Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
31 “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
32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord.
33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord.
For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
Since this passage is quoted in Hebrews 8, and John Owen's interpretation in his commentary has been lauded by particular baptists (Nehemiah Coxe specifically) as the go to for understanding, then you might check that as well.Please forgive my ignorance. Want to better understand how Baptists would read and understand this passage. Thanks in advance.
An individual who falsely professes faith and is baptized is objectively and covenantally joined to Christ
They were not "of" us (de facto; internal administration), but they were among us (de jure; external administration) for a time.
So I have- fixed.You have de facto and de jure backwards here...
Sure I can- granted, I didn't explain my usage. They can be objectively/covenantally united to Christ and participate in the external administration of the New Covenant in the same manner as someone who goes through the steps of a marriage ceremony, consummates the marriage, and then the next day cheats on their new spouse. Infidelity does not nullify the objectivity of the marriage itself. De jure they are in the New Covenant in its external administration because they are in the church and participate in the ordinances while, de facto, they do not participate in its internal administration.But you can't really use those terms to explain the situation if you think a false professor is objectively and covenantally united to Christ.
That link and outline is sooooooo helpful! If you did all of that work, Brandon, then thank you!!!!As Tim said, if you want to fully understand our position, read Owen's exposition of Hebrews 8. Here is an outline to give you a sense of the argument http://www.1689federalism.com/owen/demo/owen.html
The NC would refer to the Church of Christ, Bride and Body, and only the saved are in there.Just for clarity's sake, this is not at all the normal reformed baptist view. Reformed baptists (both 20th cent and 1689F views) deny that false professors are in the New Covenant. (I understand that is your personal opinion Mason, just trying to avoid confusion for someone asking to understand our position, especially since you claim in your signature to be particularly interested in 1689 Federalism).
You have de facto and de jure backwards here, but you can't really use those terms to explain the situation if you think a false professor is objectively and covenantally united to Christ.
Please forgive my ignorance. Want to better understand how Baptists would read and understand this passage. Thanks in advance.
I will articulate my understanding of the latter verses as best I can, which may not be well at all.I'm not a baptist, but would you guys expand to Jer. 31:31-40 please? Thanks.
So the main differences would be on how one saw the intent of the Mosaic Law, as to confer spiritual or mainly physical blessings based upon obedience to it?I can't recall comments one way or another about 27-30. But personally I would point to Ezekiel 18 as a parallel that elaborates on the meaning. The point is to emphasize the possibility of repentance. The proverb was an excuse not to repent, but God promises that the one who repents of his iniquity will be forgiven (Ezk 18:28, etc). v31 says "Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel?" Jeremiah then prophesies that God will give this new heart through the New Covenant and cause repentance, whereby they will be forgiven.
As for the nature of the Mosaic Covenant, the 20th century RB (see here for labels) views it as an administration of the covenant of grace (thus the law was given as a guide, not as a covenant; material republication). 1689 Federalism holds to a form (elaboration) of the subservient covenant view, seeing the Mosaic as a covenant of works for life in the land. Both views are within the bounds of the 1689 Confession because the 2LBCF followed Savoy's revision of 19.2 to remove "as such" (though 1689Fed has been the historic view represented by all the major writings on the subject through the centuries).
Jon,Brandon and others,
Does the traditional baptist view take verses 27-30 as being included in this passage about the new covenant as well?
Also, in the traditional baptist view, what was the nature of the covenant which the house of Israel broke (v32)? Or is there liberty here within the reformed baptist camp as to whether you take the Mosaic Covenant as "material republication" or the Subservient view? Thanks again.
With much love for my Baptist brothers.
Perhaps I'll chime in, though for time's sake I'll be short.
My view? Everyone has the law of God in their hearts to some extent, and some are more seared than others, but no one who is unconverted desires to know, obey and submit to it.
