[UPDATE] Oh, and one of the contributors here is Randy Kirkland, a fantastic credo guy in his own right. So we love our credo brothers here.
Lately I have commented a couple of times over at Voice of the Sheep in an interaction on paedo-baptism. My brother Brian Thornton over there is a confirmed credo-baptist and argues for his point of view. There has been some lively discussion, as you might expect, but good discussion. You may see his post My Problem With Paedo-Baptism for the discussion.
One of the arguments Brian uses relates to the New Covenant, specifically Jeremiah 31:31-34. Brian writes,
When taken to its logical conclusion, Paedo-Baptism is really a covenant of works system and not a covenant of grace. This is evident in that the baptized infant is presumed to be saved and part of the new covenant until such time as they prove themselves to be a covenant keeper or a covenant breaker. This is quite problematic because the new covenant cannot be broken.
I thought it would be helpful to bring into the discussion an analysis of the passage. Since I have a day job and I’m not a theologian and some very good theologians have done some exegetical on this passage, I will quote below an article written by Dr. Richard Pratt, the president of Third Millennium Ministries and adjunct professor of Old Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary.
Below is Dr. Pratt’s commentary on the new covenant. I hope that Brian and others will interact here on Dr. Pratt’s analysis. I would love to hear your responses.
31 a “The time is coming,” declares the LORD,
b “when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
c and with the house of Judah.
32 a It will not be like the covenant
b I made with their forefathers
c when I took them by the hand
d to lead them out of Egypt,
e because they broke my covenant,
f though I was a husband to them,”
g declares the LORD.
33 a “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
b after that time,” declares the LORD.
c “I will put my law in their minds
d and write it on their hearts.
e I will be their God,
f and they will be my people.
34 a No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
b or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’
c because they will all know me,
d from the least of them to the greatest,”
e declares the LORD.
f “For I will forgive their wickedness
g and will remember their sins no more.”
(Jeremiah 31:31-34 NIV)
Many evangelicals appeal to Jeremiah’s prophecy of the New covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 as a basis for rejecting infant baptism, but a careful examination of this passage in the light of the rest of Scripture reveals that it actually supports the historical Christian practice of infant baptism. Our study will address three main topics: 1) how Jeremiah’s prophecy is often used to argue against infant baptism; 2) the original meaning of Jeremiah’s prophecy; and 3) the New Testament’s outlook on Jeremiah’s prophecy. As we will see, Jeremiah’s prediction of the new covenant actually encourages Christians to continue the practice of infant baptism until the Lord returns.
How is the New Covenant Used against Infant Baptism?
The universally accepted designation “New Testament” is based on the terminology of “new covenant” in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Accordingly, all evangelicals agree that Jeremiah’s new covenant prediction is fulfilled in the New Testament era. Yet, opinions divide over how Jeremiah’s predictions relate to the practice of infant baptism. Many evangelicals who reject infant baptism believe that Jeremiah’s prophecy offers nearly conclusive evidence in favor of their view. We will return to these evidences below, but at this point we should summarize three ways in which Jeremiah’s prophecy is often understood in this way.
In the first place, it is thought that infant baptism is contrary to Jeremiah’s prophecy because Jeremiah declared that the new covenant couldn’t be broken. As the prophet said in Jeremiah 31:32:
It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant …
In this verse, the prophet declared that the new covenant would “not be like” the old covenant in that the “forefathers … broke” the old covenant. Along with a number of other expressions, the OT uses the terms “to keep” (rmv) and “to break” (rrp) covenant to describe, respectively, the obedience and disobedience of God’s covenant people to the stipulations or regulations of their covenants. To keep covenant was to offer faithful (albeit imperfect) service in order to receive divine blessing, but to break covenant was to commit unrepentant, flagrant violation that nullified the offer of blessing and brought divine judgment.
Although Jeremiah’s words “to lead them out of Egypt” indicate that he had in mind especially a contrast between the covenant with Moses and the new covenant, a quick survey reveals that the possibility of breaking covenant and incurring divine wrath was a dimension of every major OT covenant. The covenant with Noah (Gen. 6:13-21; 8:20-9:17) focused primarily on God’s blessing of natural stability for the human race, but the threat of execution for murderers (Gen 6:9) and the severe curse on Noah’s grandson Canaan (Gen. 9:25-27) indicate that divine judgment may fall on those who rebel against God’s covenant requirements. Abraham’s covenant (Gen. 15:1-21; 17:1-21) also had much to say about divine blessing, but God explicitly warned against the judgment that would fall on those who broke this covenant (Gen. 17:14). As Jeremiah himself pointed out, the covenant with Moses repeatedly warned of the horrible curses against those who broke that covenant (see also Deut. 28:15-68; 31:16-18). The covenant with David also reflected this basic pattern (Pss. 89; 132:11-18). God stipulated to David that his descendants would sit on his throne “if your sons keep my covenant” (Ps. 132:12; cf. 2 Chr. 6:16; Ps. 89:30-31), but as Israel’s history indicates, they suffered severely for violations of the covenant (2 Sam 7:14).
Without a doubt Jeremiah distinguished the new covenant as one that would not be broken, but this aspect of Jeremiah’s prophecy poses a serious challenge for infant baptism. As all evangelicals would agree, not everyone baptized in infancy proves to be a covenant keeper. Many people who are baptized into the new covenant as infants turn away from Christ and the salvation he offers. This undeniable reality raises an important question: How can we think that infants are to be baptized into the inviolable new covenant when they often rebel against the new covenant and suffer the judgment of God?
A second feature of Jeremiah’s prophecy often used to oppose infant baptism is that the new covenant is fully internalized. Jeremiah 31:33 speaks plainly in this regard:
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.”
This feature of the new covenant demonstrates that God himself will bring about deep internal transformation in his covenant people. The words “mind” (brq) and “heart” (bl) often denotes the inner person, the deeper recesses of personality, or in contemporary parlance “the soul.” Jeremiah did not see entrance into the new covenant community as entrance into an external environment, but as undergoing a spiritual, inward change.
Jeremiah predicted that this inward change would take place as God intervened into history to inscribe his Law deep within the participants of the new covenant. Many times prior to Christ, it is apparent that the law of God regulated the lives of the people of Israel as little more than an external code. Obedience often came reluctantly and resulted from external pressures. But Jeremiah promised that the new covenant would bring this situation to an end. In this regard, Paul echoed Jeremiah’s words when he contrasted the old covenant “ministry … which was engraved in letters on stone” (2 Cor. 3:7) with the “new covenant … ministry of the Spirit…that brings righteousness” (2 Cor 3:6,8-9).
Jeremiah’s emphasis on the inward character of the new covenant also raises significant questions about the practice of infant baptism. It is common for evangelical paedobaptists to speak of baptized children as participating only in the external dimensions of the covenant, without inward transformation. Although they may not be regenerated, covenant children experience blessing because they are part of the visible church or covenant community. In fact, paedobaptists often draw parallels between the condition of baptized children in the visible church today and children in the nation of Israel during the OT.
It is not difficult to see why these outlooks raise objections. According to Jeremiah the law of God is internalized in the participants of the new covenant. They are transformed from within. How then may we baptize people into an external covenant environment apart from regeneration? Does this outlook not deny an essential feature of Jeremiah’s prophecy?
A third aspect of Jeremiah 31:31-34 that often leads to objections against infant baptism is that all participants in the new covenant are eternally redeemed. Jeremiah was emphatic in this regard.
“No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.”
In these words Jeremiah characterized the time of the new covenant as a period in which it will be entirely unnecessary for anyone to encourage other covenant people to “know the Lord.” They will already know him “from the least of them to the greatest.” The precise connotations of the expression “know the Lord” are difficult to establish. In this context the word “know” ([dy) appears to have the connotations of “acknowledge, take recognition of, be rightly and intimately aware of.” In this sense, knowing the Lord means properly acknowledging and recognizing the Lord. This is why Jeremiah 31:34 closes, “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." In a word, to know God as Jeremiah spoke of it was to receive eternal salvation.
So it is that in the covenant of which Jeremiah spoke salvation would come to each participant. There would be no exceptions.
