This issue will forever come down to one's hermeneutic, specifically with regard to soteriology. One looks in vain in the OT to find God treating people individually without respect to their familial ties, whether by blood, adoption or otherwise (servants). There is not one shred of the NT that indicates a reversal of this means of God's working in the lives of his people. To be sure, both the OT and NT demonstrate instances of God bringing salvation on those outside of familial ties to believers. But to say these instances lay aside the overall Biblical teaching of God's working through families, sacraments and all, is akin (no pun intended) to what antinomians say about the role of law in our lives this side of the cross. (BTW, I'm not equating our credo brethren with antinomians...only saying that I see strong similarities in the hermeneutic both use to arrive at their conclusions.)
"Not one shred"? What about these verses?
Paul Manata responds:
Quote:
I saw Elnwood arguing from Jer 31:27-30 (roughly) and that is one of the verses I have responded to in my responses to credos. You can post my answer if you'd like.
L. The Individualistic Nature of the New Covenant:
The argument based off this text from Jeremiah 31,
27 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man and the seed of beast. 28 And it shall come to pass that as I have watched over them to pluck up and break down, to overthrow, destroy, and bring harm, so I will watch over them to build and to plant, declares the LORD. 29 In those days they shall no longer say: "'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.' 30 But everyone shall die for his own sin. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.
Malone takes from this,
“When the New Covenant administration is examined by Baptists, they see ample evidence that the New Covenant does not include the organic idea in covenant membership in the same way the Abrahamic covenant did. Rather, they see a new individualistic element in the New Covenant administration that was not as patent in the Old Testament ‘covenants of promise.’
[…]
The promise was that, in the days of the New Covenant, God would cease bringing generational covenantal curses upon men for the sins of their fathers as he did upon the members of Old Testament organic Israel. The link would be changed. Each would die for his own sin, not the sins of the father. According to O. Palmer Robertson, every heart in the New Covenant Israel will be individually changed and directly responsible to God.
[…]
In other words, although the Israel of God in the Old Testament included all naturally born children under the blessings and curses, the New Covenant ‘Israel of God’ only includes regenerate individuals in the covenant, not the organic seed. There is a heightened individualism in the New Covenant.”
My problems with the above argument are numerous:
1) Daniel Block has written what Tremper Longman has referred to the best book on the Old Testament; his commentary on Ezekiel. Block notes about Malone’s type of argument,
“For more than a century this chapter has provided the primary basis for the widely held notion that one - perhaps the most - important contribution made by Ezekiel to Israelite theology was his doctrine of individual responsibility. Prior to this time sin and judgment were supposed to have been dealt with by Yahweh on a corporate basis.”
So we can see that Malone’s interpretation is simply keeping in step with some standard views on the claim by Jehovah made in both Jeremiah and Ezekiel. It is not disputed that they are referring to the exact same proverb. Therefore, any answer applicable to Ezekiel is likewise applicable to Jeremiah as well. Block goes on to note that,
“In recent years, however, scholars have largely abandoned this view. Not only is the individualism reflected in this chapter [Ezekiel 18] evident in texts much earlier than Ezekiel; the corporate emphasis of earlier writings is never abandoned in favor of strict individualism. Furthermore, individual responsibility is much more muted here than has previously been supposed. Indeed, the aim of this dispute in the transformation of the corporate body, specifically the exilic community. These are the children whose ‘teeth are set on edge’ (v. 2). This corporate focus is highlighted by early references to Israel (vv. 2, 3) and repetitious later identification of the addresses as ‘the house of Israel’ (vv. 25, 29-31; cf. also vv. 6, 15). The call to repentance is issued to the community as a whole. To identify a new doctrine of individualism as the principle agenda of the chapter is to confuse subject with theme.”
Block notes that this was a “pithy saying” that operated in both the ancient Near East as well as Israel. Malone’s interpretation suffers from a few problems. First, this saying was a secular proverb. Block says that Ezekiel quotes the proverb correctly (Jeremiah was trying to highlight the anteriority of the father’s actions, hence his use of the perfect verb, akelu). The non-perfect use of the verb represents “true proverbial style” (Block, 560). It also “expresses belief in an inevitable and uncontrollable determinism. This is how things are; one can do nothing to change it” (Block, 560).
