The Newness of the New Covenant

Jeffrey Niell

Hebrews 8:10-13[1]

“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,

when I will effect a new covenant

with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;

not like the covenant which I made with their fathers

on the day when I took them by the hand

to lead them our of the land of Egypt;

for they did not continue in My covenant,

and I did not care for them, says the Lord.

For this is the covenant that I will make

with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord:

I will put My laws into their minds,

and I will write them upon their hearts.

And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen, and everyone his brother,

saying, “Know the Lord,” for all shall know Me,

from the least to the greatest of them.

For I will be merciful to their iniquities,

and I will remember their sins no more.”

When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete.

But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

What is new about the New Covenant? And what does that question have to do with baptism? With ever increasing frequency, Hebrews 8 and particularly the quotation from Jeremiah 31:31-34 is being marshaled in an attempt to argue against paedo-, or covenant, baptism. This recent contention is one that concerns membership in the New Covenant: just who are to be considered part of the New Covenant and, therefore, recipients of the covenant sign of baptism? This question is part of the discussion over the recipients of baptism. The assertion is that membership in the New Covenant is qualitatively different than covenant membership under the Old Covenant, and Hebrews 8 is being cited as a passage that defends this assumption.

Those who argue for this position will claim that membership in the New Covenant is significantly different from membership in the Old Covenant and that, therefore, the children of believers should not be recognized as covenant members and be baptized. In appealing to Hebrews 8, a consideration of the newness of the New Covenant is right and proper, both theologically and exegetically. Something is new. The element of newness is not in question; however, this argument against covenant baptism goes further. By appealing to the latter portion of Hebrews 8:11—“for they shall all know Me, from the least to the greatest of them”—it is asserted that membership (and the signs of membership, baptism and the Lord’s Supper) in the New Covenant is restricted to those who “know the Lord.” The conclusion is then drawn: since “knowing the Lord” is something that must be evident and discernible among all the members of the covenant, paedobaptism should not be permitted since infants are not able to show evidence of their faith.

This position suffers from many weaknesses. Apart from the limited (if any) historical support for such an interpretation, such a reading presents itself upon a platform of poor exegesis. This novel interpretation fails to take into account the true nature of the Old Covenant and fails to adequately take into account the context of the Epistle to the Hebrews and, therefore, founders in the immediate context where the Jeremiah quotation is found.[2]

Hebrews 8 is being touted as the passage that denies covenant membership to the children of adult covenant members. In 1997 when Dr. John MacArthur debated R.C. Sproul on the topic of baptism, he noted the “watershed” importance of the Jeremiah passage. MacArthur asserted,

You don’t have a whole group of covenant people in which there is a little believing remnant in the New Testament, and if you ever do question that, then you need to deal with the text of Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is the watershed issue, I believe, on this whole discussion. In Jeremiah 31:31-34, he promises the New Covenant, and here’s what Jeremiah says, “There is a covenant coming. It’s not like the covenant you know; it is a new covenant,” and he says this, “Here’s how it’s different.” And of all the options Jeremiah could have picked, of all the things that Jeremiah could have said, of all the choices that he could have made to distinguish the New Covenant from the Old, this is what he said (verse 34): “They shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.” The essence of the New Covenant is everybody in it knows God savingly. That is, I think, the significant distinction between belonging to the Abrahamic Covenant ethnically and belonging to the New Covenant savingly. And so a sign that suited an ethnic covenant is not parallel to a sign that suits a saving covenant, and therein baptism is to be made distinct from circumcision, and again I remind you that Scripture does make no such connection.

Hebrews 8 has, in many circles, moved to center stage in the discussion over baptism. Supposedly, Hebrews 8 has become the millstone around the neck of paedobaptism. This brief article shall concern itself with the Jeremiah quotation that is found in Hebrews 8 and show that an interpretation derived from the context of Hebrews does nothing to disprove the practice of paedobaptism. Initially, we will have to deal with many misconceptions. Due to the influence of dispensationalism, significant misunderstandings surround this Hebrews passage. Simply stated, this eighth chapter of Hebrews is often thought to teach certain things that are new about the New Covenant that simply are not new at all. We shall begin by clearing the table of many false ideas about the newness of the New Covenant. Then we shall be able to set the table for proper understanding; our discussion will then present an interpretation of the passage that accords with the immediate context of Hebrews (6:20 through 10:39), the overall context of the Epistle, and the entirety of Biblical, covenant theology. These points will show that God has implemented no change whatsoever in covenant membership in the New Covenant: children of believers are still included in the congregation of God’s people as they have been throughout redemptive history. The exclusion of children in the covenant community is not a characteristic of the New Covenant.

What is not new about the New Covenant.

In striving to know what is new about the New Covenant, part of the answer is found in Hebrews 8; however, in coming to this passage, many things that are not new about the New Covenant are often presented as being new. As a matter of fact, many of the very things described in this quotation from Jeremiah were precious realities in the Old Covenant as well. Many misunderstandings come about because of the failure to properly understand the experience of the regenerate in the Older Covenant. From the outset, note that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews inserts the entire quotation of Jeremiah 31:31-34 to assert the truths of the New Covenant. The entire quotation is concerned with the “newness,” not just verse 11, so whatever interpretation is derived from this text must be applied to the entire quotation. One cannot come to a single verse and declare, “This is what is new!” without regard for the other phrases and realities; the author is making a point about the newness of the New Covenant, and the quotation from Jeremiah corroborates that point. Let us now begin to consider some specific matters that are not new in the New Covenant.

