Jer 31:31-34 "Already and not yet" -Kline

non dignus · #1 (**permalink**) 10-04-2007, 08:56 AM

"Note that Kline defines “breakability” as “the tree itself was felled,” as opposed to individual branches being broken off while the covenant tree remains intact. The New Covenant is unbreakable only in the sense that the covenant itself cannot be terminated, not in the sense that apostasy of individuals within the covenant is impossible."

Read more...

non dignus · #2 (**permalink**) 10-05-2007, 06:48 AM

No one wishes to refute Kline's assertion that Jeremiah was speaking of corporate apostasy, not individual apostasy?

PuritanCovenanter · #3 (**permalink**) 10-05-2007, 08:58 AM

Read the passage.

Quote:

(Jer 31:31) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

(Jer 31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

(Jer 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.

(Jer 31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

That would be a fine understanding if the passage wasn't speaking about individuals (every man his...) from the least to the greatest.

Me Died Blue · #4 (**permalink**) 10-05-2007, 09:30 AM

I read the whole article, and I have to say that among Reformed paedobaptist theologians, I've never heard the claim that the visible administration threatens no curses, but only blessings. Even if one accepts the article's claim that even excommunication only implies a possible curse in the invisible Covenant of Works, wouldn't the unworthy partaking of the Lord's Supper by an unbeliever in the visible New Covenant result in what could be considered a curse of that covenant? 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 seems to point in that direction:

Quote:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

Calvin's interpretation of verse 29 seems to suggest the same thing:

Quote:

This, then, he does, when he declares that this food, otherwise health-giving, will turn out to their destruction, and will be converted into poison to those that eat unworthily.

Since it is through the sacrament that the "destruction" or "poison" (which would certainly seem to count as curses) comes, and that sacrament is specifically an ordinance of the visible New Covenant, I don't see how it could be interpreted in a way that renders its curses as not also being within that covenant.

Am I missing something here? Am I (or Lee Irons) misunderstanding Kline? Isn't the historic Reformed position that the visible New Covenant offers both curses and blessings, and that which one of the two each member of that covenant receives through the visible means of grace depends on whether he is invisibly a member of the New Covenant or the Covenant of Works? So even though the curses in an invisible, eternal sense would be through the Covenant of Works, would not their visible, temporal enactment be through the visible New Covenant?

Jim_Johnston · #5 (**permalink**) 10-05-2007, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CredoCovenanter

That would be a fine understanding if the passage wasn't speaking about individuals (every man his...) from the least to the greatest.

(Jer 31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Where does Jeremiah ever use the phrase "least to greatest" to mean "every single person individually?" This would be the only place. Does't an author's usage have determinitive status over our desired interpretations?

I've already shown that if you take "teach his neighbor to know the lord" to mean every single person individually does not need to be told that they need salvation because they are all regenerate, that NC members still do that. I showed it in my debate with Cook. To say, "Oh, no, it just means we won't teach people that we think are regenerate to know the Lord" has several problems:

a) Same in the OC. If you really thought someone was regenerate, you didn't tell them that they needed to be saved.

b) It's possible that who you "think" knows the Lord, really doesn't. Thus you would not be teaching someone to know the Lord who, in fact, actually needs to be taught to know the Lord. And, there are those that we "think" are not regenerate, but really are, and so we tell them to "know the Lord." Thus we do and we don't tell people who need to hear "know the Lord," to know the Lord.

c) That phrase "those who we think are regenerate" is not in the text. That's not good exegesis.