Second, in ch. 16 Ezekiel does quote cause-effect relationship between generations, but this is just to establish that personality traits are passed on from one generation to the next.
Third, why, if this challenge by the people is intended to mock previous ways God has dealt with his people, why was the point made so “obliquely?” (Block, 560). Indeed, Ezekiel’s audience makes direct charges against God in this very chapter (v. 25).
And, fourth, since the Israelites ask why God should not punish people for the sins of their fathers in v. 19, then the traditional interpretation has a built in contradiction to it. Supposedly, in v. 2 the people reject the traditional theology, and then in v. 19 they ask for it to be implemented!
So, Block concludes that “the problem the proverb poses for Ezekiel is not with punishment that children are bearing for the sins of the fathers, or even the issue of theodicy. On the contrary, it reflects a materialistic fatalism, a resignation of immutable cosmic rules of cause and effect. … To the extent that the charge concerns God at all, it accuses Him of disinterest or impotence in the face of the exiles’ current crisis” (Block, 561).
The response to the Israelites is an extended theology on the involvement and immanency of God. Jehovah responds by claiming that he is Lord over all life. Jewish as well as Gentile. Theocentrism is taught and fatalism repudiated. Their fate, as is the fate of every man, is in the hands of a personal God.
2) The credo Baptist who makes the argument that all people are now held responsible for their own sins (as the universal claim says, “the soul who sins shall die) and there is no more principle of children being punished for the sins of their fathers has a contradiction in his system if he holds to a covenant of works. All men still suffer, and are born with the guilt of, Adam’s sin. Even Christians. Our bodies still break down. We still sin. In fact, why would we accept Christ’s righteousness? Jehovah also states the if a man sins but his father (his own federal head) is righteous, the sinful son will still be punished (Eze. 18:5-13). Thus a total and complete abandonment of the traditional principle of federal headship theology cannot be accepted. It was also argued that corporate responsibility, correctly considered, was not the subject up for debate.
3) In 1 Corinthians 5 we note that the sin of one individual is counted as the entire congregation’s sin. If they do not take care of it, they will also be punished! In Titus 1:10 we note that entire families are destroyed because the heads of those families have accepted Judaizing teaching. And, in Matthew 10, we read that entire households and towns are destroyed because of the decision of at least one representative of that town.
4) The Baptist says that in the New Covenant people are responsible for their own self regarding salvation. But God has never punished a sinless person for the sins of another. That is, he has never sent anyone to hell who lived a sinless life just because their parent sinned (assuming that they didn’t already have Adam’s sin). The point in Ezekiel is that these people thought they had done nothing wrong. And so, ex hypothesis, the Baptist would have to say that God used to send people to hell for doing nothing wrong!
5) Lastly, since the proverb was to be said “no more,” meaning from that day foreword, then if the Baptist is correct that the exegetical intent is to say that the children of believers are no longer considered in the covenant until they personally profess faith, then why were they still included in the covenant for hundreds of years? Obviously no one interpreted Jehovah’s response to the proverb as saying that “people can only enter the covenant by way of profession of faith.”
__________________
Rich
Northern VA
OPC
WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site. SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion
I saw Elnwood arguing from Jer 31:27-30 (roughly) and that is one of the verses I have responded to in my responses to credos. You can post my answer if you'd like.
L. The Individualistic Nature of the New Covenant:
The argument based off this text from Jeremiah 31,
27 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man and the seed of beast. 28 And it shall come to pass that as I have watched over them to pluck up and break down, to overthrow, destroy, and bring harm, so I will watch over them to build and to plant, declares the LORD. 29 In those days they shall no longer say: "'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.' 30 But everyone shall die for his own sin. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.
Malone takes from this,
“When the New Covenant administration is examined by Baptists, they see ample evidence that the New Covenant does not include the organic idea in covenant membership in the same way the Abrahamic covenant did. Rather, they see a new individualistic element in the New Covenant administration that was not as patent in the Old Testament ‘covenants of promise.’
