Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8 question

[VaughanRSmith]

I'm listening to the most recent Narrow Mind broadcast, and Gene is talking about the new covenant in Jeremiah 31. Gene says that he has not heard a compelling argument from any paedobaptist about this verse:

And 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. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
(Jeremiah 31:34)

Now, a question popped into my head. I'm not sure whether or not it is applicable to the debate at all, but here it is anyway.

Would Old Testament readers have thought that this abrogated the inclusion of their infants in the covenant? If they did, then how is it a better covenant? If not, then can this verse be used against a paedobaptist position? Could OT believers have misinterpreted it?

 

[non dignus]

"And 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. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
(Jeremiah 31:34)

I'm a little fuzzy on this but I don't want the thread to die so here goes:

I take this to be speaking of the church today. Membership requires holiness. Holiness today is by grace through one's own faith , or the faith of a parent.

Membership in the old covenant was by association with the nation of Israel, also a covenant community set apart, and while some did not believe in God they were still members by virtue of that type of covenant.

Would Old Testament readers have thought that this abrogated the inclusion of their infants in the covenant?

I don't see how, it's quite a reach.

If they did, then how is it a better covenant?

It would be a worse covenant! Dividing the family covenant seems to work at cross purposes.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I'm listening to the most recent Narrow Mind broadcast, and Gene is talking about the new covenant in Jeremiah 31. Gene says that he has not heard a compelling argument from any paedobaptist about this verse:

What is narrow mind and who is Gene? Gene Bridges?

 

[non dignus]

Hey Randy!


Gene Cook.

 

[Pilgrim]

http://www.unchainedradio.com

I believe Gene Cook is a Baptist pastor in the San Diego area. He frequently has guests like Paul Manata and Jason and Scott from FIDE-O on his broadcasts.

 

[VaughanRSmith]

I'm a little fuzzy on this but I don't want the thread to die so here goes:

I take this to be speaking of the church today. Membership requires holiness. Holiness today is by grace through one's own faith , or the faith of a parent.

Membership in the old covenant was by association with the nation of Israel, also a covenant community set apart, and while some did not believe in God they were still members by virtue of that type of covenant.

I don't see how, it's quite a reach.

It would be a worse covenant! Dividing the family covenant seems to work at cross purposes.

My thoughts exactly. I don't really see how that passage can be used by Baptists to show any implied abrogation.

 

[non dignus]

My thoughts exactly. I don't really see how that passage can be used by Baptists to show any implied abrogation.

Easy! Just add this.

"And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' however because this is a better covenant you shall teach your children 'Know the LORD', for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD."

 

[elnwood]

It would be a worse covenant! Dividing the family covenant seems to work at cross purposes.

And yet I think that this is exactly what Jesus is teaching,

[BIBLE]Matthew 10:34-36[/BIBLE]

So much for covenant succession and the "household" principle. Jesus came to divide the households!

 

[Jim Johnston]

And yet I think that this is exactly what Jesus is teaching,

[BIBLE]Matthew 10:34-36[/BIBLE]

So much for covenant succession and the "household" principle. Jesus came to divide the households!

Of course Elnwood just rips Jesus' claims out of context. Jesus is not talking about CT here. Jesus' text says *nothing* about those heads who are Christian not including their children in the covenant.

Anyway, Jesus was speaking in hyperbole, but in Malachi, we find an actual factual prophetic statement of what the NC would bring:

Mal. 4:

5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Jehovah come.

6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers; lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

 

[notgollum]

And yet I think that this is exactly what Jesus is teaching,

[BIBLE]Matthew 10:34-36[/BIBLE]

So much for covenant succession and the "household" principle. Jesus came to divide the households!

I believe James White used the same verse in the debate with Bill Shishko.
It seems to me a case of trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
After the debate there was a buzz over White's using the verse to try to disprove covenant succession.
I would love to get both my credo and padeo brothers to chime in on this one.

 

[VaughanRSmith]

And yet I think that this is exactly what Jesus is teaching,

[BIBLE]Matthew 10:34-36[/BIBLE]

So much for covenant succession and the "household" principle. Jesus came to divide the households!

If we take that statement as a literal covenantal statement, then Jesus also does not bring peace in the new covenant.

 

[elnwood]

If we take that statement as a literal covenantal statement, then Jesus also does not bring peace in the new covenant.

No, there is peace in the New Covenant (invisible) because it consists of believers. But there is not peace within physical households. The New Covenant is spiritual, not physical.

Jesus' statement is that the gospel is going to divide families. It even uses the term "household" that paedobaptists use in the "oikos formula" argument. The idea that the gospel would divide households is contrary to the Old Covenant way of thinking.

