Hebrews 8/Jeremiah 31

[Weston Stoler]

I have read many threads on this verse but none of them have really given the answer I'm looking for. How do Paedo's interpret the prophecy that all people in the NC will "Know the Lord' if infants are in the visible covenant of grace.

 

[Zach]

I have read many threads on this verse but none of them have really given the answer I'm looking for. How do Paedo's interpret the prophecy that all people in the NC will "Know the Lord' if infants are in the visible covenant of grace.

I will let those who are more wise than I tackle the heart of the question but I do want to point out one assumption you're making. For someone to argue that infant baptism is not valid under the New Covenant is to assume that everyone who is baptized as a Credo-Baptist knows the Lord. Even if infants were not baptized there would be people who were unregenerate and did not know the Lord in the visible covenant of grace.

Good to see you posting again, brother!

 

[Jackie Kaulitz]

Jeremiah 31:31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the [Moses’s Sinai] covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

I see the context of Jer 31:31-33 verses as meaning that God did away with the Mosaic Covenant (the inferior law covenant, see 2 Cor 3:1-7 (esp v7)) with a superior covenant through Christ that fulfilled the promises made in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. Jer 31:33: This is the New Covenant in which GOD WILL put HIS law within "the House of Judah and Israel" (His true people the invisible Church)(via the Holy Spirit that guides us from within us) and I will write the letter [of the law] on their hearts.

Jer 31:34: And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me.

Therefore, based on the previous context, v34 reads “And no longer shall each one [have to] teach his neighbor…[like they did under the law] saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ (But remember none seeks after God, all have gone astray)(like in 1 Chr 28:9 and Jer 22:16-17) for they shall all know me (through the Holy Spirit received in the New Covenant).” In otherwords, under the law, the people are told to seek and know God (which is impossible for a fallen people who hate God, thus they need a savior) but under the New Covenant, it is Jesus Christ our savior who seeks and finds His sheep (This is the same way He saved in the OT too). This New Covenant refers to the New Covenant in which we are truly circumcised in the heart BY GOD Rom 2:25-29 and Col 2:11-14). Since “none seeks after the Lord”, God will choose a people for himself and circumcise their hearts.

So to answer your question “How do Paedo's interpret the prophecy that all people in the NC will "Know the Lord' if infants are in the visible covenant of grace.” I would say the prophecy is not saying EVERYONE in the visible NC will “know God/be saved/have circumcised hearts” but that promise is made to who? “The house of Israel”. God will put the Holy Spirit in the hearts of “ALL the house of Israel” meaning His elect or spiritual Israel. And just like this spiritual Israel are not blood Israel, they also are not the visible mostly Gentile church, but they "are the children of the promise" who are the elect only - these are they that God chose for himself from among the Gentiles as well as blood Jews (see the mystery in Ephesians 3: 6 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel) So the promise is to TRUE spiritual Israel. So within our mostly Gentile churches, they are the invisible elect.

We already know that some adults in the visible church are true Christians and some are not. So I believe the same goes for infants. The adults are baptised into the visible church but only God knows who the invisible elect are who truly belong to spiritual Israel and who have truly been circumcised in the heart. But still some who do not believe are within this visible church and profess to be believers. So I believe the same for children of the New Covenant church also should be baptised into this covenant. Not meaning any offense to dissenters, but I find it odd that adults "allow" other adults to be baptised based on a simple profession of faith (not a very thorough test) but deny children this because "they can't prove their faith?" Well, it's not like the "test"/declaration they made the adults go through was able to weed out the saved adults from the non-believers. Some of these children will grow up and the adults will later come to believe some of these children have already believed at a young age (a gift from God in this New Covenant). But yet they denied the children baptism? How? Because the children couldn't convince the adults they already believed? I struggle with this idea because I cannot remember a day in my life that I did not know God and the idea that I should be "denied baptism" because I couldn't articulate well enough to convince some adult that my faith was real seems unreasonable. My faith was a gift from God! How can an adult tell me "you have to explain and prove to me that you have faith or no baptism?" I was reborn. I didn't know how just like I didn't know where babies came from and how I was born from my mother. Still some children will fall away, proving they were never truly His sheep. But the covenant is from God, the promise is from God and the New life/circumcision of the heart are all gifts from God.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

First off, is it impossible for infants to know the Lord? I set John the Baptist in front of us all even though that is quite an exceptional situation. There are a few questions that need to be answered as a whole in order to understand this passage. What is the subject of this passage you are sighting? Teaching is a big part of the context of this passage. It seems to be at the heart of the issue concerning what you are inquiring about. I believe the most brief explanation I can find to help explain this passage and your question comes from a past conversation on the PB. So I think I will repost it and see if it helps any. If it doesn't please allow me to know where it doesn't help.

Let's look at what is said to be new. Is forgiveness of sin a new concept? No. But the text says "I will remember their sins no more." What is meant? Hebrews 8-10 tells us that it refers to sacrifice for sin. God will not require a yearly remembrance of sin by means of an annual sacrifice. So clearly the substance of the covenant has not changed. Forgiveness of sin was as much a reality of the old covenant as it is for the new. But the administration of the covenant has changed. Now we do not require a yearly sacrifice.

Let's look at another aspect of the description -- teaching. What is the point of reference? Is it all teaching? That cannot be the case, because the NT specifically speaks of teachers as one of the ascension gifts Christ has poured out upon His church. So when the text says that a man will no longer teach his neighbour, the point of reference cannot be to teaching per se, but must refer to a specific aspect of teaching, namely, the mediatorial function of the priesthood. Men could not come directly into the presence of God under the old covenant, but were dependent upon the ministry of priests to offer sacrifices and prayers on their behalf, and to teach them the significance of the sacrifices. As Hebrews 10 explains, all may now come boldly into the Holiest of all by means of the one sacrifice of our great High Priest, without the use of priestly intermediaries. All believers are priests unto God. So we note that coming into the presence of God was as much a reality for old covenant believers as for new covenant believers. The substance has not changed. What has changed is the administration of the covenant.