[…]
The promise was that, in the days of the New Covenant, God would cease bringing generational covenantal curses upon men for the sins of their fathers as he did upon the members of Old Testament organic Israel. The link would be changed. Each would die for his own sin, not the sins of the father. According to O. Palmer Robertson, every heart in the New Covenant Israel will be individually changed and directly responsible to God.
[…]
In other words, although the Israel of God in the Old Testament included all naturally born children under the blessings and curses, the New Covenant ‘Israel of God’ only includes regenerate individuals in the covenant, not the organic seed. There is a heightened individualism in the New Covenant.”
My problems with the above argument are numerous:
1) Daniel Block has written what Tremper Longman has referred to the best book on the Old Testament; his commentary on Ezekiel. Block notes about Malone’s type of argument,
“For more than a century this chapter has provided the primary basis for the widely held notion that one - perhaps the most - important contribution made by Ezekiel to Israelite theology was his doctrine of individual responsibility. Prior to this time sin and judgment were supposed to have been dealt with by Yahweh on a corporate basis.”
So we can see that Malone’s interpretation is simply keeping in step with some standard views on the claim by Jehovah made in both Jeremiah and Ezekiel. It is not disputed that they are referring to the exact same proverb. Therefore, any answer applicable to Ezekiel is likewise applicable to Jeremiah as well.
Here is where a major mistake is made. Jeremiah associates the removal of this concept with the New Covenant. The same language in 31:27-29 "Behold the days are coming ..." is in v. 31 "Behold, the days are coming ... when I will make a new covenant." Thus, the reason for this saying not being used is because of some fulfillment in the new covenant.
Even if we accept Block's intepretation, since it deals exclusively with Ezekiel, it is at best incomplete. His interpretation may be correct in its immediate context of why that saying is to be said no more in Israel, but he does not answer the question of why that proverb especially does not imply with the coming of the New Covenant.
Quote:
2) The credo Baptist who makes the argument that all people are now held responsible for their own sins (as the universal claim says, “the soul who sins shall die) and there is no more principle of children being punished for the sins of their fathers has a contradiction in his system if he holds to a covenant of works. All men still suffer, and are born with the guilt of, Adam’s sin. Even Christians. Our bodies still break down. We still sin. In fact, why would we accept Christ’s righteousness? Jehovah also states the if a man sins but his father (his own federal head) is righteous, the sinful son will still be punished (Eze. 18:5-13). Thus a total and complete abandonment of the traditional principle of federal headship theology cannot be accepted. It was also argued that corporate responsibility, correctly considered, was not the subject up for debate.
In response, I don't think anyone dies without their own sin and goes to hell for Adam's sin. So there is no contradiction that people will be judged for their own sins, and not the federal head. The contrast being made is Old Covenant earthly punishment vs. New Covenant eschatological judgment. In the Old Covenant, entire families were stoned for sins of the fathers. Not so in the New Covenant.
Quote:
3) In 1 Corinthians 5 we note that the sin of one individual is counted as the entire congregation’s sin. If they do not take care of it, they will also be punished! In Titus 1:10 we note that entire families are destroyed because the heads of those families have accepted Judaizing teaching. And, in Matthew 10, we read that entire households and towns are destroyed because of the decision of at least one representative of that town.
1 Cor. 5 doesn't say the whole congregation is guilty of that one person's sin. They are held accountable for being lax about confronting and dealing with that sin.
In Titus 1:10, it says the whole households were subverted. It says nothing of households being punished for the head of the household's sin.
The use of Matthew 10 proves too much. It is making an analogy to the day of judgment, and we all accept that final judgment is individual, not by town or family representative.
Quote:
4) The Baptist says that in the New Covenant people are responsible for their own self regarding salvation. But God has never punished a sinless person for the sins of another. That is, he has never sent anyone to hell who lived a sinless life just because their parent sinned (assuming that they didn’t already have Adam’s sin). The point in Ezekiel is that these people thought they had done nothing wrong. And so, ex hypothesis, the Baptist would have to say that God used to send people to hell for doing nothing wrong!