 

[Philip A]

Would Old Testament readers have thought that this abrogated the inclusion of their infants in the covenant? If they did, then how is it a better covenant? If not, then can this verse be used against a paedobaptist position? Could OT believers have misinterpreted it?

I would imagine that they would have interpreted it the same way they interpreted other passages of scripture that speak of the same thing, like, oh, I dunno, this:
[bible]Deuteronomy 30:6-8[/bible]
But then again, there are no New Covenant passages in scripture that explicitly include children....

 

[Jim Johnston]

And yet I think that this is exactly what Jesus is teaching,

[BIBLE]Matthew 10:34-36[/BIBLE]

So much for covenant succession and the "household" principle. Jesus came to divide the households!

Apparently, then, the purpose of marriage *is not* that God "desiresa godly seed," in New Covenant times.

Mal. 2:

13 And this second thing you do. You cover the LORD's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. 14 But you say, "Why does he not?" Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth.

 

[Jim Johnston]

Jesus' statement is that the gospel is going to divide families. It even uses the term "household" that paedobaptists use in the "oikos formula" argument. The idea that the gospel would divide households is contrary to the Old Covenant way of thinking.

Really, the gospel dividing households is contrary to the OC way of thinking?

Israel’s Rejection and God’s Purpose

Romans 9:

6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,

7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.”

8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

9 For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”

10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac

11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls),

12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.”

13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

Seems pretty divisive to me.

 

[panicbird]

And yet I think that this is exactly what Jesus is teaching,

[BIBLE]Matthew 10:34-36[/BIBLE]

So much for covenant succession and the "household" principle. Jesus came to divide the households!

Is Jesus describing here the normal operation of the family? Is this a command as to how we run familial business? Or, is He describing the exceedingly difficult times that some believers have experienced, when their own family rejects them because of their belief?

The latter seems likely, since Jesus is in fact alluding to an Old Testament text in vv. 35-36 (Micah 7:6). Micah is describing a time of moral decay, when these things take place. It is not the normal operation of the household, but the product of sin and a lack of faithfulness. If Jesus is giving the normative operation of the family in the gospel age, then He seems to be taking the text right out of its context, since Micah is not describing how the family normally functions.

As it is, Jesus is describing what will happen when the gospel is preached: people will not believe and will persecute His followers. It will be so bad that families will be divided over it. How is this any different than the condition in which we find the Old Testament believers? Were families not divided because of the truth back then? Is division in the family part of the newness of the New Covenant?

Also, if Jesus is describing the operation of the family in the New Covenant, then we must consider it odd when children believe and follow in the faith of their parents.

 

[non dignus]

And yet I think that this is exactly what Jesus is teaching,

[BIBLE]Matthew 10:34-36[/BIBLE]

So much for covenant succession and the "household" principle. Jesus came to divide the households!

"There are six things which Jehovah hateth; Yea, seven which are an abomination unto him:
Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood;
A heart that deviseth wicked purposes, Feet that are swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that uttereth lies, And he that soweth discord among brethren. "

Jesus came to sow discord?
-or is this a result of the right preaching of the gospel.

 

[elnwood]

Is Jesus describing here the normal operation of the family? Is this a command as to how we run familial business? Or, is He describing the exceedingly difficult times that some believers have experienced, when their own family rejects them because of their belief?

The latter seems likely, since Jesus is in fact alluding to an Old Testament text in vv. 35-36 (Micah 7:6). Micah is describing a time of moral decay, when these things take place. It is not the normal operation of the household, but the product of sin and a lack of faithfulness. If Jesus is giving the normative operation of the family in the gospel age, then He seems to be taking the text right out of its context, since Micah is not describing how the family normally functions.

As it is, Jesus is describing what will happen when the gospel is preached: people will not believe and will persecute His followers. It will be so bad that families will be divided over it. How is this any different than the condition in which we find the Old Testament believers? Were families not divided because of the truth back then? Is division in the family part of the newness of the New Covenant?

That's interesting. I never made the connection between Micah and the Matthew passage.

I'm a little confused with your argumentation, though. In one sense you're saying the condition in Micah is not the normal operation, yet you also say that this condition of families dividing over truth to be the condition in the Old (as well as the new).

There is an emphasis on Gospel preaching in the New Testament to Jews and Gentiles that we see don't see on the Old Testament, outside of isolated examples like Jonah (which is the sign that Jesus gives the people questioning him).

The gospel of Jesus Christ is a fuller revelation of truth which is much more divisive. Christ is a stumbling block to Jews. Obviously truth does divide families in the Old Testament, but not to the same degree that we would see in the New Covenant era.

