The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Jeremiah 31.......KNOWING

Yes, it is, which Reformed Baptists embrace. Again, they would say that when God switched from an all inclusive covenant, elect and reprobate, to an exclusive new covenant of only the elect, the difference becomes that "all" will now know the Lord as opposed to just "some". The "some" were the elect among the reprobate.

Blessings,

Ron

This was argued earlier by Baptists and replied to here.

First, I think we need to understand that the above verses (Jer 31) are quoted in Hebrews 8:1-13.

Second, it is best to examine the Scripture itself and interpret it with other Scripture. Let’s examine them a little closer (Just a reminder: Covenant Theology teaches three aspects of the Kingdom: (1) the Inauguration—death and resurrection of Christ, (2) the Continuation—time between Christ first coming and His Second Coming, and (3) the Consummation—His 2nd coming. I hope this very brief explanation helps in everyone's understanding below.).

• New Covenant: In its original framework, Jeremiah’s prophecy explained about a time when the exiled communities of Israel/Judah would be restored to the promised land and would obtain the blessings of God’s covenant in all its fullness. Jeremiah’s offer of a “new (renewed is a valid and a better translation of both the Hebrew and Greek) covenant” was an offer of forgiveness for transgressions committed under the covenant as it was administered under Moses (Heb 9:15) and to the restoration of God’s favor under the same covenant (Heb 8:12; Jer 31:34).
• laws into their mind: Inward appropriation of the law is not exclusive to the covenant in Christ or only the New Testament (Deut 6:4-9; 30:1-6, 14; Psa 37:31; 40:8; 119:11). This again reveals: (1) the continuity of the covenant from Genesis forward, and (2) adds emphasis that the New Covenant is a renewal and not a “new” Covenant in the way some have understood the term (new). In Jeremiah’s day, as in the 1st century, many Jews had reduced the Old Covenant to externalities, but Jesus and His apostles said “No” (Matt 5:17-19). When Christ returns, the New Covenant will bring wholehearted obedience to God’s will. This process began with the first coming of Christ, but will not be complete till the Second Coming.
• I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people This is again the Old Covenant formula (Lev 26:12). Again, we see the New Covenant not abolishing the Old Covenant, but fulfilling it.
• Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest: This exhortation once again summarizes the obligation of the law (Jer 22:16-17; 1 Chron 28:9). Under the New Covenant God promises to give His people a new heart to know Him (Jer 24:7). Needless to say, although Christ has inaugurated the New Covenant in His death and resurrection, not all who partake in the New Covenant (external church) know the Lord in a saving way. Moreover, not all who will receive a new heart have it yet--salvation is yet to come for many. In addition, teaching is still going on in the Church today, though we have the Holy Spirit (John 16:13, etc.). We only know in part now (1 Cor 13:10). Jeremiah’s words will not be entirely fulfilled until Christ returns. Only when the Church is composed “only” of believers will the finality of this promise be fulfilled. The “inauguration” of the New Covenant has brought us a step closer to this destiny. Theologically, this is called “the now, but not yet,” and can be read in any good systematic on Covenant Theology.

Now, to specifically answer William’s 3 questions:

• 1. What specific meaning for the word know should we use here?
  
  The Hebrew word is “yada” (oida in Greek). In this context it means, “to be intimately to acquainted with or stand in a close relation to” (BDAG). It has uses in the New Testament as well (Matt 25:12; John 7:28; 8:19; 2 Thess 1:8; Tit 1:16). This speaks of those that have a saving “relationship” with the Lord.
• 2. Who was this covenant intended for?
  
  Explained above.
• 3. How does this effect baptism?
  
  Baptists attempt to say we should “only” baptize professors based upon these verses. They contend the New Covenant is only for professing believers and not non-professing infants. However, as demonstrated above, the fullness of these verses has not occurred yet, and thus a Baptist could never baptize a single soul until the Second Coming. Why? Because Jer 31:34 states, [color:"FF0000"]“And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD,"[/color] but we still evangelize and have missions, thus there is still a future aspect to this—it is not yet completed. Why? Because Jer 31:34 states, [color:"FF0000"]“for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD,” [/color] but many still do not know Him. In addition, they can’t prove that a single soul savingly “knows” the Lord. They only have professors, but the verses in Jer 18/Heb 8 both speak of a “definite” saving knowledge—not just a profession. Baptists look at these verses as "already" fully fulfilled (thinking in part it does away with the visible/invisible church distinction), but proper exegesis does not support their line of reasoning. I look forward to a meaningful Baptist hermeneutic on the future aspect these verses speak about, but at present I have only seen some faulty interpretations of the passages...
  
  However, in looking at these verses from a true Covenant perspective this error will not occur. There is a continuity in the covenants. Children were part of the covenant in the O.T. and they are part of it in the N.T. Paedos do not baptize based on Jer 31 being completed, for it isn't. Jer 31 is not a valid defense for the credo. Scripture bears out that there is a visible/invisible church distinction as previously discussed. Covenant continuity is where paedos and credos part company, but we can still be friends.

I hope this assists with an explanation. Now, I have to go and prepare for a very busy week. Please pray for my wife as she will be entering the hospital for surgery.