Paul completely misunderstands. I'll say it again. New Covenant administration is a better picture of the eschatological judgment. Old Covenant is types and shadows. Old Covenant punished entire families for one sin -- not in terms of final judgment in hell, but physically.
Quote:
5) Lastly, since the proverb was to be said “no more,” meaning from that day foreword, then if the Baptist is correct that the exegetical intent is to say that the children of believers are no longer considered in the covenant until they personally profess faith, then why were they still included in the covenant for hundreds of years? Obviously no one interpreted Jehovah’s response to the proverb as saying that “people can only enter the covenant by way of profession of faith.”
Paul is defining covenant in paedo-terms -- visible church, which is not the way a Baptist defines it. Profession of faith does not make one enter the new covenant. Regeneration does.
In general, I tire of Paul's argumentation because he generally takes a shotgun approach to arguing. That is, he fires off as many arguments as he can in one post, many of which are not very strong, but the post is so long that not very many people want to take the time respond to it, or if they do, he objects because they didn't answer the multitude of small points he includes. It's a great debate technique to overwhelm an opponent, and it makes him formidable in a debate, but it's not very good argumentation.
The major flaw of your argument is the assumption that the NC did not start being fulfilled right after Jeremiah's prophecy. This is what the author of Hebrews tells us. He said that when Jeremiah uttered those words hundreds of years ago then, at that time, he made the first covenant pointless, and whatever is pointless is fading away.
In fact, it doesn't even follow that because Jeremiah said that something would happen in "those days" that it's happening now. You're not in heaven. You don't have a resurrected body. The NC prophesies are precisely why hyper-preterists say we are in the new heavens and earth right now. That we have our resurrected bodies. etc. You're over-realizing eschatology.
I would recommend Pratt's chapter on prophecy in the book "When Shall These Things Be?" He discusses contingency and prophecies.
Furthermore, it is proven that "judging sons for their fathers' is not inconsistent with "each man dying for their own sin" by what Jeremiah says in the broader context of the New Covenant:
Jer. 32:
16"After I had given the deed of purchase toBaruch the son of Neriah, I prayed to the LORD, saying: 17'Ah, Lord GOD! It is you who have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you. 18 You show steadfast love to thousands, but you repay the guilt of fathers to their children after them, O great and mighty God, whose name is the LORD of hosts, 19 great in counsel and mighty in deed,whose eyes are open to all the ways of the children of man, rewarding each one according to his ways and according to the fruit of his deeds.
There was obviously no contradiction between the two claims. And, Jeremiah seems elated about something he was JUST TOLD was "naughty" and "not desirebale to God."
I think it is theologically unresponsible to say that right after Jeremigh knew that God was unhappy with a certain saying, that he would praise God for that very saying!
Furthermore, since Eze. and Jer. were referring to exactly the same thing then brother Don has simply made the prophets contradict eachother. It's not "incomplete." Jehovah said that the saying was not to be said anymore. From that day forward. Yes, that's when elements of the NC started intruding. Don would have us believe that Jehovah wanted the saying to stop immediately, but also hundreds of years later!
Furthermore, since people die for Adam's sin, people suffer for Adam's sin, then it is fasle that in the New Covenant people don't suffer and die for their father's sin. Infants in the womb have not actually sinned, but they do have a sinful nature. This is because of inheriting Adam's guilt!
For these reasons I can't agree with Don's response. But, I must admit that I cannot come back to this:
Quote:
That is, he fires off as many arguments as he can in one post, many of which are not very strong, but the post is so long that not very many people want to take the time respond to it, or if they do, he objects because they didn't answer the multitude of small points he includes. It's a great debate technique to overwhelm an opponent, and it makes him formidable in a debate, but it's not very good argumentation.
And so my above post can be a priori dismissed because we already know it's not good argumentation. :-)
The major flaw of your argument is the assumption that the NC did not start being fulfilled right after Jeremiah's prophecy. This is what the author of Hebrews tells us. He said that when Jeremiah uttered those words hundreds of years ago then, at that time, he made the first covenant pointless, and whatever is pointless is fading away.
