# Baptists only: What does Jeremiah 31:31-34 mean?



## JTB.SDG (Aug 3, 2017)

Please forgive my ignorance. Want to better understand how Baptists would read and understand this passage. Thanks in advance.


----------



## brandonadams (Aug 4, 2017)

Thanks for asking.



> 31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah



In the future, a distinct covenant will be made with the church (spiritual Israel, the elect), typified by Israel and the house of Judah. 



> 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day _that_ I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord.



This distinct covenant will not be like the Mosaic Covenant. It will not be broken. Despite God's faithfulness as a husband, Israel broke the Mosaic Covenant and therefore God divorced/disregarded them (cf Heb 8:9; Hos 1:9).



> 33 But this _is_ the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.



Unlike the Mosaic Covenant, where the law was only written externally in stone, God regenerates those with whom the New Covenant is made (cf Ezekiel 36:26-27; 2 Cor 3:3).



> 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord.



Members of the New Covenant shall know the Lord savingly. 



> For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”



Members of the New Covenant will be eternally forgiven/justified.

Considering these things in light of Hebrews 8, we understand that these are not blessings of the Mosaic Covenant. They are blessings that come to us through Jesus Christ's mediation, and he is mediator only of the New Covenant. Salvation only comes through the New Covenant. Anyone who was saved in the OT was not saved by the Old Covenant, but was saved by the New Covenant. They received the blessings of the New Covenant in anticipation of Christ's finished work.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 4, 2017)

Most baptists will say that in the New Covenant "all will know the Lord....from the least to the greatest." In other words, only the saved will be within the Covenant. There will be no unbeliever let in. Instead of on external tablets of stone, the law will be written on the hearts of the covenant people. This shows the superiority of the New Covenant. Therefore, we do not merely include the children of believers automatically but wait for them to profess faith as well to be marked as being "in" the Covenant.

However, as many Paedobaptists point out, it also says in Jer. 31 that nobody will need to teach another. And that has not yet happened yet, so they charge baptists with believing in an "over-realized eschatology." And there are still unsaved-but-baptized people in our churches, such that nobody can mark the saved out with 100% accuracy.


I have also heard some Dispensationalists that explain Jer 31 in terms of some future restored Israel perhaps, but I do not understand that interpretation at all.


----------



## Timotheos (Aug 4, 2017)

JTB.SDG said:


> Please forgive my ignorance. Want to better understand how Baptists would read and understand this passage. Thanks in advance.


Since this passage is quoted in Hebrews 8, and John Owen's interpretation in his commentary has been lauded by particular baptists (Nehemiah Coxe specifically) as the go to for understanding, then you might check that as well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922 (Aug 4, 2017)

I'm not a baptist, but would you guys expand to Jer. 31:31-40 please? Thanks.


----------



## KMK (Aug 4, 2017)

From my experience, the two main interpretations of "they shall teach no more every man his neighbour," say it refers to prophetic revelations in particular, or to the superiority of spiritual understanding in general (as compared to the OC).


----------



## jomawh (Aug 4, 2017)

In all sincerity- examining the text I just don't see unbreakability as being characteristic of the New Covenant so the question of covenantal objectivity might help here. An individual who falsely professes faith and is baptized is objectively and _covenantally _joined to Christ, in which they may receive the Spirit (like Saul), and taste the powers of the age to come (like those who casted out demons in Jesus' name), etc- but they do so only bringing further judgment on themselves (like Simon Magus). In this way we might rightfully call them covenant breakers and apostates. They were not "of" us (de jure; internal administration), but they were among us (de facto; external administration) for a time.

That all said, the _elect, _those foreordained to eternal life, will not and frankly cannot break the New Covenant, just as the elect in the Mosaic covenant did not and could not break it.