In light of Jeremiah’s stress on the distribution of salvation within the new covenant, it is no wonder that his words are used to oppose infant baptism. Evangelical paedobaptists consistently stress that baptized children are in the new covenant but that they are not automatically or necessarily saved. In effect, infant baptism introduces unregenerate, unbelieving people into the community of the new covenant. But this practice appears to contradict Jeremiah’s prophecy that salvation will be fully distributed in the new covenant. How can it be right for infants to receive the covenant sign of baptism when they often do not and may never “know the Lord”?
So we have seen at least three ways in which Jeremiah’s prophecy of the new covenant has been used to object to the practice of infant baptism. To be sure, other facets of the passage come into view at times, but we have touched on the main ways these verses are often employed for this purpose. How can we believe in infant baptism when God himself said that the new covenant would be inviolable, internalized, and include only those who know the Lord?
What Did Jeremiah Mean?
As challenging as the preceding questions may appear, these objections against infant baptism dissipate when we consider the original meaning of Jeremiah 31:31-34. From the reference in Jeremiah 32:1-2 to “the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzer” when his armies were “besieging Jerusalem,” we can assume that the prophet’s words about the new covenant were declared during the years near Jerusalem’s fall to Babylon in 586 B.C. Jeremiah spent much time warning the people of Jerusalem and Judah that massive destruction and exile were imminent, but he also encouraged them not to lose hope that God would one day end their exile and return them to the Promised Land. Jeremiah’s new covenant prophecy was one of his words of encouragement to a people about to go into exile. We will approach Jeremiah’s words about restoration from exile from three vantage points: 1) the structure and content of the passage itself; 2) the surrounding context; and 3) the context of OT prophecy in general.
To grasp what Jeremiah had in mind as he delivered God’s promises about the New Covenant, we should begin with a more careful analysis of the structure and content passage itself. This passage may be outlined as follows:
- Negative Announcement of Covenant to Come (31:31-32)
- Declaration (31:31)
- “declares the Lord” (31:31a)
- Denial (31:32)
- “declares the Lord” (31:32g)
- Declaration (31:31)
- Positive Clarification of Covenant to Come (31:33-34e)
- Declaration (31:33a,b)
- “declares the Lord” (31:33b)
- Affirmation (31:33c-e)
- “declares the Lord” (31:33e)
- Declaration (31:33a,b)
- Explanation of Covenant to Come (31:34f-g)
As the outline above suggests, Jeremiah 31:31-34 divides into two main parts followed by an explanation. The first two portions of the passage are marked by the expression “declares the Lord” at the beginning and end of each. The added explanation is marked by the introductory word “for” (yK). In effect, the prophet made one announcement of a coming covenant (31:31-32), followed it with another announcement of that covenant (31:33-34e), and explained how such a covenant could come about (31:33f-g). The first portion of this passage (31:31-32) amounts to a declaration that a new covenant is coming to Israel and Judah (31:31). It would not have been immediately apparent that this was a good thing. After all, the Mosaic covenant had brought God’s people under divine judgment. So, in order to present this new covenant as a hopeful event, Jeremiah denied that this covenant would be like the Mosaic covenant (31:32).
The second part (31:33-34e) announces the coming covenant (31:33a,b) in language recalling the opening line of 31:31. This time, however, the hopeful character of this covenant is highlighted by positive affirmations of the wondrous nature of this future covenant arrangement (31:33c-e).
The third portion (31:33f-g) explains how it is possible for such a wondrous covenant to be made with Israel. All of this is possible even for those facing exile because the Lord will one day provide radical and unchanging forgiveness of his people’s sins (31:34).
This overview of the structure of the passage allows us to summarize the passage in this way. To begin with, Jeremiah says that the Lord will make a new covenant that cannot be broken; it cannot fail to bring wondrous blessings from God. When Jeremiah spoke these words, God had already begun to punish his people with foreign oppression and exile. Soon, Jerusalem itself would fall to the Babylonians. What was so remarkable about having another covenant in the future when the great covenant with Moses had failed to bring eternal salvation? The remarkable thing was that new covenant would not end in failure.
In the second place, Jeremiah reported positive elaborations on what would happen under the administration of this new covenant (31:33-34e). The new covenant would not fail because God would do two things to ensure success. First, he would put his law in their minds and hearts (31:33c,d). The internalization of the law was God’s ideal for his people throughout OT history (e.g. Deut. 6:6; 10:16; 11:18; 30:6; Pss. 37:31; 119:34; Isa. 51:7) and was often obtained (Deut. 30:11-14; 2 Kings 23:25; 2 Chr. 31:21; Ps. 40:8; 119:11). In the new covenant, however, God would touch all his hardened and wayward people to give them hearts that loved and obeyed his law. Second, God would establish the bond of loyalty and intimacy between Himself and all of his people (31:33c-e). Unlike times before when dross corrupted the covenant community, this covenant bond would extend to every covenant person without exception. This distribution of salvation would also ensure that the new covenant could not fail.
All of these high hopes for the new covenant raised a serious question for Jeremiah and his audience: How could this be? How could such a marvelous, unfailing covenant come to people whose disloyalty had led to the judgment of exile? The explanation of this passage (33:34f,g) is that God will one day forgive their wickedness and sins forever.
With the basic structure and content of the passage itself in mind, we should look at the immediate context of Jeremiah 31. Our passage is part of the larger segment comprising Jeremiah 31:27-40. This material is separated from the surrounding context by temporal notations at the beginning (31:26) and end (32:1). Jeremiah 31:27-40 divides into three sections introduced by similar expressions: “‘The days are coming,’ declares the Lord” (31:27); “‘The time is coming,’ declares the Lord” (31:31); and “‘The days are coming,’ declares the Lord…” (31:38). The topics of each segment are easily discerned:
- Future Planting of God’s People in the Land (31:27-30)
- Future New Covenant with God’s People (31:31-37)
- Future Rebuilding and Permanence of the Holy City (31:38-40)
Jeremiah 31:27-30 announces that God will bring his exiled people back to their land. As surely as he watched over them to destroy them, he will watch over them to return them home. Then Jeremiah 31:31-37 announces that when the people are back in the Promised Land, a new covenant will secure the successful reception of divine blessings. This new, unfailing covenant is as sure as the divine decrees that give order to the universe (31:35-37). Finally, Jeremiah 31:38-40 announces that once the people have returned and come under the new, unfailing covenant, the entire city of Jerusalem will be restored. The entire city will be made “holy to the Lord … never again [to] be uprooted or demolished” (31:40).
From this overview of the immediate context, we see that Jeremiah’s prophecy of the new covenant fit within a threefold scenario for the restoration of Israel after the exile. Israel would return to the Promised Land, a new unfailing covenant would be established, and a glorious, holy Jerusalem would be permanently erected.
Recognizing this context helps readers avoid removing Jeremiah’s new covenant from the context of his other predictions of the restoration of Israel after the exile. The new covenant did not stand alone in Jeremiah’s thinking. It was not a mere development from failure to success, from external to internal, nor from corruption within the covenant community to purity within the covenant community. The new covenant was part of a scenario that included a full inheritance for God’s people and the permanent establishment of the Holy City of God. In a word, the fulfillment of the new covenant depends on the fulfillment of the other predictions of chapter 31.
These observations lead to a third consideration: How does Jeremiah 31:31-34 fit within the broader context of OT prophecy? What insights may we derive from a panoramic outlook on the prophets? Simply put, we see even more clearly that Jeremiah’s concept of new covenant was part of a set of predictions about the end of Israel’s exile.
In the first place, we should see that the terminology “new covenant” (hvdx tyrIB) connects Jeremiah’s expectations to a more generic set of predictions. The terminology itself is unique to Jeremiah, but each element (“new” and “covenant”) has significant parallels to other prophetic concepts. On the one hand, the term “new” appears elsewhere in the prophetic books as a way of describing the condition of things surrounding the restoration of Israel and Judah after the exile. Ezekiel spoke of God giving his people a “new spirit” (Ezek. 11:19; 36:26) and a “new heart” (Ezek 36:26). Isaiah spoke of God’s intervention to free his people as “a new thing” (Isa 42:9; 43;19). He also described the time after the completion of the restoration from exile as the “new heavens and a new earth” (Isa 65:17; 66:22). In this sense, Jeremiah’s concept of a “new” covenant fit within the broader portrait of Israel’s restoration from exile.