Now, you can take a different interpretation here, as some do, but I think I have done away with the most popular.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with Kline here. I'm not yet sure if the corporate reading is the best, it is certainly possible, especially since "they broke my covenant" is used corporately. The corporate translation makes sense of the two. But, it may not be correct. However, I think I have shown that Randy's counter to Kline has severe problems.

non dignus · #6 (**permalink**) 10-05-2007, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Me Died Blue

I read the whole article, and I have to say that among Reformed paedobaptist theologians, I've never heard the claim that the visible administration threatens no curses, but only blessings. Even if one accepts the article's claim that even excommunication only implies a possible curse in the invisible Covenant of Works, wouldn't the unworthy partaking of the Lord's Supper by an unbeliever in the visible New Covenant result in what could be considered a curse of that covenant? 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 seems to point in that direction:

Quote:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

Calvin's interpretation of verse 29 seems to suggest the same thing:

Quote:

This, then, he does, when he declares that this food, otherwise health-giving, will turn out to their destruction, and will be converted into poison to those that eat unworthily.

Since it is through the sacrament that the "destruction" or "poison" (which would certainly seem to count as curses) comes, and that sacrament is specifically an ordinance of the visible New Covenant, I don't see how it could be interpreted in a way that renders its curses as not also being within that covenant.

Am I missing something here? Am I (or Lee Irons) misunderstanding Kline? Isn't the historic Reformed position that the visible New Covenant offers both curses and blessings, and that which one of the two each member of that covenant receives through the visible means of grace depends on whether he is invisibly a member of the New Covenant or the Covenant of Works? So even though the curses in an invisible, eternal sense would be through the Covenant of Works, would not their visible, temporal enactment be through the visible New Covenant?

I completely agree. Apparently Kline was writing with the Shepherd controversy in mind, with an emphasis on the CoG merely as an extension of the CoR. Obviously the curses of the new covenant do not have an identical meaning as curses do in works covenants.

My main motive in starting the thread is that I have never heard the 'corporate apostasy' theory. But it certainly rings true in the context of Jeremiah's audience being in, and understanding the corporate principle. It doubly rings true in light of federal theology.

non dignus · #7 (**permalink**) 10-05-2007, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CredoCovenanter

(Jer 31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

I can't say it better than Mr. Manata.

Why now in the church do 'they all know Him'?
Because, unlike the Old covenant, men who show themselves unbelieving are excluded by the office of the keys. And this fits very nicely with the 'corporate apostasy' theory. Whereas before, Israel was cut off en masse, now the faithless are cut off individually, leaving a remnant in which all shall know Him.

And I don't mean 'all shall know Him' in an absolute sense, because much biblical language is not in absolute terms, but is spoken charitably in hope.

PuritanCovenanter · #8 (**permalink**) 10-05-2007, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Me Died Blue

I read the whole article, and I have to say that among Reformed paedobaptist theologians, I've never heard the claim that the visible administration threatens no curses, but only blessings. Even if one accepts the article's claim that even excommunication only implies a possible curse in the invisible Covenant of Works, wouldn't the unworthy partaking of the Lord's Supper by an unbeliever in the visible New Covenant result in what could be considered a curse of that covenant? 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 seems to point in that direction:

Quote:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

Calvin's interpretation of verse 29 seems to suggest the same thing:

Quote:

This, then, he does, when he declares that this food, otherwise health-giving, will turn out to their destruction, and will be converted into poison to those that eat unworthily.

Since it is through the sacrament that the "destruction" or "poison" (which would certainly seem to count as curses) comes, and that sacrament is specifically an ordinance of the visible New Covenant, I don't see how it could be interpreted in a way that renders its curses as not also being within that covenant.

Am I missing something here? Am I (or Lee Irons) misunderstanding Kline? Isn't the historic Reformed position that the visible New Covenant offers both curses and blessings, and that which one of the two each member of that covenant receives through the visible means of grace depends on whether he is invisibly a member of the New Covenant or the Covenant of Works? So even though the curses in an invisible, eternal sense would be through the Covenant of Works, would not their visible, temporal enactment be through the visible New Covenant?

Chris,
There is a difference between curses of condemnation and discipline from the LORD as the text mentions. Jeremiah says that their (The New Covenant Member) iniquity is forgiven and their sins remembered no more.