The passage does not teach a radical separation between the peoples of the Old and New Testaments.

“I will effect a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (8:8).

“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel” (8:10).

The passage is clear: this new covenant will be made with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. The Church of this New Covenant era is referred to as Judah and Israel, the people of God. This fact is in perfect consonance with the teaching of the New Testament. The Apostle Paul writes to the Church in Galatia and refers to the saints as “the Israel of God” (6:16) and refers to himself and the disciples in Philippi as members of “the circumcision” (3:2). The Church in the New Covenant era is frequently described in the same terms used to refer to the people of God during the Old Covenant administration (1 Peter 2:9-10; Romans 9:24-26). Additionally, note that God did not initiate a new standard of conduct for His people in the New Covenant era. The text is clear: “I will put my laws into their minds, and I will write them upon their hearts” (8:10). God’s law, the transcript of His holiness and expectation for His people, being upon the hearts of His people is not part of the newness of the New Covenant

If we are going to assert that the newness of the New Covenant is found, in part, in this passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews, we must first take into account that no radical separation exists between the peoples of God in the Old and New testaments—they are referred to by the same designation. Furthermore, an accurate interpretation of the newness of the New Covenant will properly account for this nomenclature being applied to the saints of the New Covenant era. We must also note that the standard of conduct is the same: God will write His own law upon their hearts and place it in the minds of His covenant members.

The passage does not teach that the New Covenant is exactly the same as the previous covenant.

“Not like the covenant which I made with their Fathers…” (8:9).

Admittedly, differences do exist between the Old and New covenants. The New Covenant is distinct from the previous one, which is the issue before us. The very passage under consideration demands this recognition. Covenant theology clearly and emphatically acknowledges that the New Covenant is distinctive. All too often, covenant theologians have been accused of treating the New Testament as if it were the Old. This misrepresentation of Covenant Theology is not helpful. While realizing that the new covenant is distinct from the previous one, a person must consider the question, “In what way(s) is it different?” Is the newness something that pertains to its essential nature, making it qualitatively different from the previous covenant, or is the newness something that pertains to membership? Perhaps both nature and membership? Those who would utilize the Hebrews passage to argue against paedobaptism would answer this last question in the affirmative.

The support for this assertion is said to be found in the very quotation from Jeremiah that is under consideration. Both membership and nature are different due to the supposed fact that, in it, “all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest of them” (8:11). However, not only is this interpretation of the phrase “from the least to the greatest” unable to accomplish what some enlist it to do, but such an interpretation founders upon the rocks of the rest of the New Testament as well. For example, New Covenant disciples are warned—with the very same warnings given to our fathers—to not prove themselves to be covenant rebels (Hebrews 2:1-3; 3:7-4:2; 6:4-8; 10:26-31; 12:25-29; John 15:1-7; Romans 11:17-24; Acts 14:22). If the newness of the New Covenant means that every single member knows the Lord savingly, it proves far too much and is isolated from the rest of the New Testament. We must be careful to avoid equating covenant membership with election while we recognize that Scripture exhorts New Covenant disciples to continue on in the faith. We shall see that the distinction between the New Covenant and the previous one is not one that relates to its essential nature or membership. The distinction about the newness of the New Covenant is something altogether different.

The passage does not teach that the newness of the New Covenant pertains to the internal in contrast to the external; internal religion is not new in the New Covenant.

“I will put My laws into their minds, and I will write them upon their hearts” (8:10).

Internal religion has been a precious reality throughout redemptive history. To assert that what is new about the New Covenant is that now matters of religion and faith are internal rather than external is simply not true. Once again, the influence of dispensationalism has infected proper Biblical interpretation. The Shema[3] is clear: “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! And you shall love the Lord your God “with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart” (Deuteronomy 6:4-6). Internal, “heart” religion is not new in the New Covenant era, yet MacArthur comments upon the text of Hebrews 8 as if the newness of the New Covenant pertains to the internal. He wrote,

The New Covenant will have a different sort of law—an internal not an external law. Everything under the old economy was primarily external. Under the Old Covenant obedience was primarily out of fear of punishment…. Even when the old law was given, of course, it was intended to be in His people’s hearts (Deut. 6:6). But the people could not write it on their hearts like they could write it on their doorposts. And at this time the Holy Spirit, the only changer of hearts, was not yet given to believers…. In the New Covenant true worship is internal, not external, real, not ritual.[4]

Leon Morris comments similarly. He wrote,

The first point is that that the new covenant is inward and dynamic: it is written on the hearts and minds of the people. A defect in the old had been its outwardness. It had divinely given laws, indeed; but it was written on tablets of stone (Exod. 32:15-16). The people had not been able to live up to what they knew was the word of God. It remained external.[5]

And Philip E. Hughes is similarly incorrect when he writes,

This new covenant, not like the covenant made with the people through Moses, would be of grace, not of works; radical, not external; everlasting, not temporary; meeting man’s deepest need and transforming his whole being, because from beginning to end it would be the work, not of man, but of God himself. In other words, the law which formerly was external and accusing now becomes internal, an element of the redeemed nature, and a delight to fulfill.[6]

These writers shockingly assert that the internal operations of divine grace were not present for the Old Covenant saint. MacArthur opines that Old Covenant obedience was out of fear of punishment, that the Holy Spirit had not yet been given to believers, and that worship in that time was not real. The Bible militates against such ideas. Morris and Hughes clearly assert that the law was not internal until the New Covenant, implying that this internalized aspect is much of the newness of the New Covenant. The Bible teaches otherwise.