Blessings.

Joe,

I will be praying for you and Carol this week. May the Lord suit a blessing to meet your needs.

Please let me know how she's doing.


Wes

Joe,

I'll be praying, too.

Forgive me jumping in mid-flow, I’m not a regular but I do have an interest (don’t we all!) in Covenant Theology. I’m a Baptist and don’t subscribe to NCT, but rather to historic Baptist CT. I’d like to respond to JEdwards post above and in passing thank him for his gracious tone throughout. I believe it is crucial to explore this issue and hope to do so without hostility. My post is long as I’ve quoted the original so I won’t ramble on any more.


I’m not overly familiar with this division of the Kingdom into three aspects, but I don’t think it causes many difficulties other than to omit consideration of OT saints and to make Consummation of the New Covenant synonymous with what exactly? The Lord’s Second Coming, Judgement, Glorification ?

There is undoubtedly this content in Jeremiah –the most immediate sense of the prophecy –but there is still a conditional aspect that means words like “in all its fullness” can’t be used carelessly. (Jer 31:30)

Well observed. And crucial to a right understanding of Covenant Theology. The Baptist CT contention here would be that the Old Covenant was never salvific; and external observances never effectual. Salvation was always and only by faith in the blood of the Glorious Promised Redeemer. Only those in the OT who had their eyes opened by the Holy Spirit to trust in Christ’s redeeming blood would be saved. They would enter into the everlasting covenant of Grace. Many of these would have been Jews, most of them members of the symbolic Old Covenant (although many before Sinai and many of other nations and even priesthoods –Melchisedec, Sareptan Widow). But yes, those –and only those- with the laws written on their minds would be redeemed.

Rather this is simply a covenant formula –it is the statement of a covenant.


This paragraph introduces the idea that one can participate in the New Covenant yet not in a saving way. It was certainly true of the Old Covenant that one could participate in all the externals of that Covenant –circumcision, Levitical worship, Jewish civil and ceremonial law and so on without regeneration. But the Baptist contention is that the Old Covenant was a picture –a type –a teaching symbol; and what it was a teaching symbol of is the internal reality of the New Covenant. Presbyterian CT errs in the failure to differentiate the type from the reality.

Let me ask what OT saints were saved by? Which “covenant” transaction saved them? It is the Baptist view (and the view of a famous paedobaptist as well –John Owen See Works Vol XXII on Hebrews 8.6) –that the New Covenant operated throughout and before the Old Covenant interlude as a Promise. It is called the new covenant because in time Christ fulfilled the Promise, thereby enacting it as a Covenant proper, but its effects were salvific even while promissory.

To be in the New Covenant, one has to be regenerated. That is the antitype of the OT “separated people”.


Not all paedobaptists would hold this Presbyterian CT as I said above (John Owen) but since the Baptist use of the verse is being objected to, I’ll answer as I can.

This isn’t the only verse we Baptists take our credo position from but we certainly do contend the New Covenant is only for believers. Within the exegesis of prophetic statements let me question the argument just made.
Jer 31:34 states, “And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD,"
It is crucial to determine who “they” are in this verse. If “they” are the members of the New Covenant –the regenerate, as we Baptists contend, then we will certainly obey the great commission and evangelise the lost, but the regenerate have no longer need of someone to lead them to salvation. “They” are already there! –they know Him. I am not saying we no longer teach, edify, sermonise and magnify the Lord –(I believe we will do this even in Glory) –but we will no longer teach believers as if they are unbelievers.
And of course- missions and evangelism will continue –outreach to those outside the New Covenant.
Jer 31:34 states, “for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD,” Again the Baptist position (alone) makes perfect sense of this. All in the New Covenant do know the Lord. Now there is an obvious difference between saving knowledge and Systematic Theology final exams, but in the case of every regenerate person the Lord Jesus Christ is known as Saviour.

“Fully fulfilled” is a tautology. While it’s true that not everyone who will be saved is saved now; (there are elect who are as yet unregenerate, or even unborn) it is entirely logical, Biblical and theologically sound that those who are saved are fully saved.

Rather than seeing the “Continuity of the Covenants” on the Presbyterian model, the Baptist CT sees the Everlasting Covenant of Grace as active throughout creation from the Fall, with the teaching interlude of the Old Covenant (Mosaic Covenant) interposed as a type of the church prior to the Coming of the Promised Messiah. Salvation was by faith in the God’s Promise of the (New) Covenant in the blood of the Redeemer to come, and thenceafter by the same faith as a realised historical (New) Covenant.

Can Baptists infallibly tell the regenerate from the unregenerate? Of course not. But Biblical teaching, credible profession, testimony and evidence of change of life; and church discipline properly applied make cases of error extremely rare in Reformed Baptist churches worthy of the name.