On the other hand, other prophets also associated the concept of “covenant” with Israel’s restoration from exile. The expression “covenant of peace” (~lv tyrB) and similar terminology appear in Isaiah 54:10 and Ezekiel 34:25; 37:26 as descriptions of the restoration period. These covenant expressions reflected a basic theological outlook which stemmed from the days of Moses: forgiveness, refreshment, renewal and blessings come to the sinful nation of Israel only as they renew covenant (e.g. Exod. 24:7-8; 34:10ff.; Deut 29; 31; Josh. 24:1-28; 2 Kings 23:2-3; 2 Chr. 34:30-32). So, it is not surprising at all that Jeremiah spoke of the divine arrangement after exile as a new covenant.
The prophets’ emphasis on restoration after exile rested on a scenario sketched by Moses in Deuteronomy 4:25-31; 29:1-30:10). Moses wrote that if sin increased to intolerable levels in Israel, God would send his people into exile. But failure and exile would not be the end of God’s plan for his people. Instead, God also promised to return his people from exile and then to bless them more than ever before. As Moses recorded God’s promise in Deuteronomy 30:4-6:
“Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the LORD your God will gather you and bring you back. He will bring you to the land that belonged to your fathers, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers. The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.”
Time and again OT prophets reiterated this ancient promise. Even as they threatened exile, they also assured God’s people of a wondrous restoration. As we have seen, Jeremiah 31:31-34 falls into this set of expectations.
These broader connections between Jeremiah’s new covenant and the hope of restoration from exile alert us to a crucial interpretative perspective: the new covenant is not an isolated item which may be brought into Christian understanding by itself. Instead, the fulfillment of the new covenant must be understood as part of a much larger set of hopes for the way things will be when the exile is completed. Our Christian understanding of the new covenant and its bearing on the question of infant baptism must parallel our understanding of all other restoration prophecies.
How is the New Covenant Fulfilled in the Christian Faith?
With the background of the original meaning of Jeremiah 31:31-34 in mind, we are now in a position to ask how the hope of the new covenant is fulfilled in the NT era. Gaining perspective on the NT outlook will provide us with significant insight into how infant baptism fits within the new covenant.
At least three NT authors explicitly wrote that the Christian faith was the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy. Jeremiah 31:31-34 is quoted in whole or in part a total of seven times in the writings of Luke, Paul, and the author of Hebrews. Jesus called the cup of the last supper “the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20) and Paul referred to Christ’s words (1 Cor 11:25). Paul also spoke of himself and his company as “ministers of a new covenant” (2 Cor 3:6) because they proclaimed the gospel of Christ in the power of the Spirit. In several ways, the writer of Hebrews pointed to the superiority of the Christian faith over OT practices by identifying Christian faith with Jeremiah’s new covenant (Heb 8:8, 13; 9:15; 12:24). In one way or another, these NT passages indicate that the new covenant has become a reality through the earthly ministry of Christ.
If we were to stop our investigation of the NT at this point, it might seem that we would be fully justified in using Jeremiah 31:31-34 to oppose infant baptism. The logic is straightforward. NT writers say that the new covenant has come in Christ’s first coming; we should not introduce infants into this covenant through baptism because it would violated Jeremiah’s description of the new covenant.
Yet, we must be careful not to think that these NT references to Jeremiah 31 exhaust the NT outlooks on what God promised in this portion of Jeremiah. To develop a more adequate understanding of the NT perspective, we must remember that Jeremiah’s new covenant is inextricably enmeshed with a host of other promises about the return of Israel from exile. It is one fabric with the many OT expectations of a grand eternal future for the people of God after the exile.
It is well known that the NT teaches that Christ fulfilled OT promises about the restoration from exile. But these fulfillments take place in a manner unanticipated by OT prophets. Instead of happening completely and all at once, the restoration expectations were fulfilled and are being fulfilled over a long stretch of time. Jesus explained this process of fulfillment for the Kingdom of God after the exile in the parable of the mustard seed (Matt. 13:31-32). He explained that the grand kingdom would begin very small, slowly grow, and finally reach full maturity. It helps to think of this NT perspective on the fulfillment of restoration prophecies in three stages: the inauguration of fulfillment in the first coming of Christ; the continuation of fulfillment between the first and second comings of Christ; and the consummation of fulfillment at the return of Christ. The NT repeatedly explains that OT predictions of the glorious state of blessing after the exile began to be fulfilled at Christ’s first coming, continue to be fulfilled in part today, and will finally be realized beyond imagination when Christ returns.
Because the NT does not explicitly apply this threefold fulfillment pattern to Jeremiah’s prophecy of the new covenant, the fulfillment of that particular prophecy is often misunderstood. Often interpreters approach this text as if the new covenant had come in its fullness when Christ first came to earth, but this is a significant error. Christ has not yet completed the restoration, and thus we have not yet obtained the promised blessings in full. The new covenant was inaugurated in Christ’s first coming; it progresses in part during the continuation of Christ’s Kingdom; but it will reach complete fulfillment only when Christ returns in the consummation of all things. We must approach Jeremiah 31:31-34 as we approach all prophesies regarding the restoration after exile: with the understanding that the restoration of the kingdom and the renewal of the covenant will not be complete until Jesus returns.
When we apply the basic pattern of NT fulfillment to Jeremiah’s prophecy of the new covenant, it becomes clear that his expectations provide no basis at all for opposing infant baptism. To illustrate that this is the case, we will return to the three common objections often raised by Jeremiah 31:31-34.
In the first place, Jeremiah announced that the new covenant couldn’t be broken. In the consummation of Christ’s Kingdom, this prediction will be completely fulfilled. Once Christ returns it will not be possible to break the new covenant and thereby to enter into another exile. Before that time, however, participants in the new covenant can break the new covenant. In addition to the numerous warnings against apostasy in the NT, we should give special attention to Hebrews 10:28-31:
“Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ and again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’ It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
This passage makes it plain that until Christ returns it is possible for the new covenant to be broken. The writer of Hebrews acknowledges that covenant breakers under Moses were executed for capital offenses (Heb 10:28) and then argues, from the lesser to the greater (“how much more” [Heb 10:29]), that even more severe punishment is deserved by people who have “trampled the Son of God under foot … treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified [them] … and … insulted the Spirit of grace” (Heb 10:29). The three objects in focus – Son of God, blood of the covenant, and Spirit of grace – are features of the new covenant. Flagrant violation of these new covenant realities is quite possible and leads to severe punishment.
In fact, the writer of Hebrews applied the warning “the Lord will judge his people” from Deuteronomy 32:36 – a warning to the covenant people under the Mosaic covenant – to this new covenant situation, thus equating the circumstance of the new covenant prior to the return of Christ to the situation Israel faced under the old covenant. Judgment was and is possible for both the old and the new covenant communities, and judgment flows only from covenant breaking, not from covenant keeping. If judgment is a possibility under the new covenant, then so is the covenant breaking that leads to that judgment.
As the NT indicates, until Christ returns it should never be thought that the new covenant cannot be broken. On the contrary, the NT expects some participants in the new covenant to break that covenant. Therefore, the rejection of infant baptism on the basis that infants may prove to be covenant breakers is not well founded.
In the second place, we have seen that the new covenant is internalized. This feature of Jeremiah’s prophecy may appear to stand against the idea of bringing infants into external blessings in the new covenant through baptism. This objection to infant baptism also falls when we think more carefully about how this expectation is fulfilled.
We can have confidence that when Christ returns in glory, everyone in the new creation after Christ’s return will have the law of God written on his or her heart. We will all love and delight in his ways, just as Christ already does (2 Cor. 3:16-18; 1 Thess. 3:11-13). In this sense, we expect Jeremiah’s prophecy to find complete fulfillment when Christ returns.
At the present time, however, this expectation is only partially fulfilled. There is a sense in which the hearts and minds of believers have been renewed by God’s grace (Rom. 12:1-2). At the same time, however, we are also commanded by NT writers to observe guidance from the Scriptures and to watch for corruption in our thinking (e.g. Rom. 1:18-2:29; Eph. 4:17-32; 2 Pet. 3:17). The NT speaks this way because the promise of complete internalization of the law of God has begun within believers, but it has not yet been completed.