Regeneration is impossible apart from the work of the Spirit of God—truly, “the only changer of hearts”—and since regenerate persons walked the earth during the time before Christ, they must have been made alive due to the work of the Spirit of God. Abraham is presented to the New Covenant Church as an example of justification by faith (Romans 4). The saints mentioned in the “Hall of Faith” of Hebrews 11 are included because of faith, and they all are saints of the Older Covenant Church and examples for us. Walter C. Kaiser’s comments are helpful:

But a moment of careful reflection will reveal that something has been left out. If the Holy Spirit was not active in the individual lives of believers in the OT, would this mean that they were unregenerate? Since the Holy Spirit is the only One who can bring new life and effect subjectively the salvation that Christ would secure for them objectively, did this mean that OT believers did not possess faith—which is always said to be the gift of God (effected by the Holy Spirit) and not of works, lest any man or woman…should boast (Eph. 2:8-9)?[7]

The Holy Spirit was obviously present prior to Christ’s ascension, otherwise blasphemy against the Holy Spirit would have been nonsensical (Matthew 12). Nehemiah, in his corporate prayer of confession, knows of the work of the Spirit in guidance and conviction (Nehemiah 9:20,30; Zechariah 7:12). Proverbs speaks of the Spirit being poured out upon the penitent (1:23), and Stephen, in his accurate discourse of the history of Hebrew heritage, refers to the rebellion and resistance of the Jews as a resisting of the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51). Furthermore, Jesus expected Nicodemus, a teacher of the law, to have been familiar with the work of the Spirit in regeneration: “Are you a teacher of Israel, and do not understand these things?” (John 3:10).

But even more compelling is the fact that the experience of the Old Covenant saint was one in which the law of God was written upon his heart. To assert the contrary is to completely miss the teaching of the Older Testament. The Psalmist is clear:

The righteous will inherit the land,

and dwell in it forever.

The mouth of the righteous utters wisdom,

and his tongue speaks justice.

The law of his God is in his heart; his steps do not slip. (Psalm 37:29-31)

I delight to do Thy will, O my God,

Thy law is within my heart. (Psalm 40:8)

To state the matter as simply as possible, the writing of the law of God upon the hearts of His people is not new in the New Covenant nor are the internal operations of God’s Holy Spirit upon the hearts and minds of His people new in the New Covenant. They were precious realities for the Old Covenant saint as well.[8] Since these are not new aspects in the New Covenant, what then is new about the New Covenant? Before answering this question, we must deal with a few other areas of misunderstanding.

Divine initiative is not new in the New Covenant.

“When I will effect a new covenant” (8:8).

“For this is the covenant that I will make…I will put My laws…I will write them” (8:10).

“For I will be merciful…and I will remember their sins no more” (8:12).

Comments here will be brief. Divine initiative is a must, otherwise no one would be saved. Throughout the Bible, God shows Himself to be the One who accomplishes everything according to the counsel of His will and nothing can thwart His purposes (Ephesians 1:11; Psalm 115:3; 135:6; Job 42:2). Our salvation—our justification and sanctification—begins and ends with our merciful Heavenly Father. The regeneration (new life) granted by our Lord is infectious. It infects the entirety of our being so that the life we now live, we live by faith (faith too, being a gift from God) in the Son of God who loved us and gave Himself up for us (Galatians 2:20). “We love, because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19). We live for His glory because He first gave us life. Divine initiative is not new. Abraham was justified by faith, the gift of God (Romans 4; Galatians 3:8-9). God, throughout redemptive history, has chosen His people—“Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Malalchi 1:2-3)—and hardened others, such as Pharoah (Exodus 4:21; Romans 9:11-18).

The covenantal relationship is not new in the New Covenant.

“And I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (8:10).

The covenant relationship between God and His people is not new in the New Covenant. This precise terminology, as with the law being written on the hearts of God’s people, is used throughout redemptive history to speak of those in covenant with the Lord. It is the very language of covenant relationship throughout the Bible and is applied to people in both the Old and New Testaments.

‘I will also walk among you and be your God, and you shall be My people. (Leviticus 26:12)

“Hear the words of this covenant, and speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, “Cursed is the man who does not heed the words of this covenant which I commanded your forefathers in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, ‘Listen to My voice, and do according to all which I command you; so you shall be My people, and I will be your God.’ (Jeremiah 11:2-4)

Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people. (2 Corinthians 6:16)

And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He shall dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be among them. (Revelation 21:3)

From the Old to the New Testament, those in covenant with the Lord have been described as “My people,” the people of God, and those among whom God walks. This truth is not new in the New Covenant era. The phraseology of Hebrews 8, if it is truly referring to something new, must be referring to something else, and that to which it is referring must be understood according to the context in which it is found.