It was a covenant of works, but not the covenant of works. It operated on the Lev 18:5 principle of "do this and live" but was limited to life in the land of Canaan (note: just because it was a covenant of works does not necessarily mean the terms were the exact same as the Adamic Covenant of Works).which was neither a covenant of works nor a covenant of grace
There is some variety over the precise details on this point. The sacrificial system forgave some offenses, so in that sense it did not require "perfection." But those sacrifices were themselves also part of the keeping of the law. I am inclined to agree with John Erskine (and others) that the Mosaic law was enforced according to outward obedience to the letter. In Israel's history, their worship of idols was the indicator of obedience to the covenant or not.perfectly
I think Brandon answered the 20thC RB position handily in his brief response, and I may be somewhere betwixt option one and two, though when we get to such fine details it's hard to pin things down precisely. I may be only repeating past material, but the way I see the CoG is as developing in history: first the promise in Gen 3, a picture of salvation in Noah's flood, a promise to Abraham, Moses, a physical people typifying a real people, lastly the promised Seed in whom all the promises are bound up. God had a people, from Adam on, whom he was regenerating: they were in the CoG. I see the Mosaic covenant (which could be broken) as a framework around the CoG (think of an expendable rocket booster), in which the CoG was still operating, for God was still sovereignly saving people, but it was serving an illustrative purpose--it was making pictures of how God is to be approached; how He dwells among His people, etc. So the CoG was there, but surrounded by types, shadows, and figures which were signalling the full plenitude of the CoG which was to come with Christ. That subservient (sure, I'll use that word) framework could not exist without the CoG at it's heart, but because membership therein was by birth, not by regeneration, you could be in it and subject to it's requirements without being actually in the CoG itself (circumcision of the heart).So, when Jeremiah tells us that Israel broke the covenant, you can interpret it two different ways according to historic Reformed Baptist theology: Option 1: The covenant they broke under Moses was the subservient covenant, which was neither a covenant of works nor a covenant of grace. They broke it in this case by not keep the Mosaic Law perfectly (is that right?). Option 2: The covenant they broke was actually the covenant of grace, though in its Old Testament administration. They broke it in this case by refusing to repent and believe in Christ (?).
Ben, help me understand: It seems that on the one hand you are saying they broke the covenant (of grace) because they refused to repent and believe, but on the other hand you are saying they broke the covenant (of grace) because they didn't obey the Law (they stood before God with their obedience). Which are you saying; or are you saying it is both? Thanks.
I apologize if my long explanation remains unclear--I have delved as deep as my poor abilities can go. No doubt a clever interlocutor could easily prove me to be either 1689 Federalist OR a Deepwater Presbyterian--either way I'll be in good company, since I love them both.
John 6
32 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.”
35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
41 The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” 42 And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.
9 “For this is like the waters of Noah to Me;
For as I have sworn
That the waters of Noah would no longer cover the earth,
So have I sworn
That I would not be angry with you, nor rebuke you.
10 For the mountains shall depart
And the hills be removed,
But My kindness shall not depart from you,
Nor shall My covenant of peace be removed,”
Says the Lord, who has mercy on you.
11 “O you afflicted one,
Tossed with tempest, and not comforted,
Behold, I will lay your stones with colorful gems,
And lay your foundations with sapphires.
12 I will make your pinnacles of rubies,
Your gates of crystal,
And all your walls of precious stones.
13 All your children shall be taught by the Lord,
And great shall be the peace of your children.
So the promise God gave to Jeremiah came to pass under the NC now?I came across another passage today in my reading - Jesus' teaching on election and perseverance.
Note Jesus' emphasis on "all". All that are elected will come to Christ and all of them shall be raised on the last day. To prove this he quotes Isaiah 54:13 "And they shall all be taught by God." He says the prophecy refers to election, the effectual call, and regeneration - and thus also perseverance.
Isaiah 53 describes the suffering messiah. 54 describes the covenant of peace he brings.
What is the cross reference for v13? Jeremiah 31:33-34 and Hebrews 8:10-11. "no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’" for they shall all know me," from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord.
Therefore, according to Jesus, the New Covenant of Peace is made with the elect, chosen and called by the Father and given to Christ to intercede, preserve, and raise on the last day.