I stayed out of the Baptism aspect of that thread, but I have to say something here. Tom, you are adding in something to Hebrews that is absolutely NOT there. In fact, the writer to the Hebrews goes through painstaking detail to show us that the New Covenant began with the death of Christ. He, through His blood, is the mediator of the New Covenant. No covenant is established without the death of the testator and without the shedding of blood, so the New Covenant could not have began until the death of Christ.
It is also interesting to note that in Hebrews 9:15, which says that Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant, it also shows us the ones who receive the promise of the covenant - those who are called. And, yes, I know that we (none of us) have any real idea who is truly called or regenerated because we can't see their hearts. But just because we don't know a person's heart, it doesn't change the meaning of the verse.
Quote:
In fact, it doesn't even follow that because Jeremiah said that something would happen in "those days" that it's happening now. You're not in heaven. You don't have a resurrected body. The NC prophesies are precisely why hyper-preterists say we are in the new heavens and earth right now. That we have our resurrected bodies. etc. You're over-realizing eschatology.
It is, in fact, and already-not yet realization. Aspects of the New Covenant have begun and have not yet been fully realized. This should be obvious since we all celebrate the Lord's Supper.
The major flaw of your argument is the assumption that the NC did not start being fulfilled right after Jeremiah's prophecy. This is what the author of Hebrews tells us. He said that when Jeremiah uttered those words hundreds of years ago then, at that time, he made the first covenant pointless, and whatever is pointless is fading away.
Hey Paul,
I'm not sure I understand your statement here. So, correct me if I'm totally missing it, but are you concluding that the NC started after Jeremiah's words? You use words as THEN and AT THAT TIME to make your point on WHEN something occurred.
Thanks for your posts. I'm looking into these issues with increasingly different understandings as you guys post.
__________________
Andrew Cunningham
Casa Grande, AZ
Attending:Grace Covenant Church, ARBCA Cross Centered Life
Aspects of the New Covenant have begun and have not yet been fully realized. This should be obvious since we all celebrate the Lord's Supper.
I would point to this postulate as evidence for the continued validity of a weekly rest. "So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God" (Heb. 4:9).
__________________ Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI
Made both Lord and Christ--Jesus, the Destroyer Acts 2:36 - 1 Cor. 10:9-10 & 15:22-26 - Hebrews 2:9-15 - 1 John 3:8 - James 4:12
When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us. --Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --
Aspects of the New Covenant have begun and have not yet been fully realized. This should be obvious since we all celebrate the Lord's Supper.
I would point to this postulate as evidence for the continued validity of a weekly rest. "So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God" (Heb. 4:9).
But to speak more directly to Doug's point, Paul is pointing out that the writer to Hebrews points out (8:13) that "he MAKES" the first obsolete, that is reference to the fact that Jeremiah is announcing the DEMISE of the Old Covenant, right then and there. Plus, he goes on to say, "already VANISHING away," being obsolete. Its obsolescence is patent as soon as the NEW MODEL is announced, and the VANISHING starts right then.
Paul did NOT say that Jeremiah's words brought the Old Covenant TO AN END, but that aspects of that prophecy were even at that moment begun to realization.
__________________ Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI
Made both Lord and Christ--Jesus, the Destroyer Acts 2:36 - 1 Cor. 10:9-10 & 15:22-26 - Hebrews 2:9-15 - 1 John 3:8 - James 4:12
When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us. --Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --
I stayed out of the Baptism aspect of that thread, but I have to say something here. Tom, you are adding in something to Hebrews that is absolutely NOT there. In fact, the writer to the Hebrews goes through painstaking detail to show us that the New Covenant began with the death of Christ.
That is precisely not what Hebrews tells us.
Heb. 8:13
"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."
Thus we see that when "Jeremiah" spoke those words, "he [Jeremiah] makes the first one obsolete.
My point is that some of what was prophesied started right after Jeremiah prophecied. The remnant came back, etc.
Jer. 29: "For thus says the LORD: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place. 11 For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. 12 Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. 13 You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. 14I will be found by you, declares the LORD, and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and all the places where I have driven you, declares the LORD, and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile.