“And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen, and everyone his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest of them” (8:11).

Throughout redemptive history the people of God have been taught and marked as a people who know the Lord. Teaching and knowledge of the Lord is not new in the New Covenant. God has sent His prophets and provided scribes and experts in the Law for the instruction of His people. This fact ought to be unquestioned. Nonetheless, the phraseology is stated negatively: “they shall not.” Something is going to cease; it will disappear in the New Covenant era, and it will pertain to teaching and the knowledge of the Lord. It has to do with a form of teaching that occurred among the covenant people of the Lord.

Let’s consider a couple of points of clarification before we proceed any further. First, the passage speaks of a form of teaching, but it does not mean that the Israelites went about among one another saying, “Hey, fellow citizen, know the Lord.” Such a practice is not found in the Old Testament. Moreover, there was a problem with the assumption of divine acceptance on the basis of physical descent from Abraham (Matthew 3:9-10; Romans 9:8). Second, whatever the “teaching” and “knowledge” that is to cease are, they cannot refer to the teaching gifts that have been given to the Church (Ephesians 4). Neither can it have reference to the teaching responsibilities given to parents with regard to their children (Ephesians 6:1-4). These teachings are still present among the New Covenant saints.

Presently, we are simply asserting what is not new about the New Covenant. What this teaching and knowledge actually refer to will be dealt with below. Some fail to give an accurate interpretation of this passage because they fail to consider the first portion of Hebrews 8:11. Frequently, readers will make an uninformed jump to the latter portion of the verse (“for they shall all know Me, from the least to the greatest of them”) interpreting it without regard for that to which it is connected.[9] We do not question that this knowledge will have a universal effect within the New Covenant. The text is clear: “for all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest of them.” We also admit, however, that this statement pertains to some type of teaching and knowledge that was present during the Old Covenant administration. Before carefully examining the meaning of this quotation from Jeremiah, one more misunderstanding needs to be cleared away.

“For I will be merciful to their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more” (8:12).

God’s full pardon for sinners was just as present and real for saints in the Old Testament as it is for saints in the New. We have already pointed out that the Apostle Paul puts Abraham forth in Romans 4 as an example of one who is justified by faith. We have also referenced Hebrews 11, the “Hall of Faith,” for numerous examples of Old Testament redeemed saints. Salvation has always been by grace and through faith. This fact was true for Ruth the Moabitess, Uriah the Hittite, and Onesimus. Full pardon, full remission of sins, and God’s abundant grace and mercy poured out upon the sinners He receives has been a precious reality throughout redemptive history. The Psalmist declares this truth frequently:

The Old Testament saint delighted in this truth: “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth” (Exodus 34:6). So, the question must be asked, “What is new about the New Covenant?” No one can assert that Old Testament saints were only partially redeemed whereas those in the New are fully redeemed. Forgiveness from the sovereign wellspring of God’s abundant mercy has been placed upon saints throughout the ages,[11] so what then is new about the New Covenant?

We have seen that Hebrews 8 is pivotal in our understanding of the newness of the New Covenant and that we must consider it in any attempt to answer the question before us. We have had to, first of all, clear away many misunderstandings and misconceptions in order to pursue a proper interpretation of this passage. We have seen that the people of God, in the New Covenant era, are still spoken of as the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Furthermore, we have seen many things that are not new in the New Covenant. For example, God’s standard for covenant obedience remains His law; it is written upon the hearts and minds of His disciples in both testaments.[12] The internal operations of divine grace are not new in the New Covenant era, nor is divine initiative or the language of covenant relationship: “I will be their God, and they shall be My people.” These truths are precious realities for the disciples in both testaments, as is the role of teaching and the privilege of being taught. Finally, we noted that full pardon, the remission of sins by a gracious God, is not new in the New Covenant. All of these things—since these matters are not new in the New Covenant—demand an explanation. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews is making a point about the newness of the New Covenant, and everything mentioned in the Jeremiah quotation can, in one sense, be understood as not new at all. The writer must mean something else, and whatever this “something else” is, it must accord with the context of the epistle. To this explanation we now turn.

In accordance with the immediate context of the Epistle to the Hebrews, particularly 6:20 through chapter 10, the newness of the New Covenant pertains to the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace in worship and obligation. More particularly, the ceremonies of religious observance have been abrogated—they have been “put out of gear,” for they have been fulfilled. While the meaning and the intention of the ceremonies have been eternally validated, their practice is no longer required. These ordinances pointed forward to prefigure the person and work of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, who has now come. Jesus Christ is our High Priest, our final sacrifice, and the One who dwelt (tabernacled) among us. All of the shadows of the Old Covenant administration of the Covenant of Grace, since they were by nature temporary, have ceased with the coming of the substance, the reality they prefigured. This interpretation accords best with the immediate context (6:20-10:39) and with the overall argument of this Epistle, one which unquestionably establishes the supremacy of Jesus Christ. This assertion can be stated negatively and positively. To state this assertion negatively: the newness of the New Covenant is seen in the cessation of the practice of the ceremonial aspects of the law. [13] To state it positively: Jesus Christ has fulfilled the law. He has become our perfect High Priest and has accomplished our redemption (atonement) through the perfect sacrifice of Himself. It now remains for us to establish this interpretation as that which best accords with the context.

