Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8 question

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jeremy,

The Hebrews text (10:30) does indeed quote the LXX of Deuteronomy 32:36, which translates the Hebrew din as krino, which means "judge." There are two points you need to consider, however:

1. The primary meaning of din is "judge" so the NIV is perfectly legitimate. In fact, according to BDB "vindicate" is a third-level possibility for translating din. It is a possibility (I do not deny that), but not a primary one.
2. The author of the letter to the Hebrews saw fit to use the word krino here, not dikaioo (to make/declare righteous, or vindicate), which would be closer to what you presume the verse means. You must deal with the Hebrews text as is, which the language used there. Even if your exegesis of Deuteronomy 32:36 is granted (which is a sizable "if" - yes, God is speaking of His enemies here, but note the use of the pronoun "you" in v. 38 - He is including His people in the judgment), you must still deal with the fact that Hebrews 10:30 says, very plainly, "The Lord will judge [not vindicate] His people." "Vindicate" there would make little sense, in light of the fact that the context is threatening judgment (not comforting the regenerates there, as you said).
 
In your mind it seems. We didnt say anything, the writer of Hebrews did. Furthermore, I cut you some slack and let you have your Deutonronomy/Hebrews analogy.

It is not an analogy. I am merely saying that a promise of hope for covenant people cannot be quoted and used as a threat on Covenant people.

Yet, if you believe that true Covenant members are threatened in Heb. 10, then that is what the author of Hebrews has done. And that does have to be reconciled.

Jeremy, again, why are Covenant members being warned?

Covenant members are not being warned. It does not good to ask a question presupposing something the answerer does not assent to. So I can't answer "why" covenant members are warned. No threat is laid to covenant members (regenerates), in my view. Only in yours.
 
"Vindicate" there would make little sense, in light of the fact that the context is threatening judgment (not comforting the regenerates there, as you said).

The context is threatening judgment on wolves among sheep - and they are plenty threatened by the quotation of 32:35 - "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay." It makes perfect sense that after threatening the wolves, you assure the sheep.
 
Covenant members are not being warned.


Ok...hold that thought.
It does not good to ask a question presupposing something the answerer does not assent to. So I can't answer "why" covenant members are warned. No threat is laid to covenant members (regenerates), in my view. Only in yours.


So no threat is laid? How, if you were a member of that Church, could you distinguish who God was warning? Do regenates have a yellow stripe on their back?

Jeremy, I find it interesting that earlier you said:

They will not be overrun with such apostates, and God will uphold His church. He will, just as in Deuteronomy, defend His covenant people from invaders.

What were aposates once viewed as?
 
smhbbag said:
About the Hebrews passage that has brought so many credo's to the dark-side......

Hebrews 10:26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, Vengeance is mine; I will repay. And again, The Lord will judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

This was the beginning of the end for me as a Baptist. Why warn NC members of God's judgment. Furthermore, why would God judge his NC members who Christ is constently interceding for? Are they not forgiven already?


I love this text!

V. 30 is huge - and obviously comes from quotes out of the OT, specifically Deut. 32:35-36.

What is Deut. 32 about? It is about the Lord pouring wrath on the enemies of his covenant people, and protecting those he loves from the wicked.

So why would Paul (eh em, *cough*, I mean "the author of Hebrews") use a passage about protecting the covenant people from evil as a warning to the covenant people?

If the author is indeed saying that some of the NC people will be the objects of God's wrath, then the author turns the meaning of Deut. 32 not into something different, but entirely opposite of what it originally meant! A passage that originally promised hope and protection for covenant people, now is quoted to threaten wrath on them?

Wow.

First thing to note: Everyone here agrees that the Old Covenant could be broken and that those in the Covenant could become covenant breakers and be subject to God wrath, right? If this is correct then whatever we make of Deut. 32, we cannot see it as saying that everyone in the covenant is safe, right? The whole Old Covenant basically stresses the message, "When God's covenant is broken, He does not suffer, the covenant breaker does."

Deut. 32 looks to be a two sided promise: "My people will be protected while My enemies will be destroyed". Now if one takes the passage in the context of the whole OT and Old Covenant, then a person can go from the "My People side of the promise to My Enemy side". So if the author of Hebrews talks about covenantal judgment, then there should no damage done to Deut. 32 at all, but instead there is just a pulling out of that which is clearly implicitly there.