----------



## brandonadams (Aug 4, 2017)

jomawh said:


> An individual who falsely professes faith and is baptized is objectively and _covenantally _joined to Christ



Just for clarity's sake, this is not at all the normal reformed baptist view. Reformed baptists (both 20th cent and 1689F views) deny that false professors are in the New Covenant. (I understand that is your personal opinion Mason, just trying to avoid confusion for someone asking to understand our position, especially since you claim in your signature to be particularly interested in 1689 Federalism).



jomawh said:


> They were not "of" us (de facto; internal administration), but they were among us (de jure; external administration) for a time.



You have _de facto _and _de jure _backwards here, but you can't really use those terms to explain the situation if you think a false professor is objectively and covenantally united to Christ.


----------



## brandonadams (Aug 4, 2017)

As Tim said, if you want to fully understand our position, read Owen's exposition of Hebrews 8. Here is an outline to give you a sense of the argument http://www.1689federalism.com/owen/demo/owen.html


----------



## jomawh (Aug 4, 2017)

brandonadams said:


> You have _de facto _and _de jure _backwards here...


So I have- fixed.



brandonadams said:


> But you can't really use those terms to explain the situation if you think a false professor is objectively and covenantally united to Christ.


Sure I can- granted, I didn't explain my usage. They can be objectively/covenantally united to Christ and participate in the external administration of the New Covenant in the same manner as someone who goes through the steps of a marriage ceremony, consummates the marriage, and then the next day cheats on their new spouse. Infidelity does not nullify the objectivity of the marriage itself._ De jure _they are in the New Covenant in its external administration because they are in the church and participate in the ordinances while, _de facto, _they do not participate in its internal administration. 

There's no sense in participating in a legal fiction by saying that apostates are covenant breakers, but not really because they were never in the covenant to begin with. They're either apostates and covenant breakers or they're not. The threat of being cut off from the vine and not being able to be restored to repentance is either real or it's not.


----------



## Timotheos (Aug 4, 2017)

brandonadams said:


> As Tim said, if you want to fully understand our position, read Owen's exposition of Hebrews 8. Here is an outline to give you a sense of the argument http://www.1689federalism.com/owen/demo/owen.html


That link and outline is sooooooo helpful! If you did all of that work, Brandon, then thank you!!!!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Aug 4, 2017)

Perhaps I'll chime in, though for time's sake I'll be short.

My view? Everyone has the law of God in their hearts to some extent, and some are more seared than others, but no one who is unconverted desires to know, obey and submit to it. In that way, they do not have the Law of God in their hearts, as they live in perpetual disobedience to the first commandment, "You shall have no other gods before me."

I've always taken the position that it's the converted elect only. by having the law written on their hearts, that God puts in the members of the NC the will and inclination to know, obey and submit to God's will in everything.

As to "know the Lord," all members will savingly know him, without exception, which seems to be indicated by the phrase "from the very least to the greatest."

Also, they are only the converted elect, as no one else may say that God will be merciful to their iniquities, and that He will remember their sins no more.

I don't know how far or close I am to the typical RB view, but here is one Baptist's view.

More later, maybe.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 4, 2017)

brandonadams said:


> Just for clarity's sake, this is not at all the normal reformed baptist view. Reformed baptists (both 20th cent and 1689F views) deny that false professors are in the New Covenant. (I understand that is your personal opinion Mason, just trying to avoid confusion for someone asking to understand our position, especially since you claim in your signature to be particularly interested in 1689 Federalism).
> 
> 
> 
> You have _de facto _and _de jure _backwards here, but you can't really use those terms to explain the situation if you think a false professor is objectively and covenantally united to Christ.


The NC would refer to the Church of Christ, Bride and Body, and only the saved are in there.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 4, 2017)

JTB.SDG said:


> Please forgive my ignorance. Want to better understand how Baptists would read and understand this passage. Thanks in advance.



I have read and heard it taught that this passage refers to the NC coming into its fullness at Pentecost, with the formation of the Church, and also was to be applied towards the jewish people and nation when Jesus returns, as it would be the way of the Kingdom Age here on Earth in the Millennium.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Aug 4, 2017)

Romans922 said:


> I'm not a baptist, but would you guys expand to Jer. 31:31-40 please? Thanks.


