If you are in need of a solid, basic web site for your business, church, or organization, check out my web design services at 
Subscribe
Do They All Know Him in the New Covenant
Posted by Brian Thornton on June 2, 2008
My brother in Christ, and Paedo Baptist blog friend, Les, has posed a great question in the comment section of my last article, and it is one that I think deserves its own post. I have heard this objection raised before, which says something to the effect of, how can the New Covenant really be in full effect yet since people are still in need of being taught about God, when the prophecy in Jeremiah 31 promises that “no longer will one teach”, and, “they will all know” God. Paedos conclude then that this is not yet a present reality, and won’t be until Christ returns. What follows is Les’ question concerning the promise in Jer. 31 as well as my reply to him. I would be especially interested in your thoughts regarding that portion of my answer which includes the citation of the verse in 1 John.
During this era (between Christ’s 1st and 2nd coming) what does this part of Jer. 31 mean? “34 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.”
1. Do you believe we still need teachers in our time and if so, how does that fit your view of this present 100% fulfillment of the prophecy?
ANSWER: We definitely still need teachers in our time. The prophecy here is not concerning the need (or lack thereof) for teaching with respect to discipleship, but God is simply saying they (the ones in the New Covenant) will all know Him personally. In other words, everyone in this new covenant will truly be a child of God, which is unlike the makeup of the previous covenant. The previous covenant consisted of two groups: those who knew God, and those who did not. This new covenant, according to God in Jer. 31, will only consist of those who actually know God, have His law written on their heart, and have their sin forgiven.
In the previous covenant, since its makeup included those who did not know the Lord and those who did, it was necessary to teach another member of the covenant by telling them to know the Lord, because they did not know Him. In the New Covenant, according to God, that will not be necessary because everyone in this new covenant will already know Him. As John says in 1 John 2:27, “As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.”
But, since Paedos start out with a presupposition that infants should be baptized (many of which they know will NOT know the Lord), and since Paedos consider the present reality of the New Covenant to consist of elect and non-elect alike, then they must assume that this covenant really isn’t in effect yet, and that what God promised in Jeremiah 31 is yet to be fulfilled until the next dispensation. Which leads us back to my previous post where my overarching distinction between Paedos and Credos was that Paedos equate the New Covenant with the visible church, and Credos equate the New Covenant with the Bride of Christ, or invisible church.
We probably don’t need to keep going round and round on this point, but I think God’s promise in Jer. 31 is perhaps the most clear and unambiguous detail we have that the New Covenant ONLY includes the elect (which, as He says, is NOT LIKE the previous one)…it only includes those who know God, those who have His law on their heart, those who have had their sin forgiven.
danny said
“many of which they know will NOT know the Lord”
Hi, Brian, it seems like you are asserting once again that you KNOW who will be saved and who won’t. Do you presuppose that many of the professing credos who are baptized WILL be saved? It seems like a bit of a double standard to me to say that the majority of baptized infants will not ratify the new covenant while the majority of baptized professors will. How do you KNOW that a profession of faith is legit?
“then they must assume that this covenant really isn’t in effect yet, and that what God promised in Jeremiah 31 is yet to be fulfilled until the next dispensation. ”
I think this is a bit misrepresentation of the paedo side. We paedos say that the covenant has been inaugurated but not yet fully consummated.
Again, the focus of the New covenant is on the priesthood of Christ in contrast with the Mosaic. Read Hebrews 8 in the proper context of Hebrews 4:14 to the end of chapter 10.
If the NC is the re-declaration of the Abrahamic (Gal. 3), then why did God include infants with Abraham and not in the New?
danny said
Hey Brian, another thought which I would appreciate some feedback on:
You mentioned, “…Credos equate the New Covenant with the Bride of Christ, or invisible church.”
Why do you apply the New Covenant sign (baptism) to the visible church when you say the New Covenant is with the invisible church?
Brian Thornton said
Danny,
You have not addressed the point of this post and therefore have not stayed on topic. If you wish to comment on this post, then please stick to its topic.