How can one separate the objective redemptive-historical priesthood from the people to whom the Priest is ministering?

You were making the separation by rejecting the objectivity of Hebrews 8-10 with reference to the change of priesthood. I was showing the objective context. If you view the people within this context you will see that the application of the "new covenant" can't possibly be in the direction of an inward work ensuring a regenerate covenant membership. The parallel is between the two priesthoods and their effect on the people, not between the two kinds of people. In the former you have priests who could not once and for all sacrifice for the remission of sins. In the latter Christ has once and for all sacrificed for the remission of sins. The people, in both instances, are sinners. It is because they are sinners that they need a priest to sacrifice for them. If one makes the contrast to consist in the subjective state of the people one is effectively saying that the people of the new covenant don't need ANY priest because they perfectly keep the law of God written in their hearts. This would deny the gospel altogether. The very fact that the writer exhorts them to hold fast their confession of Jesus as their great high priest indicates that they are still sinners who depend upon His atoning sacrifice. The law of God is not so written in their hearts that they no longer have sin which requires atonement.

The group that is receiving the ministry of Christ is by no means a non-issue when considering these matters. What indication is there in this epistle that those who receive the ministry of this High Priest can become finally rejected and lost? Are the warning passages really for that purpose of describing what it will be like to fall out of the New Covenant?

They are Hebrews being tempted to return to the ordinances of the Old Testament. The warnings are fitted to show them the fact that there is no divine refuge in Old Testament ordinances now that Jesus has come. The warning which ensues the teaching of the new covenant frames the threatening in such a way as to include the covenantal nature of God's curse. 10:29, "who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing." Again, it only makes sense if the objective nature of the covenant is understood. If you insist on making Hebrews 8-10 something subjective which only applies to the elect you would be bound to maintain that the elect could profane the blood of the covenant, which denies one of the fundamental points of Calvinism. Taking it objectively, as a point of administration, no such problem is encountered.

I don't think that the change in objective priesthood needs to dominate the discussion. Look at what the writer of Hebrews says RIGHT before he cites Jeremiah. He says, "For he finds fault with THEM when he says:" ... and he goes on to quote the New Covenant.

Please look at what the writer has said from the beginning of chapter 8 leading up to the verse you have quoted. The section is entirely taken up with the priesthood. Go through the various contrasts in chapter 9. What is the point of concern? The ordinances as they relate to the priesthood. The objective work of Christ in His once offering up of Himself as a sacrifice is made the contrast. Look, again, at what is said before and after the quotation in chapter 10: "Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." The issue pertains to the priesthood which makes atonement for sin. According to Hebrews, "I will remember their sin no more" means there is no continual sacrifices made for sins. Then look at the warning which closes this section of the Epistle: "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." The point is, There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins under the old covenant administration. From beginning to end the only use that is made of the passage from Jeremiah is the objective, redemptive-historical significance that it has with respect to the change of priesthood.

I am sorry that you feel no need to exhort your brethren, Dennis. That sounds hyper-Calvinist to me. God uses means to work in His people's lives. While we are in chapter 10 of Hebrews perhaps you could take some time to meditate on the chain of exhortations in verses 19-25. It is obvious that the writer did not regard the passage from Jeremiah as if it did away with the need of teaching.

Rev. Winzer is precise here and puts the context and application to point squarely where they belong. I hope this helps a bit.

 

[Peairtach]

I would have to study it more closely, but I think the position in Hebrews 8/Jeremiah 31 is similar to that of Joel 2:28-29

28 “And it shall come to pass afterward,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh;
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
and your young men shall see visions.
29 Even on the male and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit (Joel 2:28-29, ESV)

and Acts 2:16-19

16 But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel:

17 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams;
18 even on my male servants and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.(Acts 2:16-18)

The mediatorial office of the anointed prophet ceases, and all God's true people have a spiritual anointing as prophets.

I've heard Joseph Pipa say that the Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8 pasages refer particularly to the prophetic office as well.

 

[sevenzedek]

I have read many threads on this verse but none of them have really given the answer I'm looking for. How do Paedo's interpret the prophecy that all people in the NC will "Know the Lord' if infants are in the visible covenant of grace.

Since I have been searching into these matters lately, I would like to offer a succinct statement so that I might be of service to you. The conclusion I present is largely untested by peers. Perhaps other covenantal baptists will critique my offering.

As others have noted, the greater context of the passage you quoted has to do with the abrogation of the Levitical priesthood. More specifically, Hebrews 8:11 has to do with the abrogation of the teaching ministry of the Levites ("they shall not teach every man his neighbor") and the inauguration of the priestly ministry of all God's covenant people in the New Covenant era ("all shall know me"). Don't miss the context here. It is crucial.

Because the Levites had the responsibility of administering the Law and the temple ordinances meant to reveal Christ to the people ("saying, Know the Lord"), it is accurate to say that they had knowledge of God that the rest of the people of Israel did not have because they sought this knowledge from the priests. Notice what Malachi 2:7 says, "For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts."

Now that the New Covenant (i.e. RENEWED Abrahamic Covenant) dispensation is upon us, everyone knows the Lord ("all shall know me, from the least to the greatest). No longer do the Levites teach their neighbors to know about the things of God. We all know God now. We are the members of God's temple who now have this intimate knowledge of our savior.

I asked the same question as you at one time. The argument I present is how I got from where you seem to be in your understanding to where I am now.