I will articulate my understanding of the latter verses as best I can, which may not be well at all.
When the Lord speaks of the 'house of Israel' prophetically, and speaks of the 'seed of Israel' and the 'seed of Abraham,' he is speaking of believers. The covenant He makes in this passage is with all the elect--Jews and Gentiles--and they, as the spiritual seed of Abraham, are the subjects, regardless of physical generation (here our main point of difference with the paedobaptists). Vs. 35-37 speak of the sureness and immutability of the salvation of the elect ("seed of Israel" is here referring to the elect, the true, spiritual Nation of Israel of which the old nation was a picture).
In Vs. 38-40, the completeness of the project is spoken of in terms that people then could understand--though those geographical boundaries are meaningless to us now, people then would have been able to picture the physical places mentioned and know that God intends to do a complete work, a holy work, and a permanent one.
There is much prophetic imagery that is spoken of as though the actual physical representations that existed then (the temple, sacrifices, etc) are to be rebuilt or repeated when really they are not. This is where the Dispensationalists get all astray, not realizing that the fulfilment of the promise will be a fulfilment of what the type signified, not of the type itself.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Aug 4, 2017)

Brandon and others,

Does the traditional baptist view take verses 27-30 as being included in this passage about the new covenant as well?

Also, in the traditional baptist view, what was the nature of the covenant which the house of Israel broke (v32)? Or is there liberty here within the reformed baptist camp as to whether you take the Mosaic Covenant as "material republication" or the Subservient view? Thanks again.

With much love for my Baptist brothers.


----------



## brandonadams (Aug 5, 2017)

I can't recall comments one way or another about 27-30. But personally I would point to Ezekiel 18 as a parallel that elaborates on the meaning. The point is to emphasize the possibility of repentance. The proverb was an excuse not to repent, but God promises that the one who repents of his iniquity will be forgiven (Ezk 18:28, etc). v31 says "Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel?" Jeremiah then prophesies that God will give this new heart through the New Covenant and cause repentance, whereby they will be forgiven.

As for the nature of the Mosaic Covenant, the 20th century RB (see here for labels) views it as an administration of the covenant of grace (thus the law was given as a guide, not as a covenant; material republication). 1689 Federalism holds to a form (elaboration) of the subservient covenant view, seeing the Mosaic as a covenant of works for life in the land. Both views are within the bounds of the 1689 Confession because the 2LBCF followed Savoy's revision of 19.2 to remove "as such" (though 1689Fed has been the historic view represented by all the major writings on the subject through the centuries).


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 5, 2017)

brandonadams said:


> I can't recall comments one way or another about 27-30. But personally I would point to Ezekiel 18 as a parallel that elaborates on the meaning. The point is to emphasize the possibility of repentance. The proverb was an excuse not to repent, but God promises that the one who repents of his iniquity will be forgiven (Ezk 18:28, etc). v31 says "Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel?" Jeremiah then prophesies that God will give this new heart through the New Covenant and cause repentance, whereby they will be forgiven.
> 
> As for the nature of the Mosaic Covenant, the 20th century RB (see here for labels) views it as an administration of the covenant of grace (thus the law was given as a guide, not as a covenant; material republication). 1689 Federalism holds to a form (elaboration) of the subservient covenant view, seeing the Mosaic as a covenant of works for life in the land. Both views are within the bounds of the 1689 Confession because the 2LBCF followed Savoy's revision of 19.2 to remove "as such" (though 1689Fed has been the historic view represented by all the major writings on the subject through the centuries).


So the main differences would be on how one saw the intent of the Mosaic Law, as to confer spiritual or mainly physical blessings based upon obedience to it?


----------



## Ben Zartman (Aug 5, 2017)

JTB.SDG said:


> Brandon and others,
> 
> Does the traditional baptist view take verses 27-30 as being included in this passage about the new covenant as well?
> 
> ...