Sounds familiar? Let's see:
Jer. 30:
1The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: 2"Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Write in a book all the words that I have spoken to you. 3 For behold, days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will restore the fortunes of my people, Israel and Judah, says the LORD, and I will bring them back to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall take possession of it."
In fact, the teaching of the NC in the OC is so wide, and covers so much ground, and is applied to the times of the exiles to the time of the consumation, that it's impossible to make it as simplistic as many Baptists are wont to do.
After the 70 years, when the exiles came back, then all these belssing would be poured out on them. But, as happens quite frequently, the people were unrepentant. Thus historical contingencies pushed the prophecies back.
Quote:
It is also interesting to note that in Hebrews 9:15, which says that Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant, it also shows us the ones who receive the promise of the covenant - those who are called.
Yes sir, and no paedobaptist would disagree with that. The promises ALWAYS came by faith. But, we must note that from the paedo perspective there are two sides to the one coin called the New Covenant. So, to point out what you are, without dealing with our other position and nuances, is to simply beg the question. That the promises are for those who are called, those who draw near, does not mean that there is not still a legal aspect to the covenant. There must be since whoever orthodox preachers let into the kingdom, are actually in the kingdom. it is us finite and fallen people who hold the keyes to kingdom inclusion. God backs our decisions.
The major flaw of your argument is the assumption that the NC did not start being fulfilled right after Jeremiah's prophecy. This is what the author of Hebrews tells us. He said that when Jeremiah uttered those words hundreds of years ago then, at that time, he made the first covenant pointless, and whatever is pointless is fading away.
Hey Paul,
I'm not sure I understand your statement here. So, correct me if I'm totally missing it, but are you concluding that the NC started after Jeremiah's words? You use words as THEN and AT THAT TIME to make your point on WHEN something occurred.
Thanks for your posts. I'm looking into these issues with increasingly different understandings as you guys post.
Hello Andrew,
I would simply say that the NC is a much broader concept that Jer. 31:31-34. As Baptist Carl Hotch points out in his book on the NC, which Fred Malone cites approvingly, we must piece together, inductively, all the OT prophecies regarding the NC in order to arrive at a doctrine about it. So, I would say, and many of my reformed baptists friends agree with me here, there were elements of the NC being fulfilled to the exiles, though the grandness and fulness of the NC will only come once the visible and invisible match, in the New Heavens and Earth.
I stayed out of the Baptism aspect of that thread, but I have to say something here. Tom, you are adding in something to Hebrews that is absolutely NOT there. In fact, the writer to the Hebrews goes through painstaking detail to show us that the New Covenant began with the death of Christ.
That is precisely not what Hebrews tells us.
Heb. 8:13
"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."
Thus we see that when "Jeremiah" spoke those words, "he [Jeremiah] makes the first one obsolete.
Tom, I know you know grammar better than this. You must take the pronoun "he" in context to find out who the antecedent is in Hebrews 8.
Quote:
Hebrews 8:1-8 Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer. 4 For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, "See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain." 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "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 --
The "he" in verse 8 who says those things is the same "he" in verse 6, who has obtained a more excellent ministry, who is the same "he" in verse 5 who commanded Moses to make all the things according to the pattern on the mountain, who is the same "he" in verse 4 who is not on the earth, who is the "One" of verse 4 who had something to offer, who is the "High Priest" and "Minister" of verses 1 and 2 who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens.
Far from verse 8 talking about what Jeremiah specifically was saying, it is referring to what God said (in the person of Christ) through Jeremiah. The writer to the Hebrews, again, goes into painstaking detail to show us that the New Covenant is through the ministry of Christ, not Jeremiah.
Quote:
My point is that some of what was prophesied started right after Jeremiah prophecied. The remnant came back, etc.
Jer. 29: "For thus says the LORD: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place. 11 For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. 12 Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. 13 You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. 14I will be found by you, declares the LORD, and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and all the places where I have driven you, declares the LORD, and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile.
Sounds familiar? Let's see:
Jer. 30:
1The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: 2"Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Write in a book all the words that I have spoken to you. 3 For behold, days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will restore the fortunes of my people, Israel and Judah, says the LORD, and I will bring them back to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall take possession of it."
