# Jeremiah 31 is only for the Jews



## Pergamum (Jul 8, 2013)

Yikes....

I just discovered a large group of national believers in my province believe Jeremiah 31 was only for the Jews.

How do I counter this using simple language?

I have referred them to read Hebrews more carefully. But they keep saying, "Jeremiah says that this New Covenant is for Israel and the house of Judah....it says it right here!"


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 8, 2013)

Show them that the Apostle Paul talks about Israel after the flesh (I Cor 10:18) - i.e. all Jews, converted and unconverted - and also talks about the Israel of God i.e. the Israel that pertains or belongs to God (Gal. 6:16) - i.e. all converted Jews and Gentiles, the Church.

Romans 9-11 teaches us that there will always be an overlap between the Israel of God and Israel after the flesh.

Those of Israel after the flesh who do not believe do not belong to God, are not in the Church/the Israel that belongs to God, and are not in the New Covenant.

Jews and Gentiles who profess the faith and their children are part of the visible Church, visibly belong to the Israel of God and are outwardly in the New Covenant. If they believe they are part of the invisible Church, invisibly belong to the Israel of God, and are inwardly in the New Covenant.

God isn't finished with Israel after the flesh as a whole, although currently, most of them don't belong to Him:


> As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.(Rom 11:28-29)



I suppose the Israel of God/Church can be called "the true Israel", as long as people don't get the idea that God is finished with Israel after the flesh as a whole.

Hope that the above is complicated enough for you.


----------



## Marrow Man (Jul 8, 2013)

Would they also say that the book of Hebrews is only for the Jews? In other words, how do they incorporate Hebrews 8:8ff into this view?


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 8, 2013)

For that matter, what do they make of the Lord's Supper being only for the Jews?



> For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.(Matt 26:28)



See also Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; I Cor 11:25; II Cor 3:16; Heb 9:15.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 8, 2013)

Sounds like they may have come under the influence of some extreme dispensationalists at some point, maybe IFB's. Even most dispensationalists will say that the church is sharing in the blessings of the New Covenant now and won't argue that the NC is _only_ for national Israel. Either that, or they haven't read the NT as carefully as they should have, as you note.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 8, 2013)

Hermeneutics, baby. How do you _*read*_ the Bible?

I would say you might as well ask a Baptist for a "simple language" counter to Presbyterian claims about infant baptism. Sure, you might have a short-and-sweet answer that amounts to an "in house" dismissal. But it's not likely to have much effect on a man who has a different approach to the question.

(not distracting the thread)

My point is: in my opinion, the issue you describe is not the kind of question that lends itself to a "rebuttal." You can almost guarantee that these are people who already know they hold to a non-mainstream view. People have given these folks plenty of verses, but they aren't arguing from this verse or that (no matter if they understand their own presuppositions or not).

Rather they are arguing from within a hermeneutic, or more precisely from what they consider a more "rigorously consistent" version of a more common reading of the Bible (one that I would characterize as a _two-center_ approach to the message of Scripture). They are only going to respond to the "what about this text?" reply, with a rebuttal of their own. YOU are the one who is missing something deeper.

I'd recommend formulating responses to this view that do not aim at direct defeat (which involves a long campaign and drained resources), but instead seek to inoculate the weak against their influence, or rescue those who are dabbling in those waters.


----------



## R Harris (Jul 8, 2013)

Marrow Man said:


> Would they also say that the book of Hebrews is only for the Jews? In other words, how do they incorporate Hebrews 8:8ff into this view?



LOL, exactly. Also, what about when the angel Gabriel tells Mary in Luke 1:32-33 that Jesus will reign over the *House of Jacob* forever? Hmmm . . no gentile believers allowed?

And what about where Paul tells the Galatians that if you are children of Christ, you are also children of *Abraham*? 
Some professed believers would express puzzlement over such a notion; gee, why would I care about being a child of Abraham when I am in Christ? Dispensational thinking leads to such problems.

Obviously one could go on and on, but you see the point. A healthy understanding of covenant theology cures such ailments.


----------



## Marrow Man (Jul 8, 2013)

Exactly. You have passages like 1 Peter 2:9-10 where OT promises to Israel are applied directly to NT believers.

Bruce's advice above is pretty wise. Protect the innocent, per Romans 16:17ff.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 8, 2013)

http://rscottclark.org/2011/01/on-the-new-covenant/


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Jul 18, 2013)

I love this chapter, and especially verse 18 where it states, "turn thou me, and I *shall* be turned". He did this very thing to me.


----------