Jon,
The nature of the covenant which the house of Israel broke was one which was breakable. That administration of the CoG required repentance and faith for salvation just as the new covenant does. However, all Israel had sworn themselves to do all that the LORD had commanded, which included not only keeping the decalogue, but all the civil and ceremonial laws. (Ironically, the ceremonial laws included an offering for sins, which presupposed that sins would be committed.) When Israel, and their descendants--who were included in the covenant by being born--and strangers who had been added to the nation, sinned and failed to exhibit repentance and faith, they were breaking the covenant.
In the new covenant, when we sin, we are not breaking the covenant because we are united to Christ who kept the law completely. We do not stand before God with our own obedience, but with His. Thus the covenant is better, because one of the promises it is founded on is of unbreakable-ness. Thus, only those actually united to Christ are considered to be part of the covenant. Sorry if this sounds round-about. It's clearer in my head.

I can't really see the Mosaic Covenant as a 'republication' of the CoW, since with Adam's sin that ship had sailed. Everyone was born needing redemption, which could not come from keeping the law. As a statement of God's moral standard forever it's the same obedience that was required of Adam, but now we all begin life with the broken law already on our record. Adam was told "continue in obedience to not die;" we cannot obey enough to make ourselves live again.


----------



## Herald (Aug 5, 2017)

Harley said:


> Perhaps I'll chime in, though for time's sake I'll be short.
> 
> My view? Everyone has the law of God in their hearts to some extent, and some are more seared than others, but no one who is unconverted desires to know, obey and submit to it.



I will add that the one who is unconverted is _unable _to "know, obey and submit to it [law of God]" c.f. 1 Cor. 2:14.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Aug 5, 2017)

So, when Jeremiah tells us that Israel broke the covenant, you can interpret it two different ways according to historic Reformed Baptist theology: Option 1: The covenant they broke under Moses was the subservient covenant, which was neither a covenant of works nor a covenant of grace. They broke it in this case by not keep the Mosaic Law perfectly (is that right?). Option 2: The covenant they broke was actually the covenant of grace, though in its Old Testament administration. They broke it in this case by refusing to repent and believe in Christ (?).

Ben, help me understand: It seems that on the one hand you are saying they broke the covenant (of grace) because they refused to repent and believe, but on the other hand you are saying they broke the covenant (of grace) because they didn't obey the Law (they stood before God with their obedience). Which are you saying; or are you saying it is both? Thanks.


----------



## brandonadams (Aug 6, 2017)

I will let someone from the 20th century RB view answer how they understand the broken old covenant (option 2). I imagine they would say it was broken on an individual basis (due to lack of faith), whereas the new covenant cannot be broken on an individual basis (because all in the new covenant have faith).

As for option 1,


JTB.SDG said:


> which was neither a covenant of works nor a covenant of grace


It was *a* covenant of works, but not *the* covenant of works. It operated on the Lev 18:5 principle of "do this and live" but was limited to life in the land of Canaan (note: just because it was a covenant of works does not necessarily mean the terms were the exact same as the Adamic Covenant of Works).



JTB.SDG said:


> perfectly


There is some variety over the precise details on this point. The sacrificial system forgave some offenses, so in that sense it did not require "perfection." But those sacrifices were themselves also part of the keeping of the law. I am inclined to agree with John Erskine (and others) that the Mosaic law was enforced according to outward obedience to the letter. In Israel's history, their worship of idols was the indicator of obedience to the covenant or not.

In that case, Israel broke the covenant as soon as it was given. However, the full covenant curses were not poured out on them for the sake of Abraham (note Moses' intercessory prayer). God promised Abraham that his offspring would possess the land of Canaan. So until that occurred, God was longsuffering toward Israel. Once the land and multitude of seed promise was fulfilled in Solomon's day, then Israel stood merely on the terms of the Mosaic/old Covenant - which is why we see Israel's slow fall into exile and the application of Deu 28 curses from that point.