For this reason, it should not surprise us to find that even in the NT some people are blessed simply to be involved in the more external dimensions of the new covenant community. This kind of circumstance occurs regularly in the NT, but a striking example appears in Paul’s discussion in 1 Cor 7:14:
“For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”
When discussing the responsibilities of believers married to unbelievers, Paul made a remarkable observation. He argued that the unbelievers (a;pistoj) are set apart from the world or sanctified (a`gia,zw) by their association with their believing spouses. This language recalls the expression of Hebrews 10:29 that one who turns from Christ “treat[s] as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him.” Sanctification in this sense parallels the OT concept of “consecration” (vdq)) which is applied both to people and things as they are set apart from ordinary life for special contact with the presence of God. These people are not necessarily “saved” or “regenerated” (to use common theological categories). The new covenant has not been internalized for them, but they are sanctified by external associations nonetheless. From Paul’s use of this language for unbelieving spouses in 1 Corinthians 7:14, we see that prior to the return of Christ, it is appropriate to speak of association with the external dimensions of the new covenant. Such association sanctifies even those who have not been transformed by God’s grace in their minds and hearts.
Interestingly enough, in 1 Corinthians 7:14 this concept of sanctification is not only applied to unbelieving spouses but also to the children of such marriages. As Paul put it, “your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” Again, applying the old covenant designation of “unclean” to indicate unacceptability within the vicinity of the holy presence of God (e.g. Lev. 10:9-10; Num. 5:2-3), Paul asserts that the sanctification of the unbelieving spouse renders even their children holy or consecrated.
Until Christ returns in glory it is not only permissible and helpful, but also necessary to speak of certain people as consecrated or sanctified to God by their close associations with the people of God and with the activities of true believers. For this reason, it is quite appropriate to speak of the children of believers as sanctified or consecrated by their involvement in the more external dimensions of life in the new covenant even though they may not be regenerated. The internalization promised in the new covenant by no means opposes to the baptism of infants.
In the third place, we saw that many evangelicals object to infant baptism because the new covenant distributes salvation to all of its participants. As with the previous objections, this point of view is correct insofar as it relates to the complete fulfillment of the new covenant in the consummation. When Christ returns he will separate the just and unjust, the sheep and the goats, true believers and unbelievers in the church. The promise that the new covenant will grant salvation to all who participate will be fulfilled by the removal of the unbelievers at the time of judgment. Only true believers will be left, and thus all who are in covenant will be saved.
Yet, prior to the judgment that Christ will render at his return, the new covenant community is not restricted to believers only. If it were, there would be no separation of people at Christ’s return. We have already mentioned Hebrews 10:28-31 which speaks of judgment coming against some who have been “sanctified by the blood of the covenant.” We should add to this passage those that warn the members of church communities (often called “brothers”) to be sure to pass the test of perseverance (e.g. 1 Cor. 9:27; 2 Cor 13:5; 2 Pet. 1:10; Rev. 2:7,11,17,26; 3:5,12,21; 21:7). The familiar explanation of apostasy found in 1 John 2:19 summarizes the situation well:
“They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.”
As the parables of the Ten Virgins and Talents (Matt 25:1-30) illustrate, there are many in the new covenant community who will prove themselves not to be truly regenerate. Consequently, there is no need to withhold baptism from infants on the basis of Jeremiah’s new covenant expectations. Until the consummation the new covenant will continue to be mixed with true believers and sanctified unbelievers.
Conclusion
As we have seen in this study, Jeremiah’s prophecy of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 has been the basis of a number of objections to the practice of infant baptism. We have looked at this prophecy in connection with the many other OT expectations for the return from exile. Moreover, we have noted how the NT understands the fulfillment of restoration prophecies in three stages. All followers of Christ look forward to the day when this age of sin and death will be entirely replaced by the new world of blessing. At that time, there will be no bearing of children and the question of infant baptism will be moot. Yet, until that day we live in a time when the new covenant still includes people who become covenant breakers, who benefit only from the external dimensions of the new covenant, and who have never been regenerated. Until that time, we continue to have children to multiply and to fill the earth. As a result, we baptize our children as believers circumcised their sons in the OT. We baptize them as the expected heirs of the new covenant, those blessed with a heritage of faith and special privileges and responsibilities before God.
-
1
Pingback on May 9th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
[...] your opponent of everything short of being the anti-christ!), asked me a few short questions on his site concerning my beliefs revolving around baptism. They were good questions, and I thought you might [...]
May 8, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Hi Les,
I came to your site after reading your comments posted on Voice of the Sheep. Although we disagree on this issue (I am reformed, covenantal and credobaptist), it seems clear to me that we are brothers in Christ, and I greatly appreciate the humility and love that you’ve displayed.
I’ve read the Pratt article you posted above. I think this is the best possible effort a paedobaptist can make at defending his position and dealing with Jer. 31–the only place in the Old Testament which explicitly refers to the New Covenant. Here is a very brief response to only one issue. I’d like to get your take on it.
Pratt acknowledges that the New Covenant was established by the Lord Jesus–the mediator of the NC by His blood. Pratt says, “At least three NT authors explicitly wrote that the Christian faith was the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy,” and he goes on to cite a number of scriptures in support thereof. Pratt then asserts that although the NC has been inaugurated, it has not been completed and will not be completed until Christ’s return. But he does not cite to a single scripture that supports this assertion. For paragraph after paragraph on this issue, the only citation Pratt makes to scripture is Jesus’ parable of the mustard seed. I now understand why Pratt did not cite to any scripture showing that the NC has not been completed–it’s because there is none.
Scripture never even hints that the NC or any covenant could possibly be sort of but not yet enacted, or “started but not completed” stage. Moreover, Hebrews 8:6 says exactly the opposite: “But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.” This is James White’s comment on that verse: “When the writer says in 8:6 that this covenant has been enacted (nenomoqe,thtai), there is nothing in the verb used, or in the tense form, to indicate a progressive action that has been ‘inaugurated’ but is still in process and will not come into full force until far in the future. Instead, he chooses the very form of the term that is the most difficult to fit with such a concept. The covenant has been enacted (perfect tense) as a completed action.”
What are your thoughts on this?
Thanks again for your thoughtfulness and your display of the Holy Spirit’s fruit!
May 8, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Jeff, thanks for taking the time to read and discuss this.
I think Pratt means the Hebrews 10 passage as referring to new covenant people who are part of the new covenant people of God, the visible church, who fall away (apostasize). There is no doubt that people do profess faith in Christ and become part of the visible church and then fall away (see 1 John).
On the Hebrews 10 passage, I like what Piper says,
Thanks for your spirit of dialogue as well.
May 8, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Les,
Is it possible to actually be in the new covenant, and then break that covenant resulting in being removed from that covenant? In other words, can a person who has been given to Christ by the Father (all that the Father gives to me will come to me, etc.) from the foundation of the world do something to result in them no longer being in the Father and Son’s hand. “They follow Me and I give them eternal life, and they shall NEVER perish.”
I would hope your answer would be no, because if a person can actually be in the new covenant, and then do something to remove himself from that covenant, then what happens to the perseverance of the saints?
Isn’t your position one that says, a person baptized at birth but who never professes faith (which you call apostasy, though I would not agree since he never professed anything to start with) has proven that he was never in the new covenant to begin with?
I can’t imagine you holding that someone can ACTUALLY be a member in the new covenant (not a member in the community, but a member of the new covenant itself, the one in which God says all those will know Him), and then being able to do something to remove himself from that covenant.
Sadly, though, holding to the view that a person can actually lose their salvation seems to be the only consistent position to take if you say that a person can break the new covenant prior to Christ’s return.
If you say a person cannot lose their salvation, then please explain how they can be in the covenant at one point, but then not be in it at another point.
I think some of the confusion lies in that Paedos replace ‘new covenant’ in Jeremiah 31 with ‘new covenant community’, and that is not what God said there. He said days were coming when He would make a new covenant…not make a new covenant community. Paedos seem to want to run to the phrase new covenant community, instead of what the NT uses - the Bride of Christ. Surely you do not think a person can be a member of the Bride of Christ and then do something to result in him no longer being in the Bride of Christ?
Sorry for the rambling…I know I could have done better posing my questions.
May 8, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Sorry…
One more thought in this vein.
Paedos take Jeremiah 31 to be a promise of a covenant like the old one (made of regenerate and non-regenerate), and yet God specifically says it will be NOT LIKE the one made with the fathers. He then provides the details of what marks those who are in this new covenant - law put within them, ALL of them knowing God, etc.