This interpretation which understands the meaning of Hebrews 8 to refer to the ceremonial aspects, that is, the outward elements, of the covenant of grace is not a novel interpretation that someone has recently foisted upon the text. The Reformed Baptist A.W. Pink, explained that the passage does indeed refer to the outward, ceremonial administration of the covenant. A series of comments by Pink would be helpful at this point. He wrote,

But at this point a difficulty, already noticed, may recur to our minds: Were not the things mentioned in Heb. 8:10-13, the grace and mercy therein expressed, actually communicated to God’s elect both before Sinai and afterwards? Did not all who truly believed and feared God enjoy these same identical blessings? Unquestionably. What then is the solution? This: the apostle is not here contrasting the internal operations of Divine grace in the Old and N.T. saints, but as Calvin rightly taught, the “reference is to the economical condition of the Church.” The contrast is between that which characterized the Judaic and the Christian dispensations in the outward confirmation of the covenant.[14]

The apostle’s object is obvious. It was to the old covenant that the whole administration of the Levitical priesthood was confined…. But the introduction of the new Priesthood necessarily abolished that covenant, and put an end to all the sacred ministrations which belong to it. This is which the apostle here undertakes to prove.[15]

What we shall here endeavor to treat of is the administration of that covenant, as it was made known by God, and the various forms in which it was established among His saints.[16]

Instead, in Heb. 8 the apostle is treating of such an establishment of the new covenant as demanded the revocation of the Sinaitic consititution. What this “establishment” was, is made clear in Heb. 9 and 10: it was the ordinances of worship connected with it.[17]

Pink’s comments are precisely in line with those of John Calvin as he commented on Jeremiah 31. Calvin wrote,

He afterwards says, I will put my Law in their inward parts. By these words he confirms what we have said, that the newness, which he before mentioned, was not so as to the substance, but as to the form only: for God does not say here, “I will give you another Law,” but I will write my Law, that is, the same Law, which had formerly been delivered to the Fathers. He then does not promise anything different as to the essence of the doctrine, but he makes the difference to be in the form only.[18]

Since it is so, it cannot be inconsistent with the truth and faithfulness of God, that the ceremonies should cease as to their use, while the Law itself remained unchanged. We now then see that the Apostle (writer of Hebrews) faithfully interpreted the design of the Prophet (Jeremiah) by accommodating his testimony to the abrogation of the ceremonies.[19]

Remarkably, one of the most learned and gifted communicators among the Anabaptists, Balthasar Hubmaier, understood the context of Hebrews to be referring to the removal of the ceremonial aspects of the law.[20] In this, we affirm that the Bible does not teach two ways of salvation.[21] One covenant of grace is simply administered differently in the New Covenant than in the Old. This understanding is the one required of these words in Hebrews 8.[22] Noting the immediate context of the epistle and Jeremiah’s usage of the word “new” establishes this interpretation. The Hebrew word is qadash and means “to renew.” Kaiser’s comments are clear and helpful:

But Jeremiah’s promise of a “New Covenant” (Jer. 31:31-34) appears to many to mean that the program announced to Abraham and David has been superseded, or at least attenuated. However, this confusion results from attaching a modern meaning to the word “new.” In Jeremiah’s usage, it is meant only to “renew,” as can be seen from the use of the same Hebrew word for the “new moon.”[23]

The immediate context of this section of the Epistle of Hebrews is one that deals with the ceremonial aspects of the law. Whatever interpretation a person gives to the words of the Jeremiah quotation in Hebrews 8, it must fit the context. While the quotation is concerned with the newness of the New Covenant, the entire surrounding context is concerned with that which was ceremonial, that is, that which pertained to the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace prior to the New Covenant era. The external ceremonies were temporary, they were growing old and ready to disappear (Hebrews 8:13). Whatever was a shadow is fulfilled by the reality. The types (patterns)[24] are fulfilled by Jesus Christ.

The ceremonial law is also termed the “restorative” or “redemptive” law. These laws pointed out, or unto, the manner of redemption. They did not provide redemption; they typified it as well as the Redeemer. The ceremonies prefigured the person and work of the Messiah who was to come. We can understand them in that they “illustrated” the way of reconciliation. The ceremonial law was the gospel in figures, the gospel in pictures. Because of their typological function, we can see that they were, necessarily, temporary. This fact is beautifully seen in the Epistle of Hebrews. God has taken the priesthood, particularly the High Priest, and the work of the priests out of the way, for the writer of Hebrews explains that Jesus is better than Aaron and the Levitical priesthood. Jesus is our High Priest who, in the offering of Himself, has accomplished redemption (see Hebrews 2:17; 3:1; 4:15; 5:5-6; 6:20; 7-10). The ceremonies are no longer to be practiced, yet their meaning is fully established. The Melchizedekian priesthood abides and is better than the Levitical priesthood. We still have a High Priest, He still “entered through the tabernacle” (9:11), and we still have a sacrifice. The newness of the New Covenant is seen in “the first becoming obsolete and ready to disappear” (8:13), and “the first” is fully defined in chapter 9, a chapter that deals extensively with the outward elements, the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace prior to the inauguration of the New Covenant. “The first,” that which was prior to the New Covenant, must be understood as referring to the ceremonial aspects of the law, things that are no longer practiced yet their intention is fully validated.[25]