However, God had not yet fulfilled his second promise to Abraham concerning the one seed that would bless all nations. That promise came to re-expression in the Davidic Covenant. And thus God was longsuffering toward Judah "for the sake of David" while he was not toward the ten tribes.

Once Christ was born and he established the New Covenant, then God's promise was fulfilled and Israel and Judah had served their purpose, and God poured out the full wrath of the Old Covenant curses in AD70, ending the Old Covenant.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Aug 6, 2017)

JTB.SDG said:


> So, when Jeremiah tells us that Israel broke the covenant, you can interpret it two different ways according to historic Reformed Baptist theology: Option 1: The covenant they broke under Moses was the subservient covenant, which was neither a covenant of works nor a covenant of grace. They broke it in this case by not keep the Mosaic Law perfectly (is that right?). Option 2: The covenant they broke was actually the covenant of grace, though in its Old Testament administration. They broke it in this case by refusing to repent and believe in Christ (?).
> 
> Ben, help me understand: It seems that on the one hand you are saying they broke the covenant (of grace) because they refused to repent and believe, but on the other hand you are saying they broke the covenant (of grace) because they didn't obey the Law (they stood before God with their obedience). Which are you saying; or are you saying it is both? Thanks.


I think Brandon answered the 20thC RB position handily in his brief response, and I may be somewhere betwixt option one and two, though when we get to such fine details it's hard to pin things down precisely. I may be only repeating past material, but the way I see the CoG is as developing in history: first the promise in Gen 3, a picture of salvation in Noah's flood, a promise to Abraham, Moses, a physical people typifying a real people, lastly the promised Seed in whom all the promises are bound up. God had a people, from Adam on, whom he was regenerating: they were in the CoG. I see the Mosaic covenant (which could be broken) as a framework around the CoG (think of an expendable rocket booster), in which the CoG was still operating, for God was still sovereignly saving people, but it was serving an illustrative purpose--it was making pictures of how God is to be approached; how He dwells among His people, etc. So the CoG was there, but surrounded by types, shadows, and figures which were signalling the full plenitude of the CoG which was to come with Christ. That subservient (sure, I'll use that word) framework could not exist without the CoG at it's heart, but because membership therein was by birth, not by regeneration, you could be in it and subject to it's requirements without being actually in the CoG itself (circumcision of the heart).
I apologize if my long explanation remains unclear--I have delved as deep as my poor abilities can go. No doubt a clever interlocutor could easily prove me to be either 1689 Federalist OR a Deepwater Presbyterian--either way I'll be in good company, since I love them both.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Aug 6, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> I apologize if my long explanation remains unclear--I have delved as deep as my poor abilities can go. No doubt a clever interlocutor could easily prove me to be either 1689 Federalist OR a Deepwater Presbyterian--either way I'll be in good company, since I love them both.



Thanks Ben.


----------



## brandonadams (Aug 7, 2017)

I came across another passage today in my reading - Jesus' teaching on election and perseverance.



> John 6
> 32 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
> 
> 34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.”
> ...



Note Jesus' emphasis on "all". _*All*_ that are elected will come to Christ and _*all*_ of them shall be raised on the last day. To prove this he quotes Isaiah 54:13 "And they shall _*all*_ be taught by God." He says the prophecy refers to election, the effectual call, and regeneration - and thus also perseverance.

Isaiah 53 describes the suffering messiah. 54 describes the covenant of peace he brings. 



> 9 “For this _is_ like the waters of Noah to Me;
> For as I have sworn
> That the waters of Noah would no longer cover the earth,
> So have I sworn
> ...



What is the cross reference for v13? Jeremiah 31:33-34 and Hebrews 8:10-11. "no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’" for they shall all know me," from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord.

Therefore, according to Jesus, the New Covenant of Peace is made with the elect, chosen and called by the Father and given to Christ to intercede, preserve, and raise on the last day.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 8, 2017)

brandonadams said:


> I came across another passage today in my reading - Jesus' teaching on election and perseverance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So the promise God gave to Jeremiah came to pass under the NC now?


----------