Thanks.
May 8, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Brian I’m a little short of time right now, but quick question.
Did you actually click over and read Pratt’s article?
May 8, 2008 at 4:21 pm
I haven’t had time to read it yet (I also am short on time, believe it or not), but my questions are based upon the statement above which says, “Once Christ returns it will not be possible to break the new covenant and thereby to enter into another exile. Before that time, however, participants in the new covenant can break the new covenant.”
I think it would be beneficial to define what it means to be in the new covenant, and to formulate that definition from Scripture.
Scripture gives detailed specifics of the nature of those who are in the new covenant…and it is NOT LIKE the nature of those who were in the previous one.
Not to sound like a broken record, but the Bible describes those in the new covenant as having God’s law placed within them, written on their minds and hearts. It also describes ALL those in the new covenant as knowing God. And most important, the Bible describes those in the new covenant as having their iniquity forgiven and sin remembered no more. If this isn’t really true until Christ returns, then the new covenant is no different, no better, and just like the previous one, except that (according to Paedos) it is wider in scope.
Fully consummated or not (and I believe it HAS - past tense - been fully enacted), those within the new covenant, according to Scripture, know God and have His law written on their hearts, and have had their sin forgiven. This CANNOT apply to someone who is not and never was in the new covenant.
May 8, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Brian–
What makes the New Covenant not like the Old Covenant is that it brings about what the Old only prepares us for. Under the Old Covenant God’s purposes for his people were preparatory and, for that reason, of a typological nature. The Old Covenant “set the stage” ultimately for the fuller expression of his grace by creating the categories that would help us understand the work of Christ in the salvation of his people and the coming of his kingdom. The Old Covenant prepares New Covenant believers to be “a kingdom and priests” to serve the Lord (Rev. 1:6) by the establishment of the Mosaic priesthood. There are, of course many other category establishments–the animals sacrifices prepare us to understand Christ as the Lamb of God; the tabernacle itself prepares us to understand the nature of the church as God’s dwelling place (1 Peter 2).
All of this draws attention to the fact that the New Covenant is NOT like the Old in what it brings to realization through the sealing of Christ’s blood. Gone is the Mosaic priesthood; in its place is the priesthood of all believers. Gone is the anticipation of God’s promise that the sins of his people will be finally dealt with; in its place is the assurance that God in Christ indeed remembers them no more.
It is improper to make “knowing the Lord” the thing that distinguishes the New Covenant from the Old. Are we to conclude that there were no regenerated Old Covenant believers who knew the Lord? Hardly; the difference between the two covenants cannot ultimately have any kind of link to regeneration without leaving us with an entire Old Testament filled with unsaved people. No, what makes the New Covenant not like the Old is its administration. We must be careful not to overplay the statement “I will put my laws into their minds and write them on their hearts.” Jeremiah is hardly communicating that Old Covenant saints neither knew the Lord nor were regenerate! To be sure, they did not have complete revelation on these matters—but they were without question regenerate men and women who knew the Lord! The difference is a change in covenantal administration. Paul speaks about this in 2 Corinthians 3—it is the change from what is preparatory to what is fullfilled. This is practically the entire message of Hebrews–and, not surprisingly, why that author quotes so frequently the New Covenant passage from Jeremiah.
I don’t think Jeremiah can be claimed the way you are wanting to claim him. In the end, the Old and the New Covenants have an important similarity: No believer under either covenant ultimately knew/knows the hearts of others. Many were circumcised as infants who never came to know the Lord; many adults have been baptized after empty, dead professions who are actually reprobate. My point is that just as there were unbelievers under the umbrella of the Old Covenant, there are unbelievers under the umbrella of the New Covenant; we would never dare to say that all who are baptized as adults are without doubt converted simply because ALL under the New Covenant know the Lord. That makes baptism practically the guarantee of salvation! (Maybe the Federal Vision has found its way into the Baptist camp!)
May 8, 2008 at 11:08 pm
It is improper to make “knowing the Lord” the thing that distinguishes the New Covenant from the Old
Why is it improper? God is the One who made such a distinction. That doesn’t mean there no regenerate people under the old covenant…it just means (as God says in Jer.), that in the new covenant, ALL those in it will know Him. His words, not mine.
May 9, 2008 at 6:05 am
Brian, I have a couple of questions for you.
1. Are Baptist church members, who have been baptized after profession of faith, are these folks part of the new covenant?
2. Are there people sitting in Baptist churches, having been baptized after their profession of faith who are nonetheless not truly regenerate?
3. Have baptized Baptists ever apostasized?
I really think and hope your answers to these questions might help me understand precisely what your view is on the new covenant and the visible church.
Thanks.
May 9, 2008 at 6:16 am
Brian–
I suppose you are saying, then, that, by defintion ALL is referring to only those who are truly converted? So how is that different from the Old Covenant? Ultimately the New Covenant is the eternal covenant, which means that Jeremiah is talking about the elect, not all the people who claim Christ in this historic period since his crucifixion. Otherwise your insistence on “all” has to assume that every time you baptise an adult he ior she is converted, period. As soon as you qualify that you have admitted that the New Covenant’s “all” ultimately includes all whose salvation was sealed by the blood of the covenant–and that means the Old Covenant saints as well.
May 9, 2008 at 7:54 am
What’s with this psychedelic avatar? I must be having a flashback…
May 9, 2008 at 8:18 am
Hi Les,
Those are excellent questions to pose to me concerning my position. I will repost them along with my answers.
1. Are Baptist church members, who have been baptized after profession of faith, are these folks part of the new covenant?
ANSWER: Only if they have truly been regenerated, which means they have had God’s law written upon their hearts and minds, they know God, and they have had their iniquity forgiven and their sin remembered no more. If they have not been regenerated, but have been baptized, then they are merely part of the visible church, but NOT part of the new covenant, as Scripture clearly describes the state of those who are in the new covenant as possessing those things I mentioned earlier in this answer.
2. Are there people sitting in Baptist churches, having been baptized after their profession of faith who are nonetheless not truly regenerate?
ANSWER: Most definitely, and most sadly, yes.
3. Have baptized Baptists ever apostasized?
ANSWER: Yes, they have. Apostasy is a falling away, or a turning away…the formal abandonment or renunciation of one’s religion. A baptized baptist who later in life renounces that faith has, in fact, turned away from his profession. That’s what apostasy is. This why a baptized infant who never professes faith cannot be an apostate, because they never claimed faith in the first place.
I hope those help with getting a handle on what I believe.
May 9, 2008 at 8:32 am
I suppose you are saying, then, that, by definition ALL is referring to only those who are truly converted? So how is that different from the Old Covenant?
That is EXACTLY what I’m saying. God says that they that are in the new covenant shall ALL know Him.
It is different from the previous covenant because in it, they ALL did know God. Both the truly elect and unregenerate were given the sign of the covenant. The truly unregenerate were circumcised, as Ishmael was.
I think the major distinction between our positions is that Paedos equate those in the new covenant with the visible church, and Credos equate those in the new covenant with the body of Christ.
May 9, 2008 at 8:37 am
Sorry, typo…
In the previous covenant they all did NOT know God, as opposed to God’s own words that those in the new covenant would ALL know Him.
May 9, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Hey Guys–good discussion. I pray we can continue in a spirit of love and humility.
I obviously was not clear in my question regarding Pratt’s article. I apologize, and I’ll try again.
In the old covenant, there were both regenerated and unregenerated people. There were those who knew the Lord and those who did not know the Lord. There were those who had God’s law written on their hearts, and those who didn’t. There were covenant keepers and covenant breakers. There were saved people and unsaved people. Also, the old covenant could be broken (obviously by those who didn’t know Him). There was no spiritual requirement for being a member of the old covenant. The only requirement was a genetic one: you had to be Abraham’s offspring (or in a Hebrew’s household).
The old covenant was fulfilled by Christ in the new covenant. And all the old covenant signs pointed to Him, the mediator of the new covenant. In addition to Christ’s fulfillment, there are other things that differentiate the new covenant from the old. In Jer. 31:31-34, God says that one of the distinguishing characteristics of the new covenant is that EVERYONE in this covenant will know the Lord savingly, and this covenant cannot be broken.