CT
 
The context is threatening judgment on wolves among sheep - and they are plenty threatened by the quotation of 32:35 - "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay." It makes perfect sense that after threatening the wolves, you assure the sheep.

You still need to prove that krino means "vindicate" here. Here are the options provided by BDAG:
1. to make a selection, select, prefer
2. to pass judgment upon (and thereby seek to influence) the lives and actions of other people - a) judge, pass judgment upon, express an opinion about
b) pass an unfavorable judgment upon, criticize, find fault with, condemn
3. to make a judgment based on taking various factors into account, judge, think, consider, look upon
4. to come to a conclusion after a cognitive process, reach a decision, decide, propose, intend
5. to engage in a judicial process, judge, decide, hale before a court, condemn, hand over for judicial punishment - a) of a human court; b) of the divine tribunal
6. to ensure justice for someone, see to it that justice is done

Those are your options. And just in case you want to latch onto the last one, please note that that particular meaning of krino is never used in the New Testament. The noun is used once in the LXX with that meaning (Isaiah 1:17 - and you will note that that context there has nothing to do with what you are arguing for Hebrews 10:30). It is the least attested meaning and to introduce it into Hebrews 10:30 would go against just about all of NT scholarship. In other words, if you want to use that meaning (which it seems you do), the burden of proof is on you to prove it. That is a tall order, which will take more than an appeal to Deuteronomy 32:36 to accomplish.
 
So no threat is laid? How, if you were a member of that Church, could you distinguish who God was warning? Do regenates have a yellow stripe on their back?

Yes, a threat is laid. Not to covenant members, but to unregenerates within the community. How would I distinguish? I would not even try to...for anybody else. As said before, I don't doubt anyone's profession until I have actionable reason. The only one I try to distinguish is whether this threat is on me...am I secure in my salvation? Do I know I am in the faith? If not, then this threat is for me, and that should bring me to repentance.

What were aposates once viewed as?

I guess I'll go ahead and echo Hermonta's capital letters. COVENANT MEMBERS.

First thing to note: Everyone here agrees that the Old Covenant could be broken and that those in the Covenant could become covenant breakers and be subject to God wrath, right? If this is correct then whatever we make of Deut. 32, we cannot see it as saying that everyone in the covenant is safe, right? The whole Old Covenant basically stresses the message, "When God's covenant is broken, He does not suffer, the covenant breaker does."

Yes, the old covenant could be broken, and yes, covenant breakers were subject to God's wrath. But this threat was not for them - because the promise for security held for the entire covenant people.

Even though few may be faithful - God still destroys their enemies. Covenant breakers, insofar as unbelief at least, still often enjoyed the benefits of association with the community - including national security. When God provided it, they were given protection from invaders right alongside those who were faithful. God protected the covenant people as a whole in this passage, not some. That is what is relevant. In other situations, yes, some/many covenant people were subject to wrath. But not here, and this is the only one that matters because it is what is cited by the author as an example.

Deut. 32 looks to be a two sided promise: "My people will be protected while My enemies will be destroyed". Now if one takes the passage in the context of the whole OT and Old Covenant, then a person can go from the "My People side of the promise to My Enemy side". So if the author of Hebrews talks about covenantal judgment, then there should no damage done to Deut. 32 at all, but instead there is just a pulling out of that which is clearly implicitly there.

People can go from "My People" side "My Enemy" side, with certain disobedience. But again, here's where the rubber meets the road: Were the unfaithful within Israel protected in Deut. 32, along with the faithful, simply by virtue of covenant membership? My answer is yes. The entire covenant was protected. And the same holds in Hebrews 10.

Panicbird - I'm looking into it.

But unfortunately, this will be my last post at least until tomorrow.

Blessings, everyone. :wave:
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Originally Posted by B.J.

What were apostates once viewed as?

COVENANT MEMBERS


Agreed. Now the question is does Hebrews 10 refer to apostates, or better, future apostates? If so than at the time of this writing said apostate is being viewed as a Covenant member. Which Jeremy will not allow for.