We have already seen that God has written His moral law upon the hearts of His people throughout redemptive history and that, therefore, such is not new for the people of God.[26] So, these words in Hebrews 8 about the writing of the law upon the heart, while related, must refer to something else which is unique in the New Covenant. The context bears this point out. The people of God in the New Covenant have a new relationship to the ceremonies of participation in the Covenant of Grace. What is new is for the ceremonial law to be written on the hearts of God’s people. Prior to the New Covenant, inaugurated by Jesus Christ, the command to obey the ceremonies was not an optional matter for the follower of the Lord. Since the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, those ceremonies are no longer in effect and, thus, cannot be observed and any attempt to revert to them is a falling from grace, a severance from Christ (Galatians 5:4).

And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen, and everyone his brother, saying, “Know the Lord,” for all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest of them. (8:11)

To assert that the ceremonial law is in view accords nicely with the immediate context in which the Jeremiah quotation is found, but in what way are we to understand the ceremonial law with regard to Hebrews 8:11? Let us first make sure that our “basics” are in place. First, this descriptive phrase is the only one in the quotation that is stated negatively: “they shall not.” It refers to something that was part of the ceremonial legislation of the Old Covenant that is going to cease, will no longer be practiced, and will be removed in the New Covenant. Second, teaching is involved. The passage is addressing something with regard to the spreading of the knowledge of the Lord that previously occurred among the covenant people of God: “they shall not teach…saying ‘Know the Lord.’” Third, the ceasing of this teaching and knowledge will be pervasive. It will affect all of those in the covenant: “for they shall all know Me, from the least to the greatest of them.” At the very least, these three basic elements are present in the verse. From them, one can see that Hebrews 8:11 is referring to the removal of the Old Covenant priesthood and the people and duties associated with it.

That the Levitical priesthood and its attendant duties are in view is based upon the immediate context and an understanding of the place and function of the priests under the Old Covenant administration of the Covenant of Grace. We shall see that the priests occupied a special place as those “known” by the Lord and that they conveyed, or communicated, the knowledge of the Lord to their fellow citizens. We shall now see how these words in Hebrews 8:11 refer to the priests and priesthood of the Old Covenant.

The Levitical priesthood came from the sons of Aaron. Particularly, these Levites who served as priests were from the households of Kohath, Merari, and Gershon (Numbers 4; Exodus 6:16-19; 1 Chronicles 23:6), not any others. Service as a priest was not “equal opportunity employment”; it was established on the basis of a law of physical requirement (Hebrews 7:16). The inability to trace one’s lineage after Babylonian exile meant that many Levites had to stop functioning as priests (Nehemiah 7:64-65). The Old Covenant priests were a distinctive class.

Much of the distinctiveness of the Old Covenant priests is seen in the unique relationship they had with the Lord before whom they served. They were the ones who made offerings “before the Lord,” who served in His presence, serving in His tabernacle (Hebrew—“dwelling place”). Levi is the tribe that, in some special sense, knew the Lord and was given the privileged duty to teach its fellow citizens:

And of Levi, he said… “They shall teach Thine ordinances to Jacob, and Thy law to Israel. They shall put incense before Thee, and whole burnt offerings on Thine altar.” (Deuteronomy 33:8,10)

The Old Covenant priests were in a special relationship before the Lord, whom they represented. They were in a relationship of distinct knowledge of the Lord that was not granted to others in Israel, and, in this role, they were the teachers of Israel. They, in their priestly duties of sacrifice and temple ministrations, revealed the manner of redemption to the Old Covenant congregation. These Old Covenant priests, in dealing with the ceremonial aspects of the law, revealed the gospel in pictures and illustrated the way of salvation. These priests were the ones who exercised the unique teaching that occurred under the Old Covenant that was to cease at the time of the New Covenant. Thus, we see that all of the basics are in place. First, this function occurred during the Old Covenant. Second, this was a teaching function that revealed the knowledge of the Lord. And third, this teaching function, designed by God to eventually cease, affected all of those in the covenant. The Levitical priests had a sort of intimacy, a type of knowing of the Lord that was not common among the general citizenry of Israel. As Scripture clearly teaches, “So the Levites shall be Mine” (Numbers 3:12).[27] God established a distinctive relationship with the priests, the Levites. In Malachi, this is referred to as “the covenant of Levi” (2:4,8).[28] Part of the privileged responsibility of this covenant made with Levi was one of teaching and instruction.