In this sense, I see the gospel preached to the nations that is emphasized in the New Covenant as being more divisive, and that the gospel is spoken of dividing households is an indication that physical lineage means nothing as far as God's salvation (that you have to be a Jew inwardly, not outwardly) and, I would argue, means nothing in regards to church membership.

Also, if Jesus is describing the operation of the family in the New Covenant, then we must consider it odd when children believe and follow in the faith of their parents.

I'm not sure if "odd" is the right word. I believe that all children start off being sinful and need to hear and believe the gospel to be saved. Thus, just like everyone else, their default state is in rebellion against God, and they require a change of being.

 

[smhbbag]

"There are six things which Jehovah hateth; Yea, seven which are an abomination unto him:
Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood;
A heart that deviseth wicked purposes, Feet that are swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that uttereth lies, And he that soweth discord among brethren. "

Jesus came to sow discord?
-or is this a result of the right preaching of the gospel.

Both. Yes, it is a result of the right preaching of the gospel. Yes, Jesus came to sow discord. That's exactly what the scripture says:
For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. (ESV)

He has come to do these things. That's his purpose and intent.

In rebuttal to Christ having an explicit purpose to turn families against each other, you quote Proverbs 6 as evidence.

Proverbs 6 would not be relevant to what Christ does in dividing families over the gospel. Why? Because he is not sowing discord among brethren. So there is no contradiction.

The people in these families have different fathers. One has God as his father, while the other has Satan. Thus, they cannot rightly be called "brothers" in the sense that Proverbs 6 uses.

Yet, this verse does seem to be problematic for the paedo, who believes they are legitimately to be called "brothers," and that it is wrong to "sow discord among them." Yet, we have extremely explicit and clear statements from Christ that that is precisely what he meant to do.

How do you reconcile that?

There is nothing to reconcile in these verses on the Baptist end. They are in agreement.

 

[elnwood]

"There are six things which Jehovah hateth; Yea, seven which are an abomination unto him:
Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood;
A heart that deviseth wicked purposes, Feet that are swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that uttereth lies, And he that soweth discord among brethren. "

Jesus came to sow discord?
-or is this a result of the right preaching of the gospel.

Both: Jesus came to sow discord, and this is the result of right preaching of the gospel. "Brethren" does not mean the same thing as "household." "Brethren" are brothers in Christ, or spiritual brothers. Those in the "household" means physical relatives.

 

[VaughanRSmith]

Going back to the OP, the Baptists in this thread are yet to demonstrate a clear indication that the prophecy of the NC is specifically an abrogation of the household principle. This is why I originally asked.

If they cannot, then this thread should be closed.

 

[satz]

Not all those who reject paedobaptism believe the 'household' prinicple was necessarily 'abrogated' in the New Testament. (To be really precise I guess you would have to go back and define both those terms)

I believe the ordinance of circumcision was abrogated with the coming of the New Testament and the doing away of the specifically Jewish way of worship.

I believe the New Testament tells us of a new ordinance called baptism which requires a profession of faith since it is answering God with a conscience made good by the gospel (1 Pet 3:21).

I don't think the abrogation or non-abrogation of the household principle is necessarily the key to answering the question of baptism.

 

[smhbbag]

Going back to the OP, the Baptists in this thread are yet to demonstrate a clear indication that the prophecy of the NC is specifically an abrogation of the household principle. This is why I originally asked.

And 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. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
(Jeremiah 31:34)

"No longer" indicates a change from the way it was, to the way it will be.

What will they no longer do? Teach their fellow covenant members to "Know the Lord" because they all already know Him, and their sins are forgiven and remembered no more.

In the Old Covenant, not everyone knew Him and not everyone was forgiven. So there was evangelism within the covenant community. The prophecy says that will cease in the New Covenant.

And in the NT use of that text:

7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

The first covenant had faults. So a new covenant was begun.

The fault with the Old Covenant was the people. They "continued not in His covenant."

So how does the New Covenant address this? The people are faithful - God puts his Law into their minds, writes it on their hearts, and He will be their everlasting God. They all know him, from the least to the greatest.

This is not an eschatological prediction of what the NC people will become, as some paedos say, but a definition of the New Covenant itself. If the people are unfaithful, then no, it is not a better covenant, and the central fault of the Old remains in place.

 

[VaughanRSmith]

Not all those who reject paedobaptism believe the 'household' prinicple was necessarily 'abrogated' in the New Testament. (To be really precise I guess you would have to go back and define both those terms)

I believe the ordinance of circumcision was abrogated with the coming of the New Testament and the doing away of the specifically Jewish way of worship.