In fact, the teaching of the NC in the OC is so wide, and covers so much ground, and is applied to the times of the exiles to the time of the consumation, that it's impossible to make it as simplistic as many Baptists are wont to do.
After the 70 years, when the exiles came back, then all these belssing would be poured out on them. But, as happens quite frequently, the people were unrepentant. Thus historical contingencies pushed the prophecies back.
There is no argument that a remnant came back into the land after the 70 years. And there is no argument that Jeremiah prophesied this. But the writer to the Hebrews (who we were dealing with) is not at all talking about the return of physical Israel into the land. You are starting to sound like a Dispensationalist! The writer to the Hebrews uses Jeremiah 31 to talk about the New Covenant blessings on Spiritual Israel.
Whether it is Jeremiah, or the Lord Jehovah/Jesus speaking, is immaterial to the question.
If the president of BMW gets up at the Changchun International Auto Expo this month and announces the all new, redesigned 2009 Z-4 roadster, on sale August 2008,
guess what? The current crop, Z-4? It's "obsolete", as of the announcement.
__________________ Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI
Made both Lord and Christ--Jesus, the Destroyer Acts 2:36 - 1 Cor. 10:9-10 & 15:22-26 - Hebrews 2:9-15 - 1 John 3:8 - James 4:12
When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us. --Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --
Whether it is Jeremiah, or the Lord Jehovah/Jesus speaking, is immaterial to the question.
If the president of BMW gets up at the Changchun International Auto Expo this month and announces the all new, redesigned 2009 Z-4 roadster, on sale August 2008,
guess what? The current crop, Z-4? It's "obsolete", as of the announcement.
True, but Jeremiah/the Lord said, "Days are coming..." That means future. Sure it could be future, like in 2 seconds. But we interpret that phrase from how it is applied in the New Testament. The "days" that were coming are interpreted by Christ as being related to His death and interpreted by the writer to the Hebrews as being related to the new High Priest.
They are not related by any one in the New Testament to the return of the Jews to Palestine.
The major flaw of your argument is the assumption that the NC did not start being fulfilled right after Jeremiah's prophecy. This is what the author of Hebrews tells us. He said that when Jeremiah uttered those words hundreds of years ago then, at that time, he made the first covenant pointless, and whatever is pointless is fading away.
Hey Paul,
I'm not sure I understand your statement here. So, correct me if I'm totally missing it, but are you concluding that the NC started after Jeremiah's words? You use words as THEN and AT THAT TIME to make your point on WHEN something occurred.
Thanks for your posts. I'm looking into these issues with increasingly different understandings as you guys post.
Hello Andrew,
I would simply say that the NC is a much broader concept that Jer. 31:31-34. As Baptist Carl Hotch points out in his book on the NC, which Fred Malone cites approvingly, we must piece together, inductively, all the OT prophecies regarding the NC in order to arrive at a doctrine about it. So, I would say, and many of my reformed baptists friends agree with me here, there were elements of the NC being fulfilled to the exiles, though the grandness and fulness of the NC will only come once the visible and invisible match, in the New Heavens and Earth.
Ok. Fair enough.(I still have to research all of this myself.)
Hmm.. I was going to write more, but I'll have to study this some more and keep up with you guys at the same time. Hebrews 8 is basically the hinge for me. I haven't yet seen a good response to hebrews 8. Maybe if any of you guys have an online article on hebrews 8, that would be great.
__________________
Andrew Cunningham
Casa Grande, AZ
Attending:Grace Covenant Church, ARBCA Cross Centered Life
Let me two questions to the Baptists about how "relevant" this passage is to redemption even if you succeed in establishing "individualism":
1. Has there ever been a time in human history where a man was saved who was not united to Christ?
2. Was there ever a time in human history, in the COG, where union with Christ was conferred by natural generation - from father to son?
__________________
Rich
Northern VA
OPC
WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site. SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion
The writer to the Hebrews uses Jeremiah 31 to talk about the New Covenant blessings on Spiritual Israel.