Pratt says that although the new covenant was inaugurated with Jesus’ ministry on earth, none of the new covenant distinctives in Jer. 31 (”they will all know me,” unbreakable character of the new covenant, etc.) will take effect until Christ returns.
But Hebrews 8:6 says that the new covenant already “has been enacted on better promises.” “Has been enacted”–completed action, past tense, done deal. In other words, the terms of the new covenant have been enacted and are in effect right now. That means that everyone in the new covenant–right now–knows the Lord savingly, they have God’s law written on their hearts, and the new covenant can’t be broken.
What scriptural support is there for the view that the terms of the NC as described by Jer. 31 are not in effect right now? Pratt is teaching that some sort of new covenant dispensation part 1 is in effect right now, and new covenant dispensation part 2 will be in effect when Christ returns. Where does the Bible ever teach or even imply such a thing?
Along these same lines, what could God say to convince Presbyterians that everyone in the new covenant knows the Lord savingly?
I probably won’t have time to respond for a while, but I’m looking forward to reading your thoughts on this. Thanks!
May 9, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Jeff, thanks for commenting. You ask a good question and Lord willing I will have more time over the weekend to reply in detail. But I do have one question for you.
Do you need chapter and verse saying something in effect, “The New Covenant has been inaugurated but is not consummated yet?”
Is that what would we of the paedo view would need to solidly make our case?
May 9, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Hi, Les.
I’m one of Thornton’s loyal readers of Voice of the Sheep. Thanks for inviting us over to continue this discussion.
I’m sure you’ll have a better, deeper explanation to answer Jeff’s question about where scripture implies or states that the new covenant is not completely fulfilled yet.
But I just want to again offer up the obvious verse 34 of Jeremiah’s new covenant prophecy:
“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.”
I know Jeff has probably explained his view on this verse to me before (we’re members of same church), but to me it just clearly speaks to the fact that the full consummation of the NC prophecy is still in the future. We still teach our neighbors and brothers today. When Jesus returns, and only then, this teaching will no longer be necessary.
Some refer to the present age as the “already/not yet.” I think Jeremiah’s prophecy of the new covenant falls under that category rather well.
May 10, 2008 at 6:56 am
Hello everyone,
Interesting discussion! God has given me a love of Christian discourse and I adore digging deep into the Word. Please believe me, though many do not know me, that it is the honor of Christ I am after, not persons holding to a view. So many of us see things that way and it grinds fruitful debate to a halt.
That said, I have two quick comments from having just read the few posts above mine. Consider them open-ended conversation-catalysts as I really truly want every viewpoint to weigh in.
1. Mr. Redding above said, “There was no spiritual requirement for being a member of the old covenant. The only requirement was a genetic one: you had to be Abraham’s offspring (or in a Hebrew’s household).”
The first thing that popped into my mind were those in the old testament who became jews for fear of the Lord. They received the sign of the covenant (circumcision) and seemingly embraced the Jewish way of life and Jewish God. Esther 8:17, Jonah’s mission to the gentiles in Ninevah who repented - these appear to me to be 2 examples of non-genetic entrance into the family of God. We also read of Roman centurions “loving” the Jews and their religion in Luke 7… that one’s not so clear, but it and statements like pharisees traveling over “land and sea to win a single convert” (Mat 23:15) start to paint a picture of a converting, witnessing, less-than-100% genetically Jewish OT community. I would love a deeper analysis of these points if anyone has one, as at this stage I am in the “hmmmm….” intrigued stage
… just remembered Rahab before I hit submit. Ancestor of Jesus, but not of Abraham, I believe.
2. The old-testament sign of circumcision pictured the cutting away of sinful flesh, sanctification, which is a work only the spirit of God can accomplish - taking our heart of wicked corruption and once again allowing it to beat with affection for His ways. It was applied to babies at 7 days, commanded by God. Many who received this sign violated what it pictured by being stiff-necked and stubbornly prideful. Scripture testifies to this apostasy and (whoo-hoo) is a point credos and paedos see eye-to-eye on.
I’d like to focus on just one area of this debate. Let’s try to put aside the myriad of arguments we both have in our holster and genuinely meditate on this one thing (even if only for my sake) : the argument that baptism’s being a sign of the same heavenly work (the putting to death of sinful flesh in Christ, renewing by God’s spirit, all that) being offensive because it might be applied to modern babies who would apostatize is a strange one to me.
(here’s my point, finally!) If it is offensive and worthy of avoidance to avoid giving this sign to possible non-believers, why is the historic practice of circumcision also not equally offensive?
I am not discussing “SHOULD” they be baptized (I repeat for clarity). That is another very interesting debate in which most of us can predict the other’s next move.
Thank you for reading this - I know it’s long
I just love learning and the best way for me to do that is to dialogue. Please if you respond, stick to answering my questions before introducing new ones. That’ll help me and any on-lookers stay organized in their thoughts.
In Him,
Matt
May 10, 2008 at 10:17 am
Guys, thank you for all your comments. The day job got in the way yesterday and the weekend job (lawn, mulch, etc.) gets in my way today. I hope to do some commenting tonight. Stay tuned.
By the way Jeff, can you answer my previous question.
Do you need chapter and verse saying something in effect, “The New Covenant has been inaugurated but is not consummated yet?”
Is that what would we of the paedo view would need to solidly make our case?
Les
May 10, 2008 at 11:26 am
Les, I should’ve read more fully before posting. Didn’t mean to sidetrack what you had going. Let’s finish yours first.
Sorry!
In Him,
Matt
May 10, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Hey Les,
What do you think of my comment, “I think the major distinction between our positions is that Paedos equate those in the new covenant with the visible church, and Credos equate those in the new covenant with the body of Christ.”
Is that a fair assessment? Or do Paedos actually consider baptized infants to be in the body of Christ?
Thanks.
Matt,
You refer to the apostasy of baptized infants. The problem with this is that there is nothing for them to apostasize from, since they never claimed faith in the first place. Now, if they profess faith later in life and then renounce that profession…then THAT’s apostasy.
May 10, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Brian - good point. My terminology should’ve been more clear. Replace apostasy with failing to live up to the sign put on them in faith by their parents.
May 11, 2008 at 6:11 am
That is definitely clearer with regards to your position on infant baptism, Matt…but it is now something that cannot be found in connection with the new covenant, and cannot be supported with anything from the New Testament. Can you show from the NT anything concerning what you just described?
Apostasy is clearly mentioned in the NT with respect to the new covenant…what you just described is not. And therein lies one of the major problems with infant baptism, no direct Scriptural support.
The Hebrews passages so often cited concerning falling away are addressing those individuals who have once professed and then renounced their profession. What you described above is not that at all. An infant who has been baptized but never professes faith cannot apostasize, as Paedos so often describe them as doing.
May 11, 2008 at 6:24 am
So much has been said, I hardly know where to start.
First to Brian Thornton:
I think your statement might be a fair way to state the difference in paedos and credos. I think it is fair to say that professing believers and their children are considered in the new covenant. I suppose that credos like you and others commenting would say that being in the NC is tantamount to being regeneraged. Obviously that is our big difference on this. I think Pratt states the case well as he interprets the NT use of NC in context of how jeremiah used it in the OT. In that sense and understanding then it has been inaugurated and is underway but not consumated until Christ returns. Hence Pratt’s observation in citing the Hebrews 10 passage which cites Deut. that God would judge His people.
Jeff, I still would like to have you answer my question of you before I attempt to respond to yours. i.e. do you need/expect chapter and verse explicitly from me to prove my belief that the NC is inaugurated but not yet consumated?
Brian Rollins I think you are right on.
Matt, thanks for the question, and thanks for “pulling it” till we sort of wrap up this one.
May 11, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I think Pratt states the case well as he interprets the NT use of NC in context of how jeremiah used it in the OT.
Here may be one of the problems, Les. You state that Pratt interprets the New Testament use of New Covenant in context of how Jeremiah used it in the old. Isn’t that using the OT to interpret the NT? Isn’t the normal method of interpretation to interpret the OT in light of the NT, and not the other way around? IF the OT is in the NT revealed, how can the OT be used to interpret a NT use of New Covenant?
Also, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the observation that the author of Hebrews states that the new covenant HAS BEEN enacted, not IS BEING enacted, or WILL BE enacted.