Quote:

But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

Anyone outside of the covenant is just condemned and storing up to that end.

Calvibaptist · #9 (**permalink**) 10-05-2007, 02:49 PM

Can we get someone to design a "yawn" smiley?

PuritanCovenanter · #10 (**permalink**) 10-05-2007, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Quote:

Originally Posted by CredoCovenanter

That would be a fine understanding if the passage wasn't speaking about individuals (every man his...) from the least to the greatest.

(Jer 31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Where does Jeremiah ever use the phrase "least to greatest" to mean "every single person individually?" This would be the only place. Does't an author's usage have determinitive stat.

Well that would be a nice question if that were all he said bro and if that were the only part of the verse that implied what you were thinking. But every man his neighbor, and every man his brother is also added to the point. From the least of them to the greatest is about their position in life wouldn't you say. That is why I put this in brackets (every man his...).

PuritanCovenanter · #11 (**permalink**) 10-05-2007, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvibaptist

Can we get someone to design a "yawn" smiley?

yawners for ya.

Calvibaptist · #12 (**permalink**) 10-05-2007, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CredoCovenanter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvibaptist

Can we get someone to design a "yawn" smiley?

yawners for ya.

Thanks. That's kind of what I felt like as I began reading yet another thread meant to draw us into a credo/paedo debate over whether Jeremiah 31 meant individuals or not and whether any aspect of it refers to now or if it is just future...

Jim_Johnston · #13 (**permalink**) 10-05-2007, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CredoCovenanter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Quote:

Originally Posted by CredoCovenanter

That would be a fine understanding if the passage wasn't speaking about individuals (every man his...) from the least to the greatest.

(Jer 31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Where does Jeremiah ever use the phrase "least to greatest" to mean "every single person individually?" This would be the only place. Does't an author's usage have determinitive stat.

Well that would be a nice question if that were all he said bro and if that were the only part of the verse that implied what you were thinking. But every man his neighbor, and every man his brother is also added to the point. From the least of them to the greatest is about their position in life wouldn't you say. That is why I put this in brackets (every man his...).

That's not an argument, Randy. Why don't you try making one. I don't see the connection between what you said, to the conclusion you want. it's like this:

P1: It says each man his neighbor and brother, and all from least to greatest:

{BIG GAPING HOLE}

C1: Therefore, it means every single person numerically.

Try to tie P1 to C1.

Anyway, bro, here's another refutation for you. Refutation via reductio ad absurdem:

Jer. 42:1 Then all the army officers, including Johanan son of Kareah and Jezaniah son of Hoshaiah, and ALL THE PEOPLE from the least to the greatest approached 2 Jeremiah the prophet and said to him, "Please hear our petition and pray to the LORD your God for this entire remnant. For as you now see, though we were once many, now only a few are left.

See, it says "ALL THE PEOPLE." It says, all the prople "FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST." It says they prayed and petioned. Did the infants do this, Randy? Or, maybe there were NO INFANTS in all Israel???

Jer. 8:Therefore I will give their wives to other men
and their fields to new owners.
From the least to the greatest,
all are greedy for gain;
prophets and priests alike,
all practice deceit.

It says, "the covenant people's wives." It says, "from the least to greatest," ALL are greedy for gain. All men, prophets, priests, least to the greatest. But this too doesn't mean every one!

And, if you want to get technical:

It doesn't say "every man his sister." And, in fact, not all the "neighbors" in Israel professed the true religion. Why do you still have pagan neighbors, Randy? It says, according to you, ALL your NEIGHBORS, Randy. Are all your neighbors saved???

~The Yawner

Calvibaptist · #14 (**permalink**) 10-05-2007, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Quote:

Originally Posted by CredoCovenanter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Where does Jeremiah ever use the phrase "least to greatest" to mean "every single person individually?" This would be the only place. Does't an author's usage have determinitive stat.