I would accept the notion of Visible/Invisible church only inasfar as it describes human error and deception. I think to set up an ecclesiology with this as a mainstay is an error of Covenantal thinking carried over from the OT nation-state of Israel as I’ve indicated above.

to the Discussion Board. And thanks for your thoughtful input. Of course, as a paedobaptist, I assuredly disagree with your understanding of Jer. 31:31f. As a reasonable response, I am going to defer at this time to the comments of C.F. Keil, which are found in his Commentary on the Old Testament, "Jeremiah - Lamentations". I've attached it as a MS Word (.doc) document. Again, if anyone can't open/read this attachment but would like to read it, I also have it available in ".pdf" (Acrobat Reader) format. However, the Hebrew words, albeit few, didn't convert. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Thanks for the welcome Pilgrim, and I guess differences were almost unavoidable. I was familiar with Keil's treatment and dug out my copy. Owen differs from Keil significantly in Covenant Theology but it always feels to me that Keil is a bit too literal (if that's possible -I mean it in a good way!) His CT seems to stop "just" short of Christological OT redemption...in a way that John Owen doesn't. It was consideration of OT salvation that led me to John Owen's position on CT. As I'm sure you know he remained paedobaptist (though congregational independent and opposed to both presbyterianism and episcoplianism) but not through his covenant theology. His reasons were interesting but, I think, flawed.

Notice though that Keil gives me my points on "knowing" God in contradiction of "JEdwards" interpretation.
Worth pointing out also that Keil gives the New Covenant Jerusalem (31:40)a wholly regenerate aspect(all holiness to the Lord without a Temple within) in contrast to the OT city (Old COvenant)which had a Temple. Wonderful picture of a regenerate church membership co-extensive with New Covenant boundaries contrasted with the Old Covenant mixed multitude typical covenant with a holy core.

Best Regards,
Dan

Ddaann,

My making Keil's comments available does not necessarily equate to my endorsing everything he wrote. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> But I do agree with much that he said in regard to the meaning of "new covenant", which I believe linguistically cannot or at least should not be disputed.

FYI, I side with Owen in his more "Christological" approach . . . and if I could be put in a specific group, I would be more than comfortable in the old Congregational camp. Call me a "Presbygationalist" if you like. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" /> To be perfectly honest, I haven't heard one salient argument from the Baptist camp which I found persuasive enough to make me renounce my paedobaptist position. For me, there is simply far too much unwarranted discontinuity forced upon one's Biblical Theology. And, of course, I reject the hermeneutic used to do so. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

However, be that as it may.... I am far more amiable toward Baptists than the vast majority of them have extended to me. Most of the members here, albeit holding divergent views on a variety of subjects, are more than hospitable and hold fast to that immutable bond which is found in being one in Christ. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Pilgrim,
Again thanks for amiableness and hospitality, it's much appreciated. I've found "baptism" discussions do seem to get singularly "fraught" and have often wondered why. Insecurity on both sides perhaps, or just the difficulty of the subject?

There are certainly bigger fish to fry, but this one is worth discussing as it determines so much of one's practical ecclesiology.

I don't want to derail this thread on Jermiah 31 so perhaps you could point me to a thread where the paedobaptist view is, to your mind, best set out or actively discussed?

Best Regards,
Dan

Welcome to the board. Perhaps it might be easier, and this hasn't happened in some time, if you would offer the baptist view and scriptural evidence. Perhaps start a new thread.


God bless,

william

OK.
I'll start one but I've just heard I'm going away on business for ten days from tomorrow morning. This wasn't planned, honest.
I'll be back!
Dan

First, welcome to the forum. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hello.gif" alt="" /> Second, I desire to address a few points, but will leave some for others to direct your attention to.

Baptists and Presbyterians BOTH baptize individuals which are not saved—visible covenant members. Presbyterians do this based on the continuity of the covenants (to which you agree above), where both the lost and saved are members of the “external” covenant. Baptist’s though have no warrant or Scripture on which to baptize “unbelievers,” though they do it? Where is the “direct” command in Scripture to baptize unbelievers—unless in the external covenant?

Baptist churches preach salvation messages almost weekly—to both the lost and saved and thus VIOLATE the very theology you claim they should be embracing.

Unfortunately my wife’s final tests Monday indicate that we will be proceeding with surgery tomorrow. Thanks to all of you that are praying. Needless to say I will not be around for a while.

J_Edward that is a pretty generalized statement, one I am not sure how you would know. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

But, when a salvation message is preached, it would seem to me it is for the lost, not the saved. Of course there is an aspect that a salvation message can be for the saved. It can show the saved, a true salvation message.
Perhaps, I don't understand your point?

By the way, I will be praying for you and your wife.
Tom

Joe,

Your you and your wife are in my prayers as well.

On our topic here, I am wondering along with Tom how you can make such a generalization of the teaching of Baptist churches. Granted, I would agree with you that, in your typical SBC church, you would hear the Gospel preached in a way that would cater to the nonbeliever and not really to the believer.

But I do not find that to be the case in Reformed and other Calvinistic Baptist churches. So just because Arminian, seeker-sensitive churches do that doesn't mean everyone does.

BTW, I still don't understand why erroneously baptizing unbelievers is an argument against credobaptism. Does accepting non-believers into full membership of the church mean we shouldn't have church membership? Does it mean that, if a false professor should partake of the Lord's Supper, we shouldn't fence the table at all?