on which God bestows the “reward” is the infinite merits of Christ, and out of respect unto His own promise. That which He “rewards” is the work of His own Spirit within us, so that we have no ground for boasting. PINK
The chief aim of the translators in preparing the national version of the Bible, now commonly called the Authorised Version, was to express without addition or diminution the exact meaning of the original Scriptures. This scrupulous regard to ‘the truth of the original’ exposed their work, when it was first published, to not a few unfavourable comments. John Selden (1584–1654) wrote,The English Translation of the Bible is the best Translation in the World, and renders the Sense of the Original best, taking in for the English Translation, the Bishop’s Bible as well as King James’s. The Translation in King James’s time took an excellent way. 
The English Bible is designed for public reading, and whatever makes it read more smoothly, and in a style of pathos or majesty more accordant with its subject matter, is a help to the reader and a benefit to the hearer. The statements of the Bible that bear on our conduct and comfort, on our salvation and sanctification, are meant to be remembered, so as to be present in our minds whenever temptations or afflictions come our way. Whatever choice or arrangement of words makes these statements of the Bible more striking or more impressive, more pleasant to the ear, or more fascinating to the imagination, makes them also more easily remembered, and more potent for good.It is not enough that our English Bible be a mathematically correct translation from the original Scriptures, word for word, point for point. It should, both in its literary grace and in its Divine revelations, be a well-spring of spiritual life in the broadest and highest sense of the terms. We cannot be too grateful, therefore, that the framers of our Authorised Version were not only skilled in ‘the discernment of tongues’, but were gifted with an ear for melody. This particular excellence of the AV was recognised even by Roman Catholic scholars who feared that it would make a deep impression upon the minds of many readers. Archbishop Faber declared,Who will not say that the uncommon beauty and marvellous English of the Protestant Bible is not one of the great strong holds of heresy in this country? It lives on the ear, like a music that can never be forgotten, like the sound of church bells, which the convert hardly knows how he can for go. Its felicities often seem to be almost things rather than mere words. It is part of the national mind, and the anchor of national seriousness.
Each successive version which led up to the AV was an improvement in some respects on the one which it professed to revise. In version after version increased accuracy and increased felicity of expression are to be found. There are many clauses and sentences which, in their transition from one version to another, indicate growth and development at almost every stage. In respect of the features which specially make a translation of the Scriptures precious to the common reader, the Authorised Version of the English Bible is a very great improvement on all preceding versions. The language is clearer and choicer, more impressive and more capable of making itself remembered, and the translation more faithful and accurate than any that went before. The improvement is everywhere perceptible to the judgment and to the ear. Both from a spiritual and from a literary point of view few things are more to be desired by a Christian community than a translation, as good as care and skill can make, of those Holy Scriptures which are the guide and the solace of life, and which make their readers wise unto salvation.Deficiencies of the modern versions
There are no fewer than 5,000 readings of the Greek text of the New Testament underlying the AV which were set aside and changed by the revisers of 1881. Champions of many of the modern versions argue that these changes were made on the ground of the weight of evidence from ancient manuscripts, and that the changes were reversions to the true original. In fact, the textual critics of the19th century, and those who followed in their steps, were sadly misguided in their evaluation of the old manuscripts which came to light in the 19th century. The well-worn cliché ‘oldest and best manuscripts’ embodies an assumption which cannot be sustained by evidence—the assumption that the ‘oldest’ are necessarily the ‘best’. Among the manuscripts there are some of very great antiquity which exhibit a very low standard of accuracy, and the ‘oldest’ are in reality by no means representative of the ‘best’.In the 16th century it was alleged by Roman Catholic scholars that the Latin Vulgate was of higher authority than any Greek text of the New Testament known to be in existence. The question may be asked, therefore, whether in textual changes adopted by the revisers of 1881 and to the present, there is any considerable return to the readings of the Latin Vulgate favoured by the Roman Catholic Church. There certainly are many changes of this kind. In the Gospel according to Matthew the revisers made 425 changes in the Greek text based on their allegedly ‘oldest and best’ manuscripts. The majority of these alterations have little significance and the more noticeable ones are no more than twenty-six in number. In nineteen of these twenty-six departures from the text underlying the Authorised Version the revisers have restored the reading of the Latin Vulgate (e.g., the omission of the doxology from the Lord’s Prayer; clauses omitted from 15.8, 20.7, 20.22–23, 23.19 and 28.9; and the alteration of 19.17).In the Gospel according to John the revisers changed the Greek in 487 places, of which thirteen are particularly significant, and seven of these are reversions to the Latin Vulgate (e.g., omissions in 5.16, 8.9, and 8.59).It is certainly a remarkable circumstance that so many of the Roman Catholic readings in the New Testament, which in Reformation and early post-Reformation times were denounced by Protestants as corruptions of the pure text of God’s Word, should now be adopted by the revisers of our English Bible. Some of the watchmen of Zion may possibly see in this circumstance an indication of the re-ascendancy of popery in England, or possibly an evidence of concealed Jesuitism in the Protestant churches. Others will try to assure the anxious that there is no cause for alarm and that the revisers have merely accepted the readings which they found best supported by the testimony of more recently discovered manuscripts of great antiquity.The modern versions
Since 1881 most modern versions have had a number of common features, the most important of which has been the adoption of emendations of the Greek text based upon the unreliable testimony of a comparatively small group of ancient manuscripts entirely unrepresentative of the great mass of documentary evidence that has come to light in the last one hundred and fifty years. Perhaps the most dangerous characteristic of the modern versions is that in following an unreliable Greek text they present in a weaker form, or completely omit, some of the clearest New Testament declarations of the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The ancient manuscripts favoured by textual critics were copied during a period when the Church was disturbed by heresies relating to the Person of the Son of God.Far from helping to establish the truth of the Divine revelation in a more ancient and more reliable text, the adoption of these documents as superior guides has helped to strengthen the position of those who hold a ‘humanitarian’ view of the Lord Jesus Christ and deny His essential and eternal deity. As a result of the general acceptance of a defective form of the Greek text, the translations sponsored by the Bible Societies in many parts of the world deprive the reader of some of the most solemn and impressive intimations of the Divine Glory of the Redeemer.A great task
Jules' jewels 