I believe the New Testament tells us of a new ordinance called baptism which requires a profession of faith since it is answering God with a conscience made good by the gospel (1 Pet 3:21).

I don't think the abrogation or non-abrogation of the household principle is necessarily the key to answering the question of baptism.

However, the use of these passages, specifically Jer 31:34 and Heb 8:11, were used by Cook to show that the households of believers cannot be under the new covenant, which necessitates an abrogation on these passages' part. Hence, my original post.

 

[smhbbag]

So, to answer the questions in the OP in light of my last post:

Would Old Testament readers have thought that this abrogated the inclusion of their infants in the covenant?

Probably not. Just like they misunderstood a great deal of other prophecies.

If they did, then how is it a better covenant?

This is a question I never understood. It is a better covenant because our High Priest is now the Son of God. Our sacrifice is holy blood. God's regenerative grace extends to each and every covenant member. No brother will be lost or turned away. Its people are finally faithful.

How in the world is it not a better covenant? Because we have doubt about whether a certain child is in it or not? Does that negate all I already said and make it worse?

 

[Andrew P.C.]

I'm listening to the most recent Narrow Mind broadcast, and Gene is talking about the new covenant in Jeremiah 31. Gene says that he has not heard a compelling argument from any paedobaptist about this verse:

And 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. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
(Jeremiah 31:34)

Now, a question popped into my head. I'm not sure whether or not it is applicable to the debate at all, but here it is anyway.

Would Old Testament readers have thought that this abrogated the inclusion of their infants in the covenant? If they did, then how is it a better covenant? If not, then can this verse be used against a paedobaptist position? Could OT believers have misinterpreted it?

Well, it depends on your understanding of what the scriptures teach about baptism. For example, John the Baptist baptized them because of their repentance of sins: "they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins"(Matt 3:6). Yet, Paedo's believe the whole household should be baptized, and they use passages in Acts to support their claims. They also believe in the continuation of the OT and NT. Yet, Gene's argument is strong since Hebrews 9 tells us it is a New Covenant.

Or... am I not understanding the question? I'm kind of ..... not with it... sometimes.

 

[Jim Johnston]

Yet, this verse does seem to be problematic for the paedo, who believes they are legitimately to be called "brothers," and that it is wrong to "sow discord among them." Yet, we have extremely explicit and clear statements from Christ that that is precisely what he meant to do.

How do you reconcile that?

There is nothing to reconcile in these verses on the Baptist end. They are in agreement.

Look. Why do the baptists refuse to show that Jesus' hyperbolic statement means: "Children of believers are no longer in the covenant?"

I pointed out that in the OT, Jehovah brought division, yet the children of professing believers were still in the covenant.

This point *alone* seeks to undermine your guys' case.

And, I also pointed out that one of the purposes of marriage is that "God seeks a godly seed."

When baptists have children, do they have a "godly seed?"

Or, is this not a purpose for marriage anymore?

I also pointed out that Malachi said that the NC would *restore* the relationship between father and children.

So, there's *nothing* to reconcile.

Actually, the baptist has to do the reconciling.

I have shown that Jesus' statements do not mean "our children our no longer considered covenant members," and I have also shown that "one effect of the NC is the restoration of the parent-child relationship."

 

[Poimen]

This division that these texts speak of is really that of God's sovereign, covenant administration:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=103997&postcount=1

No one denies that the division exists, but what we disagree about is whether or not all of God's covenant people are elect. The Pharisees, clearly, rejected Christ and thus broke covenant with God (bringing division into Israel) but they were members of the covenant nonetheless.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

This division that these texts speak of is really that of God's sovereign, covenant administration:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=103997&postcount=1

No one denies that the division exists, but what we disagree about is whether or not all of God's covenant people are elect. The Pharisees, clearly, rejected Christ and thus broke covenant with God (bringing division into Israel) but they were members of the covenant nonetheless.

So they were members of God's Promise? How so?

 

[non dignus]

Jeremy and Don,

Thanks for the discourse.

The same Hebrew word 'brethren' (Strong's 251) is used in the following:


Prov 17:2. "A servant that dealeth wisely shall have rule over a son that causeth shame, And shall have part in the inheritance among the brethren."

Prov 19:7. "All the brethren of the poor do hate him: How much more do his friends go far from him! He pursueth them with words, but they are gone. "

Is 66:5 "Hear the word of Jehovah, ye that tremble at his word: Your brethren that hate you, that cast you out for my name's sake, have said, Let Jehovah be glorified, that we may see your joy; but it is they that shall be put to shame."

Jer 7:15 "And I will cast you out of my sight, as I have cast out all your brethren, even the whole seed of Ephraim."

'Brethren' means both physical and spiritual family apparently.