True instruction was in his mouth, and unrighteousness was not found on his lips; he walked with Me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many back from iniquity. For the lips of a priest should preserve knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. (Malachi 2:6-7)

Those citizens who were not of the priestly caste are described as “laymen” in many of our translations. The Hebrew word for this term is helpful for us in our understanding of Hebrews 8 and the newness of the New Covenant. The Hebrew word is zur and is also used to refer to those who are foreigners, outsiders, or strangers. This word can be legitimately translated as “stranger,” as one who is an outsider. This fact is clearly seen in passages that refer to the distinctive place and function of the Old Covenant priests.

So when the tabernacle is to set out, the Levites shall take it down; and when the tabernacle encamps, the Levites shall set it up. But the layman who comes near shall be put to death. (Numbers 1:51)

So you shall appoint Aaron and his sons that they may keep their priesthood, but the layman who comes near shall be put to death. (Numbers 3:10)

Now those who were to camp before the tabernacle eastward, before the tent of meeting toward the sunrise, are Moses and Aaron and his sons, performing the duties of the sanctuary for the obligation of the sons of Israel; but the layman coming near was to be put to death. (Numbers 3:38)

As a reminder to the sons of Israel that no layman who is not of the descendants of Aaron should come near to burn incense before the Lord; that he might not become like Korah and his company—just as the Lord had spoken to him through Moses. (Numbers 16:40)

Those people who were not priests were described as strangers (laymen) and, in this sense, did not know the Lord in the way that the priests did.[29] The Lord is jealous for His glory and for those who represent Him in this priestly way. Not everyone could be a priest, and the priestly duties had to be performed with precision—otherwise death could ensue.[30] God required precision in the offerings and for those who offered because they prefigured the person and work of the Messiah who was to come. Distinctiveness surrounds the Levitical priesthood; the entirety of the office and function of the priesthood was one of distinction. They were a distinct class, with distinct duties. Even their garments, the anointing oil, and the incense spoke of their distinctiveness. The role and function of this priesthood was a distinctive teaching indeed.[31] Therefore, when God removed the priesthood (the persons and the work), it is precisely described with the words, “I will be your God and you shall be My people and you shall all know Me, from the least to the greatest.”[32]

That Hebrews 8:11 is referring to the removal of the Levitical priesthood is further substantiated by the words “from the least to the greatest of them.” Every single occurrence of these words, when used in conjunction with each other and when referencing people, refers to classes or ranks of persons.[33] This meaning is consistent throughout the Old and New Testaments. The truth that the Old Covenant priesthood was unquestionably a distinct class of people within the covenant community and the fact that the context is dealing with matters ceremonial grants further confirmation to the interpretation.

In Genesis 19:11, God struck with blindness men “both small (qaton) and great (gadol)” who were striving to engage in homosexual acts with Lot’s visitors. The blindness struck all of those who pursued this wickedness without regard for age or social status. These men were previously described: “the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter” (Genesis 19:4). Another example is found in Deuteronomy 1:17. The judges appointed by Moses were to show no partiality in judgment: “you shall hear the small (qaton) and great (gadol) alike.” Jonah 3:5 records the citywide effect of Jonah’s preaching. All persons, from king to subject, were affected: “Then the people of Ninevah believed in God; and they called a fast and put on sackcloth from the greatest (gadol) to the least (qaton) of them.” While additional passages could be cited,[34] each of these examples show that the phrase is to be understood as referring to all ranks or classes of persons.

The Hebrew phrase that is translated “least…greatest” (sometimes rendered “great and small”) is used seven times in Jeremiah, and every time it is used, it refers to classes or ranks of persons. Jeremiah’s usage is consistent. When referring to the least and greatest, he is referring to all classes of people (6:13; 8:10; 16:6; 31:34; 42:1,8; 44:12).

This meaning is the same one found in the Greek New Testament as well. The words “least to the greatest” of Hebrews 8:11 are the Greek words mikros and megas. These words occur in conjunction with each other eight times in the Greek New Testament, and they always refer to persons of various classes or ranks. Acts 26:22 provides an excellent example. Paul is before King Agrippa and declares, “I stand to this day testifying both to small (mikros) and great (megas), stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place.” Paul had just recited the path that his preaching had taken: he had spoken to those in Damascus, others in Jerusalem, and then throughout the region of Judea—“even to the Gentiles” (26:20)—and now, he is before King Agrippa. Paul, speaking before one of the “great” ones (megas, a king) has been before all others, including the Gentiles (mikros). Truly, Paul’s preaching took place before all ranks and classes of men. The remainder of the New Testament usage confirms this understanding.[35]

Hebrews 8:11 explains that part of the newness of the New Covenant is found in the removal of the Levitical, Old Covenant priesthood: an office that was especially engaged in teaching and representing the knowledge of the Lord among their fellow citizens. This function is something that Jeremiah explained will one day no longer occur; it will cease. And this teaching that will cease is truly something that will have a pervasive effect among all the covenant people. Now that God has removed this medium of the knowledge of the Lord and is adding in the Gentiles in significant measure, it is accurate to say, “they shall all know Me, from the least to the greatest of them.”[36]