Jeremy said:

Covenant members are not being warned. It does not good to ask a question presupposing something the answerer does not assent to. So I can't answer "why" covenant members are warned. No threat is laid to covenant members (regenerates), in my view. Only in yours.


Hebrews 10:26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, Vengeance is mine; I will repay. And again, The Lord will judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.



A couple of things:

1) "We" is referring to NC members, right? Everyone in agreement?

2) The "one" is referring to someone who was sanctified, right? This could be called our future, or present apostate. Or is the "one" referring to a particular individual in the writers time? It seems reasonable to conclude that it is referring to a general group who are viewed as NC members and are being warned about apostasy.
 
Rich, I would have to say anyone who puts Jer 31 as the visible church is really not understanding the text.

Allow myself to quote.....myself:

This passage is describing the elect alone, New Covenant members, and invisible Church members - all of which are synonymous.

And then it happened again:

Posted by SemperFideles
If the population of Jeremiah 31 is restricted to the elect then you cannot, for convenience or arguments sake, say: "Well I'll apply a passage that I believe doesn't apply to the visible Church to the visible Church because I'm supposed to treat other members of my Church with the judgment of charity."

And I'll quote myself again:

I don't go to this text for my answer.
I awake this fine Saturday AM and I can't believe you guys didn't press Jeremy more on the above statement.

OK, Jeremy, you acknowledge that I represent your position on who Jeremiah 31 refers to: the Elect alone.

You then say you don't go to that text for your answer on who you apply it to?

What text do you go to Jeremy? What text informs you that "not teaching the elect" really means "not teaching the visible Church" (which is not all elect)? What text teaches you that Pastors are not to preach the Gospel to members of your Church?

You simply make a leap from the text (which is the topic of discussion) that you say applies only to the Elect and then I assume you must mean that you utilize a gut feeling to tell you that Church members are not supposed to be told to believe the Gospel.

Here's the thing as well, Jeremiah 31 is the text in question. Gene said he's never heard any compelling arguments from paedobaptists on that text. You aren't even providing any positive arguments for how I'm supposed to apply that text - from the text itself. Are you admitting that the text is incaple of providing the support that Gene wants to grant it?
 
Yes. Romans 9:4.

You're missing the point in verse 6.

6But it is not as though the word of God has failed For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED."

With your comment on verse 4, you are saying that national Israel is part of the covenant. What does covenant mean? A promise. What kind of promise does God make to the unregenerate, other then divine wrath?
 
You're missing the point in verse 6.

6But it is not as though the word of God has failed For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED."

With your comment on verse 4, you are saying that national Israel is part of the covenant. What does covenant mean? A promise. What kind of promise does God make to the unregenerate, other then divine wrath?

Andrew:

I apologize for not replying for the last several days... busy with other things.

I am not missing the point about verse 6 because I am not (at this point) talking about verse six. Yes the larger context of one verse is important but so is the immediate context. Paul begins in verse 3 by saying that he wished he could be accursed from Christ for the sake of his brethren, NOT spiritual Israel (to which you are rushing ahead), but his countrymen according to the flesh (vs. 3). To these, as I pointed out, the promises are given among all the other blessings God has (had) bestowed upon natural Israel. Indeed there is no mistaking to or of whom he speaks here because he repeats his qualification in verse 5 concerning 'the fathers according to the flesh.' Only then in verse 6 does he make a distinction between natural Israel and spiritual Israel.

Please note that Paul makes a similar point in Romans 2:28-3:3. For there he speaks of an outward Jew vs. an spiritual Jew but then qualifies this statement that there is an advantage to being circumcised according to God's administration.

Secondly, I am saying that Israel in the flesh (or the Old Covenant people of God) had the covenant administered to them and thus Paul naturally says that they also had the promises delivered to them as well as signed and sealed in circumcision. What kind of promise? Read Genesis 17:1ff. All were circumcised (including Ishmael, Esau etc) thus they received in their flesh, as it were, the promises of God concerning His faithfulness, His blessing unto the generations, nations, kings etc. but not all appropriated the essence of the covenant through faith (which Paul points out in Romans 9 is because of God's sovereign, covenant choice!).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top