The details of a covenant can’t be gradually consummated, or started at some point and then fully realized at a later point in time. I can think of no other instance where a covenant works this way. My covenant with my wife IS IN EFFECT…period. My covenant with my church IS FULLY REALIZED. The details of the covenant I made on the purchase of my house HAS BEEN FULLY consummated.
It would appear that either the details of a covenant are in effect, or they are not…either/or, not both/and. It seems illogical that the details of a covenant can be in effect for some within the covenant and not in effect for others who are in that same covenant. Can the details of the marriage covenant be in effect for me but not for my wife?
Thanks.
May 11, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Les,
I can’t see, Pratt’s very eloquent argument to the contrary, how you can see someone in the New Covenant who is not regenerate. Getting back to Jeremiah 31:33: “33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”
A necessary component of the NC is the law written on their hearts. Following that is the fact that all in the NC will know God. There is no one in the NC that does not know God and have His law written on their hearts, i.e. no one who is not regenerated is in the NC. When you look at Jeremiah 31 alongside Ezekiel 36:26-27 it becomes even clearer:
“26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.”
The language is similar and descibes monergistic regeneration and I think that when you look at Eze 36 you see God creating a new heart in the sinner (i.e. regeneration) and putting his Spirit within the believer and causing them to walk in His statutes, i.e. His law within them.
May 11, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Brian Thornton and Arthur, I am commenting from my phone, so will be short.
Before I get to a longer answer to your comments, I have a question for each of you.
Do you require a chapter and verse which says that the NC has been inaugurated and will be consumated at Christ’s second coming? Is that your interpretive requirement?
May 11, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Hi Les,
No, I do not need chapter and verse that says the NC will be consummated at Christ’s return. I already have Christ Himself tying the NC to His blood sacrifice at the Lord’s Supper, and I already have the author of Hebrews stating that the New Covenant HAS BEEN ENACTED.
My whole point is that if the NC is not in full effect, then it is in no effect at all. Either it has been put into place (with the marks described in Jeremiah and elsewhere) or it has not.
Thanks.
May 11, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Brian thanks. That really gets to the heart of our differing view on the NC. Our interpretive approach is just different, much like the mode of baptism.
I agree with Pratt that the NC was inaugurated and is in effect and will be consumated at Christ’s second coming. Meanwhile there are people, infants and adults, considered part of the NC community who may indeed prove to be covenant breakers.
I suppose we end up at a stand still, much like paedos and credos are at concerning the mode and timing of baptism.
May 12, 2008 at 7:53 am
Sadly, Les, I think you are right about us reaching an impasse. There are a couple of final thoughts I have about the ramifications of your view of the New Covenant.
1. The method of biblical interpretation used (interpreting NT through the OT) to arrive at your view of the NC is not the same one you use for other issues.
2. If you are correct that the NC community is supposed include both regenerate and unregenerate people, then a great majority of the NT has no meaning for a great majority of those in the NC. I say this because most of the NT is addressed to such groups as, “those called as saints”, “to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling”, to those whom God “gave Himself for our sins”, to those “in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”, to Timothy, “my true child in the faith”, “to those who are called”, and the examples go on and on. The point is that these letters are addressed to the regenerate, to the true church, to the body of Christ…to those in the New Covenant.
3. My personal opinion is that it is a major contradiction to say something has been inaugurated and is in effect, but then to turn around and say that is is not really in full effect yet. My covenant marriage cannot be in effect and not in be effect at the same time. If the new covenant description contained within Jeremiah is not really descriptive of all those who are currently within the new covenant, then it is not really in effect at all…it really has no meaning yet, and will not have any meaning until they ALL have His law written upon their heart and they ALL know Him and they ALL have their sin forgiven. Before that happens, the new covenant basically has no effect at all, because something cannot be in effect and NOT be in effect at the same time.
Let me put it another way. I agree completely that the true church, the body and Bride of Christ, HAS BEEN inaugurated and is in effect, but has NOT yet been fully consummated (To bring to completion or fruition; to conclude). The reason for that is simple - not all who are elect are in the body of Christ yet. So, the true church has begun, but is not yet complete. That’s a valid and consistent example of how something has been inaugurated but is not yet completed. HOWEVER, the descriptive details of who is in that true church, that body of and Bride of Christ, HAS TO BE in full effect for those descriptive details to mean anything. In other words, it can’t be in effect for some and not in effect for others.
Thanks for the discussion, Les.
May 12, 2008 at 9:18 am
Hey brothers,
Baptism is a unique subject, isn’t it? I have no expectation about changing anyone’s mind on this. I’ve learned from experience. Paedobaptists sincerely believe that their credobaptist brothers don’t understand the unity of the covenant of grace. And covenantal credobaptists sincerely believe that their paedobaptists brothers don’t understand the New Testament’s (and Jeremiah’s) teachings on the new covenant. For whatever reason, this seems to be an issue where Christ-centered, Bible-believing people who agree on almost everything else can read the same verses and come to completely different understandings. I don’t know why that is, but I trust it is for God’s glory. Maybe the Lord is using this area of disagreement to show us our own sin in how we think about one another and how we treat one another? I know He has revealed a lot of pride and anger in my own life in this area.
Les, you’ve asked, “Do you need/expect chapter and verse explicitly from me to prove my belief that the NC is inaugurated but not yet consumated?” You don’t have to “prove” anything to me about your beliefs, I’m just curious why you believe this. Have you read somewhere in scripture (or is it implied somewhere in scripture) that many terms of the new covenant won’t be enacted until Christ’s return? Or is your belief simply flowing from an a priori commitment to the Presbyterian view of who is in the new covenant? As I’ve written above, God has explicitly stated in Hebrews 8:6 that the new covenant already “has been enacted” (past tense, completed action). Given this explicit statement and the many others like it (Jesus is–present tense–the mediator of the new covenant right now), why do some paedobaptists believe that many of the terms of the new covenant are not in effect right now, but are, instead, part of the “not yet” in the “already/not yet.” Chapter and verse showing that the new covenant distinctives as described in Jer. 31 will not take place until Christ’s return would be great!
If you don’t have an answer–that’s fine. If it’s just what you believe and you can’t really explain why–that’s fine, too. I promise I will not make an arrogant or mean-spirited response if you say that. I think there are many things that all of us hold to that we can’t explain. I’m just begging for any response. I’ve now asked you this same question three times and I can’t get an answer–all I’ve gotten is requests for me to answer more questions. : )
May 12, 2008 at 9:57 am
Brian, a couple of thoughts on you comments, my comments and questions are bracketed [ ]:
1. The method of biblical interpretation used (interpreting NT through the OT) to arrive at your view of the NC is not the same one you use for other issues.
[I have not said that I employ exclusively a NT thru OT method. However, we cannot ignore the OT when we interpret the NT, especially when the NT writer is quoting or alluding to the OT, as in this case. Foe an easy example, when John the Baptizer says, "Behold, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world," we immediately must take into account the OT and the sacrificial system to make sense of the statement. Further, what other issues are you referring to?]
2. If you are correct that the NC community is supposed include both regenerate and unregenerate people, then a great majority of the NT has no meaning for a great majority of those in the NC. I say this because most of the NT is addressed to such groups as, “those called as saints”, “to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling”, to those whom God “gave Himself for our sins”, to those “in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”, to Timothy, “my true child in the faith”, “to those who are called”, and the examples go on and on. The point is that these letters are addressed to the regenerate, to the true church, to the body of Christ…to those in the New Covenant.
[Of course the NT writers addressed the congregations as "saints" and "brothers." But that surely does not mean that they thought every single individual in their hearing was for certain regenerate. Just look at 1 Cor. 5 for example. In addition, is that not the way your and my preacher speaks? He says something like, "Brethren I want to preach to you today about...." He knows that not every baptized person in his hearing is actually regenerate.]
3. My personal opinion is that it is a major contradiction to say something has been inaugurated and is in effect, but then to turn around and say that is is not really in full effect yet. My covenant marriage cannot be in effect and not in be effect at the same time. If the new covenant description contained within Jeremiah is not really descriptive of all those who are currently within the new covenant, then it is not really in effect at all…it really has no meaning yet, and will not have any meaning until they ALL have His law written upon their heart and they ALL know Him and they ALL have their sin forgiven. Before that happens, the new covenant basically has no effect at all, because something cannot be in effect and NOT be in effect at the same time.