Thanks!
BTW, man cannot ratify the New Covenant, as it is one sided between God and Himself.
Brian Thornton said
PS…
The sign of the New Covenant is not baptism, but is still circumcision…a circumcision of the heart.
This is another topic for another post, though.
danny said
By ratify, I mean through faith in Christ (which, by the way, is a gift of God as well [Eph. 2:8]).
I apologize if I have gone off topic but I was simply quoting what you wrote:
“Which leads us back to my previous post where my overarching distinction between Paedos and Credos was that Paedos equate the New Covenant with the visible church, and Credos equate the New Covenant with the Bride of Christ, or invisible church.”
This has been the question posed for a while now throughout the previous posts. I agree that this is a good summary of the two positions. However, I do feel that my following question is pertinent to the overall summary of all of this discussion and I think it would produce some dialog to further this distinction between our views:
Why do you apply the New Covenant sign (baptism) to the visible church when you say the New Covenant is with the invisible church?
danny said
“The sign of the New Covenant is not baptism, but is still circumcision…a circumcision of the heart.”
A couple of thoughts:
1) How can circumcision of the heart be a “sign” if it is internal and invisible?
2) If the sign of the New Covenant is not baptism, then why baptize?
3) How is this any different from the OT? Circumcision of the heart is what physical circumcision pointed to.
“This is another topic for another post, though.”
I really believe wholeheartedly that this is extremely pertinent to this discussion because we are getting to the heart of the matter (which you summarized very nicely) concerning the nature of the church and to whom baptism should be applied to.
Let’s keep dialoging that we may spur one another on to know Him more.
-Danny
Brian Thornton said
The issue for discussion on this post is Les’ question concerning the statement in Jeremiah 31 by God stating, “no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me”, which asked, “Do you believe we still need teachers in our time and if so, how does that fit your view of this present 100% fulfillment of the prophecy?”
The thrust of my reply was my citation of John’s statement in 1 John 2:27, in which he says, “As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.”
Any thoughts on this point?
Isn’t John making a declaration that those who have the anointing of the Holy Spirit (who are regenerated) have no need to be taught to know the Lord…just like what God said in Jeremiah 31?
Isn’t this directly on point to the fact that those in the New Covenant possess the things mentioned by God in Jer. 31 – His law on their heart, them knowing God, their sin being forgiven? I think it is, and I think it demonstrates convincingly that the New Covenant is fully in effect right now.
Thanks.
danny said
Brian, I know I am a guest here but I think my previous comments in reply to your statement that baptism is NOT the sign of the new covenant should be interacted with because I think that is where the rub is at.
Also, I will comment on what you mentioned above:
“Isn’t John making a declaration that those who have the anointing of the Holy Spirit (who are regenerated) have no need to be taught to know the Lord…just like what God said in Jeremiah 31?”
Notice the phrase in Jer. 31: “…no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me”
Here is my question, how do you know who needs to be taught and told to “know the Lord” and who doesn’t need to be told to “know the Lord” (because they already do)?
“Isn’t this directly on point to the fact that those in the New Covenant possess the things mentioned by God in Jer. 31″
Again, how do you know conclusively who is in the New Covenant and who isn’t? Is it based on a profession of faith, by the evidence of fruit, or does only God know?
danny said
“The sign of the New Covenant is not baptism, but is still circumcision…a circumcision of the heart.”
If the sign of the New Covenant is circumcision of the heart (regeneration), then how do you know who is regenerate and who is not? And therefore, how do you know who to tell to “know the Lord” and who not to tell?
Regards,
Danny
Brian Thornton said
Danny,
The issue is not how to tell who is in the new covenant, or trying to determine who needs to be taught. The question of this post is, did or did not John tell his readers that they had no need for anyone to teach them?
Try to stay on topic.