The ceremonial aspects of the Covenant of Grace are also in view in Hebrews 8:12. Since God’s grace, mercy, and forgiveness is not new in the New Covenant, these words must refer to something else and must accord with the context. Hebrews 8:12 refers to the abrogation of the ceremonies of sacrifice, the priestly duties, of the Old Covenant. While the sacrifices (the sacrificial system) of the ceremonial law pointed forward to the Redeemer and His work of redemption, they also provided an every-occurrence reminder of sin for the people. Redemption was not found in the sacrifices; it was illustrated in the sacrifices, and with every illustration, the reminder of guilt was present. Hebrews 10:3-4 clearly teaches this:

But in those sacrifices/offerings there is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

God has always been merciful to His people, to their iniquities. The 103^rd Psalm declares that God will separate our sins from us as far as the east is from the west. He has always offered full pardon, but now, in the New Covenant, the every-occurrence reminder is removed. God no longer requires the offerings through the priests: “I will remember their sins no more.” Jesus Christ, the (final) High Priest of our confession, has offered Himself (the final offering) once for all, the final priest and the final sacrifice. “For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified” (10:14).

Jeremiah 31 is cited again in Hebrews 10:16-17 and this is in a context concerned with the ceremonial aspects of the Old Covenant.[37] Admittedly, chapter 10 is dealing with the applied contrasts between the old and the new, the first and the second. Recognizing some of these contrasts between the two administrations of the Covenant of Grace is helpful: the impossibility of pardon through the shadows and the assurance of pardon through Jesus Christ, the sacrifices (plural) and the Sacrifice, the priests (plural) and the Priest, the priests who stand and the One who sat down, the priests who serve daily and the One whose work is completed. These are contrasts between the ceremonies of the Old Covenant and the verities of the New. They are the differences between shadow and substance and between pattern and fulfillment.

The newness of the New Covenant pertains to the external aspects, the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace. The newness of the New Covenant is not found in its nature or membership. A single Covenant of Grace exists, and God’s elect have been justified in the same way throughout redemptive history—by grace and through faith. The quotation of Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews 8 does nothing to establish a change in the membership of those who are in the covenant. Children are not excluded in the New Covenant; membership still includes believers and their children.[38] The congregation of the people of God has included children throughout redemptive history. Children are still included in the New Covenant (Luke 1; Ephesians 6).

[1] I thank my dear friend Pastor Randy Booth for all of the years of laboring together on this topic. Also, the congregation of Emmanuel Covenant Church, which has delighted in this material (as they do in the whole counsel of God), is greatly appreciated for their encouragement and assistance, especially Eric Finley, Kevin Johnson, Richard Klaus, and Mike Munoz.

[2] Ironically, by appealing to this passage in this way, baptists admit that baptism can be discussed by using “dry verses,” that is, discussing baptism with the aid of passages that do not mention baptism. No longer is this something restricted to the proponents of covenant baptism.

[3] Shema is a transliteration from the Hebrew word “to hear,” the first word of Deut 6:4.

[4] John MacArthur, MacArthur New Testament Commentaries, p. 183.

[5] Leon Morris, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 78.

[6] Philip E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 300.

[7] Walter C. Kaiser, Toward Rediscovering the Old Testament, p. 136.

[8] See also Deuteronomy 10:12; 30:14; Psalm 78:8; 119:11, 111; Isaiah 51:7. The internal operations of the Spirit of God are especially recognized during times of covenant renewal and restoration (Jeremiah 24:7; 32:39; Ezekiel 11:19; 18:31; 36:26; Joel 2:16). Furthermore, the covenant sign of circumcision, rather than chiefly pointing to something external or national, pointed primarily to what was to be an inward, spiritual reality of a circumcised heart (Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; 9:25-26; Romans 2:25-29).

[9] The word translated “for” is actually the Greek word hoti and can legitimately be translated as “because,” thus showing the essential correspondence between the first and later portion of this verse. “And they shall not teach…because….”

[10] Once again, the blessedness of singing the Psalms comes before us. For the New Covenant saint who obediently sings the Psalms (Colossians 3:16), the truths of full pardon throughout redemptive history would not be questioned.

[11] See also Deuteronomy 7:7-9; Micah 7:18-19; and Nehemiah 9:17,27,31.

[12] For clarification sake, it is simply being pointed out that many interpret the law referred to in Hebrews 8:10 to be the moral law, which in this sense, is certainly not new in the New Covenant.

[13] The law spoken of in the passage (Hebrews 8) necessarily refers to the ceremonial law for the moral law was a requirement before the ceremonial law was given on Sinai and was a requirement along side of the ceremonial observances. Admittedly, Jesus Christ, in His sinlessness, also has fulfilled the moral law for His people; however, the point at present is one that refers to the context of Hebrews 8, which is one that is concerned with the ceremonial aspects of the law. Suffice it to say that Christ’s perfect fulfillment of the moral law does not change our responsibility to continue to obey it.

[14] A. W. Pink, An Exposition of Hebrews, p. 454.

[15] Ibid, p. 436.

[16] Ibid, p. 448.

[17] Ibid, p. 450.

[18] John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries: Jeremiah, Vol. X., p. 131f.

[19] Ibid, p. 140. It is also helpful to see Calvin’s explanation in the Institutes (II.9.1-4).

[20] Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism, “Dialogue with Zwingli’s Baptism Book,” p. 188. Translated by H. Wayne Pipkin and John H. