From The Least To The Greatest

Jim_Johnston · #1 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 01:42 PM

It is an accepted exegetical principle that the authors use of terms has interpretive priority over how others use those terms. Now, in Jer. 31 he uses the phrase "all will know the Lord, from the least to the greatest." Credo-apologists see this as proof that every single person, individually, in the NC will have saving knowledge.

My question is this: Jeremiah uses that phrase, i.e., "all...least to greatest" 3 other times besides Jer. 31 in his book. Now, in not one of those cases does it mean "every single person individually." It refers to all "types" or "kinds" or "classes" of people.

So, my question is this: what is the credo justification that in Jer. 31, and Jer. 31 alone, the prophet uses the phrase in a different way than he does twice before chapter 31 and once after ch. 31.

Calvibaptist · #2 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

It is an accepted exegetical principle that the authors use of terms has interpretive priority over how others use those terms. Now, in Jer. 31 he uses the phrase "all will know the Lord, from the least to the greatest." Credo-apologists see this as proof that every single person, individually, in the NC will have saving knowledge.

My question is this: Jeremiah uses that phrase, i.e., "all...least to greatest" 3 other times besides Jer. 31 in his book. Now, in not one of those cases does it mean "every single person individually." It refers to all "types" or "kinds" or "classes" of people.

So, my question is this: what is the credo justification that in Jer. 31, and Jer. 31 alone, the prophet uses the phrase in a different way than he does twice before chapter 31 and once after ch. 31.

1) I have never heard the argument that you are postulating.

2) The argument itself is unimportant to a credo position on Jeremiah 31.

mangum · #3 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvibaptist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

It is an accepted exegetical principle that the authors use of terms has interpretive priority over how others use those terms. Now, in Jer. 31 he uses the phrase "all will know the Lord, from the least to the greatest." Credo-apologists see this as proof that every single person, individually, in the NC will have saving knowledge.

My question is this: Jeremiah uses that phrase, i.e., "all...least to greatest" 3 other times besides Jer. 31 in his book. Now, in not one of those cases does it mean "every single person individually." It refers to all "types" or "kinds" or "classes" of people.

So, my question is this: what is the credo justification that in Jer. 31, and Jer. 31 alone, the prophet uses the phrase in a different way than he does twice before chapter 31 and once after ch. 31.

1) I have never heard the argument that you are postulating.

2) The argument itself is unimportant to a credo position on Jeremiah 31.

Do you have an answer?

Me Died Blue · #4 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvibaptist

The argument itself is unimportant to a credo position on Jeremiah 31.

Pastor Mixer,

Could you explain where you're coming from on this some more? I've been under the impression that credos at least partially rely on Jeremiah 31 for their belief in each and every person in the New Covenant being elect.

elnwood · #5 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

It is an accepted exegetical principle that the authors use of terms has interpretive priority over how others use those terms. Now, in Jer. 31 he uses the phrase "all will know the Lord, from the least to the greatest." Credo-apologists see this as proof that every single person, individually, in the NC will have saving knowledge.

My question is this: Jeremiah uses that phrase, i.e., "all...least to greatest" 3 other times besides Jer. 31 in his book. Now, in not one of those cases does it mean "every single person individually." It refers to all "types" or "kinds" or "classes" of people.

So, my question is this: what is the credo justification that in Jer. 31, and Jer. 31 alone, the prophet uses the phrase in a different way than he does twice before chapter 31 and once after ch. 31.

Paul, I count only two: 42:1 and 42:8, which is the exact same context, so it may as well be one.

There are other places that use "least to the greatest," but not "all ... least to the greatest." These include 6:13, 8:10, and 44:12.

The reasons is based on exegetical context of that passage. If it were every class of person, and not every single person individually, who had the knowledge, then there would be no reason for teaching to cease (whatever you think it means -- what's your interpretation?) because not all had knowledge.

Calvibaptist · #6 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Me Died Blue

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvibaptist

The argument itself is unimportant to a credo position on Jeremiah 31.

Pastor Mixer,

Could you explain where you're coming from on this some more? I've been under the impression that credos at least partially rely on Jeremiah 31 for their belief in each and every person in the New Covenant being elect.

My point was not that we rely on Jeremiah 31 to state that every individual in the New Covenant is elect. My point was that we don't necessarily need to rely on this particular phrase "all...from the least to the greatest". We can rely just as easily on the other descriptions of the members of the New Covenant from Jeremiah 31:

1) vs. 33 - They are of the house of Israel (interpreted for us by Paul in the New Testament as being of the faith of Abraham)

2) vs. 33 - They will have the law of God put in their minds and written on their hearts. This would have been true of an Old Testament saint as well who was a member of the Old Covenant people. But it would not have been true of an Old Testament unregenerate Jew.

3) vs. 33 - God will be their God and they will be his people. While this was true of physical Israel under the Old Covenant, the prophets are clear (as is the New Testament) that lo ammi (not my people) will be called ammi my people. This can only be true, from the New Testament perspective, of regenerate people.

4) vs. 34 - No one will have to teach their neighbor about God because they will all know the Lord. This does not find complete fulfillment until the eternal state, since, obviously, we still need teachers. Although, 1 John 2:27 would be a good cross-reference for at least a partial present fulfillment.

5) vs. 34 - I will forgive their iniquity and remember their sins no more. This obviously has a present fulfillment and a future fulfillment at the final judgment. But the present fulfillment cannot be said of the unregenerate. It is only true of the regenerate.

Now, as to the argument of whether this covenant is just made with a group of people or with individuals, I would say that the point is moot. Let's say, for sake of argument, that this NC is made with the covenant people as a whole in Jeremiah 31, with no reference to specific individuals. The points made above about the description of the covenant people still hold true. They (the people as a whole) would still have the law written on their hearts, God as their God, knowledge of God, and forgiveness of sins.

I'm not really sure how you could apply any of these to a group without considering the individuals in that group. If you had just one individual in the group of covenant people of whom these descriptions aren't true, then the entire group is tainted. Israel, under Joshua, was judged as a nation for the sin of Achan. The nation was unclean because one member was unclean. The same would be true of this group. The group would fail the test of the descriptions if just one of them failed the test.

Calvibaptist · #7 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 04:04 PM

BTW, Romans 9 references Hosea 1, where "not my people" are then called "my people." In Romans 9, the discussion is on individual election to include us Gentiles, not corporate election. Unless of course you want to join the Arminians.

Coram Deo · #8 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 04:04 PM

Hey, That was the best simplest run down of the already/ not yet fullfillment of Jeremiah 31.... thank you very much Pastor... I am going to print that out and save it....... That will be handy in the future.......

Michael

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvibaptist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Me Died Blue

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvibaptist

The argument itself is unimportant to a credo position on Jeremiah 31.

Pastor Mixer,

Could you explain where you're coming from on this some more? I've been under the impression that credos at least partially rely on Jeremiah 31 for their belief in each and every person in the New Covenant being elect.

My point was not that we rely on Jeremiah 31 to state that every individual in the New Covenant is elect. My point was that we don't necessarily need to rely on this particular phrase "all...from the least to the greatest". We can rely just as easily on the other descriptions of the members of the New Covenant from Jeremiah 31:

1) vs. 33 - They are of the house of Israel (interpreted for us by Paul in the New Testament as being of the faith of Abraham)

2) vs. 33 - They will have the law of God put in their minds and written on their hearts. This would have been true of an Old Testament saint as well who was a member of the Old Covenant people. But it would not have been true of an Old Testament unregenerate Jew.

3) vs. 33 - God will be their God and they will be his people. While this was true of physical Israel under the Old Covenant, the prophets are clear (as is the New Testament) that lo ammi (not my people) will be called ammi my people. This can only be true, from the New Testament perspective, of regenerate people.

4) vs. 34 - No one will have to teach their neighbor about God because they will all know the Lord. This does not find complete fulfillment until the eternal state, since, obviously, we still need teachers. Although, 1 John 2:27 would be a good cross-reference for at least a partial present fulfillment.

5) vs. 34 - I will forgive their iniquity and remember their sins no more. This obviously has a present fulfillment and a future fulfillment at the final judgment. But the present fulfillment cannot be said of the unregenerate. It is only true of the regenerate.

Now, as to the argument of whether this covenant is just made with a group of people or with individuals, I would say that the point is moot. Let's say, for sake of argument, that this NC is made with the covenant people as a whole in Jeremiah 31, with no reference to specific individuals. The points made above about the description of the covenant people still hold true. They (the people as a whole) would still have the law written on their hearts, God as their God, knowledge of God, and forgiveness of sins.

I'm not really sure how you could apply any of these to a group without considering the individuals in that group. If you had just one individual in the group of covenant people of whom these descriptions aren't true, then the entire group is tainted. Israel, under Joshua, was judged as a nation for the sin of Achan. The nation was unclean because one member was unclean. The same would be true of this group. The group would fail the test of the descriptions if just one of them failed the test.

Jim_Johnston · #9 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elnwood

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

It is an accepted exegetical principle that the authors use of terms has interpretive priority over how others use those terms. Now, in Jer. 31 he uses the phrase "all will know the Lord, from the least to the greatest." Credo-apologists see this as proof that every single person, individually, in the NC will have saving knowledge.

My question is this: Jeremiah uses that phrase, i.e., "all...least to greatest" 3 other times besides Jer. 31 in his book. Now, in not one of those cases does it mean "every single person individually." It refers to all "types" or "kinds" or "classes" of people.

So, my question is this: what is the credo justification that in Jer. 31, and Jer. 31 alone, the prophet uses the phrase in a different way than he does twice before chapter 31 and once after ch. 31.

Paul, I count only two: 42:1 and 42:8, which is the exact same context, so it may as well be one.

There are other places that use "least to the greatest," but not "all ... least to the greatest." These include 6:13, 8:10, and 44:12.

The reasons is based on exegetical context of that passage. If it were every class of person, and not every single person individually, who had the knowledge, then there would be no reason for teaching to cease (whatever you think it means -- what's your interpretation?) because not all had knowledge.

Unless is corporate.

Indeed, I proved that the "teaching regenerate to know the Lord," still happens.

Calvibaptist · #10 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Unless is corporate.

Indeed, I proved that the "teaching regenerate to know the Lord," still happens.

Which doesn't in any way defeat the Baptist point, since we believe in an already/not-yet fulfillment of prophecy, as do most Presbyterians, if I recall.

AND, the corporate is made up of individuals. You really can't get around that one.

Jim_Johnston · #11 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvibaptist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Unless is corporate.

Indeed, I proved that the "teaching regenerate to know the Lord," still happens.

Which doesn't in any way defeat the Baptist point, since we believe in an already/not-yet fulfillment of prophecy, as do most Presbyterians, if I recall.

AND, the corporate is made up of individuals. You really can't get around that one.

Which does defeat some baptists who have used that argument. That you think their argument isn't good, is fine by me.

AND, the corporate was made of individuals and so the "they" in "they broke my cov." isn't referrring to every single person individually (cf. Moses, Caleb, Joshua, etc) but you say the "they" after that is ferring to every single person individually.

And so your "every single one" argument has been debunked.

Calvibaptist · #12 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

AND, the corporate was made of individuals and so the "they" in "they broke my cov." isn't referrring to every single person individually (cf. Moses, Caleb, Joshua, etc) but you say the "they" after that is referring to every single person individually.

And so your "every single one" argument has been debunked.

You are good, Paul! You almost had me making the argument that I said didn't matter!

My earlier point stands that if the covenant people as a whole are referred to by the descriptions in Jeremiah 31, which the Old Covenant people as a whole were never referred to, there is a categorical difference (a progression, if you will). That categorical difference, or progression is in the people (not by their own merit, but by grace). God makes the people different.

Let's just take one description of the corporate group, ok? Are you suggesting that the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 is made with the physical house of Israel and Judah, in other words, physical Jews? If not, who is it made with?

Jim_Johnston · #13 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvibaptist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

AND, the corporate was made of individuals and so the "they" in "they broke my cov." isn't referrring to every single person individually (cf. Moses, Caleb, Joshua, etc) but you say the "they" after that is referring to every single person individually.

And so your "every single one" argument has been debunked.

You are good, Paul! You almost had me making the argument that I said didn't matter!

My earlier point stands that if the covenant people as a whole are referred to by the descriptions in Jeremiah 31, which the Old Covenant people as a whole were never referred to, there is a categorical difference (a progression, if you will). That categorical difference, or progression is in the people (not by their own merit, but by grace). God makes the people different.

Let's just take one description of the corporate group, ok? Are you suggesting that the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 is made with the physical house of Israel and Judah, in other words, physical Jews? If not, who is it made with?

As I argued in an earlier thread, the NC prophecies started coming about soon after Jer. said them.

The "house of Israel" is "the people of God." It was never "only physical Jews." So, proselytes were included. Therefore your counter argument is too imprecise to be dealt with.

The NC was wehat God was going to do for those people who professed the true religion, but, due to historical contingencies, the prophecies and fulfillments are pushed back to the consumation, ultimately.

Calvibaptist · #14 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvibaptist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

AND, the corporate was made of individuals and so the "they" in "they broke my cov." isn't referrring to every single person individually (cf. Moses, Caleb, Joshua, etc) but you say the "they" after that is referring to every single person individually.

And so your "every single one" argument has been debunked.

You are good, Paul! You almost had me making the argument that I said didn't matter!

My earlier point stands that if the covenant people as a whole are referred to by the descriptions in Jeremiah 31, which the Old Covenant people as a whole were never referred to, there is a categorical difference (a progression, if you will). That categorical difference, or progression is in the people (not by their own merit, but by grace). God makes the people different.

Let's just take one description of the corporate group, ok? Are you suggesting that the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 is made with the physical house of Israel and Judah, in other words, physical Jews? If not, who is it made with?

As I argued in an earlier thread, the NC prophecies started coming about soon after Jer. said them.

The "house of Israel" is "the people of God." It was never "only physical Jews." So, proselytes were included. Therefore your counter argument is too imprecise to be dealt with.

The NC was wehat God was going to do for those people who professed the true religion, but, due to historical contingencies, the prophecies and fulfillments are pushed back to the consumation, ultimately.

So, if you are arguing that the prophecies have started being fulfilled and Baptists have argued that the prophecies have started being fulfilled, where's the disagreement? If the "people of God" are those who "profess the true religion" isn't that the same argument that Baptists make?

Or are you suggesting that there is a parenthesis in God's plan? Like I said earlier, you are using the same argumentation that Dispensationalists use. I know, I went to their flagship seminary. You now have two peoples of God. Those who professed true religion in Jeremiah's time and began receiving the New Covenant blessings and those today who won't get any of the New Covenant blessings until the consumation. This is a troubling view...

Jim_Johnston · #15 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 05:16 PM

Doug,

There is no disagreement as long as you don;t think you can prove that Jer. 31 and Heb. 8 teach that "every single NC member is presently regenerate in this period of redemptive history."

There are those back then that started seeing the fulfillment, and there are many today who see broader fulfillment as well. This will grow until we reach heaven, then the visible will match the invisible. Not until then. The "those" are part of the "one olive tree" and thus I'm not dispie.

ChristianTrader · #16 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvibaptist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

AND, the corporate was made of individuals and so the "they" in "they broke my cov." isn't referrring to every single person individually (cf. Moses, Caleb, Joshua, etc) but you say the "they" after that is referring to every single person individually.

And so your "every single one" argument has been debunked.

You are good, Paul! You almost had me making the argument that I said didn't matter!

My earlier point stands that if the covenant people as a whole are referred to by the descriptions in Jeremiah 31, which the Old Covenant people as a whole were never referred to, there is a categorical difference (a progression, if you will). That categorical difference, or progression is in the people (not by their own merit, but by grace). God makes the people different.

I'm not quite following here. The Old Covenant people as a whole were referred to in Jer. 31. When it says, "they broke my cov." Not every individual did. There is a contrast being made. If the former was not every individual, then on what basis is the latter every individual?

CT

Calvibaptist · #17 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Doug,

There is no disagreement as long as you don;t think you can prove that Jer. 31 and Heb. 8 teach that "every single NC member is presently regenerate in this period of redemptive history."

There are those back then that started seeing the fulfillment, and there are many today who see broader fulfillment as well. This will grow until we reach heaven, then the visible will match the invisible. Not until then. The "those" are part of the "one olive tree" and thus I'm not dispie.

But I do believe that every single NC member is regenerate. The promise of the difference between the OC and the NC is that every member is regenerate. I do not in any way believe that every single member of a visible church is regenerate. Baptists try to have regenerate church membership by only allowing professors to be members. But, as Rich so aptly points out, no one can tell who is really regenerate.

Calvibaptist · #18 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvibaptist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

AND, the corporate was made of individuals and so the "they" in "they broke my cov." isn't referrring to every single person individually (cf. Moses, Caleb, Joshua, etc) but you say the "they" after that is referring to every single person individually.

And so your "every single one" argument has been debunked.

You are good, Paul! You almost had me making the argument that I said didn't matter!

My earlier point stands that if the covenant people as a whole are referred to by the descriptions in Jeremiah 31, which the Old Covenant people as a whole were never referred to, there is a categorical difference (a progression, if you will). That categorical difference, or progression is in the people (not by their own merit, but by grace). God makes the people different.

I'm not quite following here. The Old Covenant people as a whole were referred to in Jer. 31. When it says, "they broke my cov." Not every individual did. There is a contrast being made. If the former was not every individual, then on what basis is the latter every individual?

CT

Read my descriptions earlier in this thread of those who are in the covenant. Does this describe unregenerate people (either corporately or individually)? Of course not. Honestly, if you take the New Testament development of the New Covenant and the New Testament descriptions of the New Covenant, they are clearly regenerate.

Sydnorphyn · #19 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 09:39 PM

What if the New Covenant's fulfillment is not until the future? What if it is a description of the eternal state, when truly no one will have to say, "know the Lord, for all will know him?"

My problem with the already not yet position is that it requires "existential exegesis" - the Hebrews text (chapters 8/10) do not follow the normal pattern of fulfillment citation in the letter. Could it be that it is being used as an illustration of/to the current community being in the same state as the community (part of which was in exile and part awaiting it) to which it was addressed. It appears to me that when we go with a, dare I say, partial fulfillment, our exegesis become rather subjective.