[I did not say it was not fully in effect. In fact I said it is in effect. To use your marrige example, it is in effect--your covenant marriage. And either of you can break it. Then, what would that mean to its being in effect? So the marriage example won't work.
Better, I think, is to acknowledge that the OC was never going to fully work and was temporary, awaiting for and looking forward to the greater fulfillment in Christ. Now there is no more need for sacrifices. The final, ultimate sacrifice has been done, Christ in the NC. Jesus' blood atonement is absolutely effectual for His people. He absolutely atoned for the sines of His people. However, as Hebrews (and 1 Cor. 5 and other places) teaches, there will be those who are part of the group calling themselves Christians who are not truly so! That does not negate the work of Christ at all. The fact that there are tares in the field does not mean the wheat is not there.]
Let me put it another way. I agree completely that the true church, the body and Bride of Christ, HAS BEEN inaugurated and is in effect, but has NOT yet been fully consummated (To bring to completion or fruition; to conclude). The reason for that is simple - not all who are elect are in the body of Christ yet. So, the true church has begun, but is not yet complete. That’s a valid and consistent example of how something has been inaugurated but is not yet completed. HOWEVER, the descriptive details of who is in that true church, that body of and Bride of Christ, HAS TO BE in full effect for those descriptive details to mean anything. In other words, it can’t be in effect for some and not in effect for others.
[As for the NT use of the OT, see the small quote below from Carson and Beale in their work Commentary on the NT use of the OT:]
“I like to use the phrases “narrow-angle exegesis” and “wide-angle exegesis,” letting Scripture interpret Scripture, or “canonical-biblical exegesis.” This lets later texts in the Old Testament interpretatively develop the earlier texts, and traces how the trajectory finds further development with the New Testament writers. They tend to be sensitive, when quoting one text, to other developments of that text in the Old Testament. That’s a wider consideration than just looking at your paragraph in the New Testament book. You have to do both.”
May 12, 2008 at 10:11 am
Jeff, thankd for your comments. I have not been avoiding you. Just been busy all weekend. Also, I did want to know if you, in general, require a chapter and verse for every belief and practice. I still want to know that.
You said,
“Have you read somewhere in scripture (or is it implied somewhere in scripture) that many terms of the new covenant won’t be enacted until Christ’s return? Or is your belief simply flowing from an a priori commitment to the Presbyterian view of who is in the new covenant? As I’ve written above, God has explicitly stated in Hebrews 8:6 that the new covenant already “has been enacted” (past tense, completed action). Given this explicit statement and the many others like it (Jesus is–present tense–the mediator of the new covenant right now), why do some paedobaptists believe that many of the terms of the new covenant are not in effect right now, but are, instead, part of the “not yet” in the “already/not yet.” Chapter and verse showing that the new covenant distinctives as described in Jer. 31 will not take place until Christ’s return would be great!”
What I have said is that I agree with Pratt’s interpration that the fullness of the NC will not be until Christ’s return. Certainly for many in the church, if not most, those born again are demonstrating
“And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.”
My whole point is that in the community of believers there are those who profess faith and are not what that passage above describes. In addition, there children of believers who are part of the “people of God” may or may not be regenerate (same as in OT).
You repeat the “has been enacted” understanding of Heb. 8:6. First, SAYING your interpretation is so is not enough to make it so. You may be right. But even if you are correct that the tense of the verb (which I have not checked out yet) means once for all enacted, it does not follow your interprtetation that it is literally completed all at once when Christ came. See Pratt’s explanation and interact with it.
In fact, a “law” enacted does not mean that it is obeyed by every single individual. Many commentators actually use the word “inaugurated” when referring to this passage.
But anyway, thanks for your interaction.
As a parting question and maybe another fun thread, what does this mean from Acts 2:39:
“For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”
May 12, 2008 at 11:53 am
…so Les,
Would it be fair (just re-wording for my and others benefit) to say that your position on the new covanent is that it has been established, and will RESULT (from God’s soverignty and faithful administration of saving grace) in the eventual filling of the world with only regenerate souls?
Is this accurate, or am I misunderstanding?
May 12, 2008 at 11:54 am
By the by, as a big ol’ Christian “p.s.” - Jeff, I am aware of the same streak in myself and have been contemplating lately if this is not exactly God’s plan… to use things like differing viewpoints and the zeal and ire they encourage to focus us on Him - and in so doing make us aware of the sin that can hide even in the pursuit of God’s truth. (the last place many might expect to find it! That Satan’s a crafty one.)
For me, the biggest thing has been the ability to speak openly about it - aware that it might meet opposition. The methods and arguments and presuppositions one has are made acutely visible in the process of discussing the view, as much as in the study that leads to the view.
May 22, 2008 at 3:56 pm
I have read most of the argument here and on the site of the originating article, however i am left with a few important questions.
A lot of importance is given to the 32nd verse, but it seems as if the 31st verse is ignored
” The Lord said: The time will surely come when I will make a new agreement with the people of Israel and Judah. ”
As i see it, this prophecy is not directed at modern day evangelicals, but at the Jews.
Unless one would wish to invoke a “substition theology” (i.e. that the church is the new Israel,) there is only one way to apply it to current day christians, and that one is found in psalm 87.
(http://www.biblija.net/biblija.cgi?Bible=Bible&m=Ps+87&id32=1&id7=1&id35=1&pos=0&set=1&l=en&idp0=33&idp1=8&idp2=36)
Note that the word “know” in verse 4 seems to imply personal knowledge and acknowledgement.
This psalm does not disband Israel, it disbands the other nations, as verse two speaks about the dwellings of Jacob and verse 6 established that God makes Zion the birthplace of all those who “know” him (the same know as above in verse 4).
On various scriptural grounds i do not consider “substitution theology” as scriptural. Paul in the letter to the Romans has some definite things to say about it, but that is a different subject.
Then there is the whole difficult subject of “regenerated”, all the more difficult since it is “shoptalk” in a (for me) foreign language, but i think i understand the gist of it.
It seems that a lot of objection against child-baptism is rooted around that “regenerated” part, and in order to have a community that is fully (or as full as humanly possible) it is necessary to delay baptism until people can be sure that they believe.
To me however, this philosphy/tactic/strategem (sorry, i am grasping to the proper word but i cant find it), seems to ignore a few historical and spiritual facts.
Namely that “credo”-baptism is no sure way for regeneration either.
The churches, established by the apostles, are sure to have been full of people who received “credo”baptism. Yet some are dealt with quite harshly by Christ.
Ephesus gets to hear: “Your love is cold”
“Think about where you have fallen from, and then turn back and do as you did at first. If you don’t turn back, I will come and take away your lampstand.”
Sardis even gets a harder verdict,
“I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.”
saving of the congregation does not get much attention, only some persons are encouraged. Compare the tone of the letter to Sardis that one to Ephesus.
“Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.”
Sardis is such a situation with (admittedly presumed) a lot of “credo” baptism, yet the congregation is DEAD.
Might it be that the exact moment of baptism is less important than the continuing adherence to God? (like as advised in 1 John 1)
May 23, 2008 at 2:44 pm
JPvB, you mentioned: “As i see it, this prophecy is not directed at modern day evangelicals, but at the Jews. Unless one would wish to invoke a “substition theology” (i.e. that the church is the new Israel,)”
A couple of brief comments:
1) Paul refers to himself as a minister of the new covenant (2 Corinthians 3:6) and his ministry was specifically to Gentiles.
2) I don’t think such an interpretation of the Jeremiah 31 prophecy would invoke substitution/replacement theology. There has always been one people of God that has taken it’s shape and forms in different ways. A couple of quick examples:when writing to the Gentile Corinthians, Paul calls the OT Israelites “our Fathers” (1 Cor. 10:1). Also, Paul talks about the body of Christ as being the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16).
May 25, 2008 at 8:51 am
To danny,
There is a difference however between a new covenant and a replacement for israel.
There still is a difference between Jew and Gentile, though not trough a different covenant. As long as paul still makes that distinction, how can we ignore it.
There is but one covenant, but still there is special place for Jews.
“If the rejection of the jew means glory for the Gentile, how much more will the acceptance of the Jew mean.”
It is therefore important not to equate “Israel” or “Juda” with the Church (or the bride of Christ)