Well that would be a nice question if that were all he said bro and if that were the only part of the verse that implied what you were thinking. But every man his neighbor, and every man his brother is also added to the point. From the least of them to the greatest is about their position in life wouldn't you say. That is why I put this in brackets (every man his...).

That's not an argument, Randy. Why don't you try making one. I don't see the connection between what you said, to the conclusion you want. it's like this:

P1: It says each man his neighbor and brother, and all from least to greatest:

{BIG GAPING HOLE}

C1: Therefore, it means every single person numerically.

Try to tie P1 to C1.

Anyway, bro, here's another refutation for you. Refutation via reductio ad absurdem:

Jer. 42:1 Then all the army officers, including Johanan son of Kareah and Jezaniah son of Hoshaiah, and ALL THE PEOPLE from the least to the greatest approached 2 Jeremiah the prophet and said to him, "Please hear our petition and pray to the LORD your God for this entire remnant. For as you now see, though we were once many, now only a few are left.

See, it says "ALL THE PEOPLE." It says, all the prople "FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST." It says they prayed and petioned. Did the infants do this, Randy? Or, maybe there were NO INFANTS in all Israel???

Jer. 8:Therefore I will give their wives to other men
and their fields to new owners.
From the least to the greatest,
all are greedy for gain;
prophets and priests alike,
all practice deceit.

It says, "the covenant people's wives." It says, "from the least to greatest," ALL are greedy for gain. All men, prophets, priests, least to the greatest. But this too doesn't mean every one!

And, if you want to get technical:

It doesn't say "every man his sister." And, in fact, not all the "neighbors" in Israel professed the true religion. Why do you still have pagan neighbors, Randy? It says, according to you, ALL your NEIGHBORS, Randy. Are all your neighbors saved???

~The Yawner

Not jumping into the debate at this point. But, could you explain something to me? How is it that the emphasis on the corporate aspect of the phrase "all the people from the least to the greatest" in any way excludes whatever individuals would be included in that corporate group?

For example, John 3:16 says, "God so loved the world..." Now, that is a corporate statement that obviously does not mean every individual who has ever lived is loved in the same way by God. But, neither does that statement exclude individuals on whom God's love is poured out. I really don't understand the difference.

*EDIT* Let me use a better example: You mention Jeremiah 42 and the reference to "all the people from the least to the greatest" approaching Jeremiah. You then go on to suggest that it obviously doesn't mean every single person, including infants, in Israel came up to Jeremiah. My question to you is, "How does this phrase in any way exclude individuals from being considered?" Is it just that the people of Israel were the borg and became a collective that were not individuals?

PuritanCovenanter · #15 (**permalink**) 10-05-2007, 03:33 PM

What does Jeremiah 31:34 say? Does it say "all the people?" I am not sure you can make a blanket statement concerning every individual inside or outside the Covenant. It seems the implication is for those individuals that the Lord is making His new Covenant with. All of them. Everyman his brother and every man his neighbor. Like I said, the part about from the least to the greatest has to do with status in life probably. Everyman his neighbor and every man his brother has to do with those with whom the Lord is making his New Covenant with. The part about from the least to the greatest was at the end of the verse so I added it. Maybe it was confusing for you. Go back and reread what I wrote. I explained it before.

Quote:

From the least of them to the greatest is about their position in life wouldn't you say.

non dignus · #16 (**permalink**) 10-05-2007, 04:51 PM

I tell my neighbor, "Know the Lord." Of course. Who doesn't?

Therefore, this must speak of the 'not yet'.

PuritanCovenanter · #17 (**permalink**) 10-05-2007, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by non dignus

I tell my neighbor, "Know the Lord." Of course. Who doesn't?

Therefore, this must speak of the 'not yet'.

Yes, I do also if they are not New Covenant Members. This is a common sense passage. This passage speaks about people who are New Covenant members already. Those whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins God remembers no more. It might help you if you quit separating parts of the passage to the point you lose the understanding of the text.

Going to a football game guys. See ya later.