Jim McDermott said
The New Covenant — and its concomitant New Heart — is indeed the watershed issue. All error among the regenerate is rooted in denial of the New Covenant (and New Heart). Such denial (despite protests to the contrary) is the result of error as to Israel; theology which presupposes other than that ethnic/national Israel was anything but predominantly unbelieving inevitably and invariably requires twisting of Scripture in attempt to render the New Covenant either not for now/not for us or merely the second administration of a man-concocted covenant (of grace).
The epistle to the Hebrews is the portion of Scripture which is indispensable to understanding the foregoing. Specifically as to the targeted issue, Hebrews 9:15 identifies those to whom Hebrews 8:10 – 11 (quotation of the Jeremiah 31 verses at issue) refers: “those who are called”.
Neither Scripture teaching nor preaching of the RHEMA (Romans 10:17) — our Lord’s means of drawing the called upon their regeneration — is contemplated by Hebrews 8:11. The point of the verse is the exclusivity of the New Covenant to “those who are called”. The term “covenant breaker” is an anachronism as the Old Covenant is annuled and can no longer be “broken” (Hebrews 7:11 – 12, 7:18 – 19, 8:13, 10:9), while the New Covenant is comprised exclusively of those upon whose hearts is written the Law of Christ (i.e., whose hearts have been circumcised/whose hearts of stone have been removed and have been given a New Heart).
Brian Thornton said
Excellent thoughts and comments, Jim. Thanks for taking the time to post them.
Les Prouty said
“since Paedos consider the present reality of the New Covenant to consist of elect and non-elect alike, then they must assume that this covenant really isn’t in effect yet, and that what God promised in Jeremiah 31 is yet to be fulfilled until the next dispensation.”
Actually we believe that the NC is in effect, just not fully. It will find its fulfillment at Christ’s second coming when the sheep and the goats will be separated.
Your interpretation of Jeremiah 31 is interesting but unpursuasive as to validity. The NC promises, the kingdom promises indeed the working out by Christ of the restoration of all things is happening for sure, but not all at once at His first coming. His kingdom started small, if you will (a mustard seed) and is growing into maturity.
But you are correct that we probably not helped to keep going around again and again our different interpretations of the Jeremiah passage.
Al said
Brian,
I have not gotten involved in this yet, but let me just say that I have enjoyed following the discussion. Les has done a very good job of putting the correct position forward
In Jer 31 we have a three fold promise in this New Covenant God is making with creation. All of the promises start with the word behold:
Verses 27-30 promise, in part, that God is going to build up and plant the nation of Israel again and that the sins of the fathers will not be visited upon the children. This has an immediate fulfillment in the return of the children of Israel from Babylon, but they were scattered again after the crucifixion. The New Israel is not only filling Jerusalem, but the whole earth and we will see this ultimate fulfillment at the end of time.
Verses 31-37 promises, among other things, that there will be a law written in the hearts of the members of this covenant. That has begun, but is not reached its fullness. To be honest Brian, your dismissal of the clear meaning of the this sentence: “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.” is more than a bit unBaptist of you.
Verses 38-40 promises that there will be a permanent city of Jerusalem. It is interesting that almost immediately after the inauguration of the New Covenant the city of Jerusalem was destroyed and the process of building this permanent city would start from scratch.
The NT writers saw all three of these prophecies being fulfilled in Christ. He is the cornerstone of the New Temple and we are being built up in Him as the city of God. He is the resurrection of life, and the land he possesses is the whole earth.
In Matthew 13:31-32 the kingdom of God is said to spread out slowly like a mustard tree. We have not seen the complete fulfillment of Jer 31:27-40, but we are confident that the day is approaching.
Al sends
Brian Thornton said
Hey Al!
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I too agree that the New Covenant has not reached its fullness…in terms of its scope. In other words, everyone who will be in the new covenant is not yet in the new covenant. Does that make sense? But my question to you is, in what way do YOU see the new covenant not being fulfilled yet?
Another way to put it would be, seeing that Christ is the Mediator of this better covenant, and this covenant HAS BEEN ENACTED on better promises, in what way has the covenant been enacted, but not yet fulfilled? Because, if it has been enacted (and the description of it excludes the unregenerate), but that enacting still has the unregenerate contained within the group, then in what way has it really been enacted?
Thanks for commenting, and I look forward to hearing from you again.
danny said
I sense that we are making progress with understanding each others’ terms. Let me try to see if I can reconcile this.
As far as your question I would pose my reply as follows:
The essence of the New Covenant (regeneration, forgiveness of sins) is with the invisible church. The outward administration of the New Covenant is with the visible church (baptism).
I think all the parables of the kingdom and the wheat/tares represents that the outward level of the NC is a mixed bag of regenerate/unregenerate while the essence of the NC is purely with the elect.
This goes along with my question about why is the New Covenant sign of baptism administered at the visible church level if the NC is only with the elect? You said that the sign of the NC is regeneration, which, I think you were trying to say that is the ESSENCE of the spiritual side of the NC, but there is still an outward administration of the NC that is applied at the visible church level.
How has it been enacted?
By Christ dying on the Cross and being raised for our justification.
How has it not be fulfilled?
The NC will be fulfilled at his return when He has gathered all of the elect and has purged the tares from the wheat at the final judgment. At that point, there will be no visible/invisible because everyone will know the Lord. No one will need to teach each other’s brother because everyone will KNOW who is elect.
In what way has it been enacted?
The real forgiveness of sins for the elect.
If you look at Hebrews 10, there is still an outward identification with the visible church as being called “God’s people” just as the apostate was sanctified by the blood of Christ. That doesn’t mean that he was forgiven or saved, but that he was set apart by way of covenant (through identification of baptism).
Did I clear the mud or make the mud more muddy?
Blessings!
danny said
For clarification, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe when you say “it hasn’t reached it’s fullness” and we say “it hasn’t been fulfilled”, I think we are saying the same thing because we are referring to the consummating scope of God’s kingdom.
You might ask, “How is the NC better than the OC?” Because types and shadows of the Levitical priesthood is fulfilled in Christ. That is the whole point of Hebrews 4-10.
Brian Thornton said
Danny,
You can’t use the wheat and tares as an example for your view concerning the church and the New Covenant because that is not a parable about the church, but is instead a parable about the world. In Matt. 13:38 Christ says, “the field is the world”.
Also, Paedos appear to be inconsistent with respect to the meaning of ‘neighbor’ and ‘brother’ as it applies in Jeremiah 31. Under the previous covenant, everyone’s neighbor and brother was in the covenant, because it was an ethnic covenant…a national covenant. It included both believer and unbeliever, which is why some within the covenant had to teach others within the covenant to know the Lord. God’s promise concerning the New Covenant, however, is that all those under it would actually know Him and be saved and have their sin forgiven. So, my brother and neighbor that no longer needs to be taught to know the Lord is not my physical neighbor or physical brother, but is my neighbor and brother according to their being in the New Covenant.
Paedos seem to shift the meaning of neighbor, for example, to now mean my physical neighbor, and they conclude that since my physical neighbor still needs to be told to know the Lord, that the New Covenant is not really fulfilled yet. Yes, under the previous covenant, the Jew’s neighbor under the covenant was also his physical neighbor, but that was because the covenant was a collective, national, ethnic covenant, whereas the New Covenant is not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. My neighbor and brother as they relate to the context of Jer. 31 are those who are also in the New Covenant…and all those within it, again as described by God, have His law on their heart, know the Lord, and have their sin forgiven.
danny said
Again, look at Heb. 10 where the visible church is called “God’s people.” We still haven’t heard your exegesis of this passage.
Also, how do you know WHO your neighbor is in the NC and who isn’t. All you have on is the glasses of the visible church. You can’t know who is elect and who isn’t. So how do you know who is your neighbor and who isn’t? You keep dismissing this question as if it is irrelevant, but you still haven’t answered how you know who needs to be taught and who doesn’t? You say it doesn’t matter, but it does matter because Jeremiah says, they won’t need to teach each other because they will all know Me.
Well, how do you know who knows the Lord and who doesn’t?
Brian Thornton said
Well, how do you know who knows the Lord and who doesn’t?
I’ll give you a couple of ways, but I am sure there are more.
1. Discerning sheep from wolves in sheep’s clothing
2. The children of the devil are obvious
Les Prouty said
Brian, with all due respect, I think you are missing the point of that parable by effectively saying that it refers to the world and does not speak of the church.
No less than credo John Gill says (I know, he is a fallen man):
Ver. 38. The field is the world,…. That which is represented by “the field”, in which the good seed is sown, is not only the land of Judea, where Christ preached in person, but the whole world, into which the apostles were afterwards sent; or the church of Christ, in the several parts of the world:
“the good seed are the children of the kingdom: they which are designed by the good seed, are such, for whom the kingdom of heaven is prepared, to whom it is bequeathed, and who are appointed to it; who are possessed of the kingdom of grace here, and are heirs of the kingdom of glory; and have both a meetness for it, and a right unto it, being the children of God by adoption, and that appearing by regeneration:
but the tares are the children of the wicked one: the persons intended by “the tares”, are such professors of religion, as both by their principles and practices, manifestly show that they are of their father the devil; they resemble and imitate him, and do his works; and plainly declare, that they were never born of God, and are in no better state, though under a profession, than openly profane and immoral persons; and are more hurtful and scandalous to the interest of Christ, than such are.
Whatever else about the NC, I do believe that the parable of the weeds are relevant.
Brian Thornton said
I haven’t missed the point at all (and I am familiar with Gill’s commentary on this parable). Danny brought up the parable to show that the church is designed, under the new covenant, to have both wheat and tares…I merely pointed out that the field in the parable, according to Christ, is not the church but is the world.
I don’t see how this parable advocates the baptizing of infants, anyway.
Brian Thornton said
Also,
I have never denied that there are false professors within the visible church. What I am denying, and what I believe Scripture absolutely denies as well, is this notion that their are false professors within the New Covenant (I believe that to be an absolute impossible hypothetical). But now we are really going in circles and covering old ground!
danny said
“I don’t see how this parable advocates the baptizing of infants, anyway”
Once again, a red herring fallacy. I never mentioned baptism, I was only talking about the nature of the church. Try to stay on topic.
You say that the New Covenant has once essence: with the elect. We say that the New Covenant has two qualities, the true essence with the elect (the invisible church) and an external administration with the visible church.
You still haven’t answered why the sign of the covenant, baptism, is applied to the visible church and not just with the invisible church.
danny said
A couple other thoughts from what you said:
“I’ll give you a couple of ways, but I am sure there are more.
1. Discerning sheep from wolves in sheep’s clothing
2. The children of the devil are obvious
”
But that still doesn’t guarantee that you know who really knows the Lord and who doesn’t. Therefore, you can’t say for certain who needs to be told to know the Lord and who doesn’t. Jeremiah emphatically says that they will not need to teach or tell to know the Lord, because they will all know the Lord. No guessing who’s in and who’s out, which makes me think that this is referring to the final consummation of the kingdom.
“What I am denying, and what I believe Scripture absolutely denies as well, is this notion that their are false professors within the New Covenant (I believe that to be an absolute impossible hypothetical).”
Well, you still haven’t given a rational (and biblical) defense for the warning in Hebrews 10 because the whole point of the warning is arguing from the lesser to the greater. The one who broke the Mosaic covenant died on the account of 2-3 witnesses, but consider how much greater the punishment is for the one who breaks the New Covenant. So how is Scripture denying the breaking of the New Covenant when it makes an intentional argument from the lesser to the greater to show that breaking the New Covenant is far more severe.
Again, don’t confuse the nature of the visible/invisible church. Those in the invisible church cannot break the New Covenant because God preserves them, but those who are not elect and are in the visible church can break the outward administration of the New Covenant via apostasy.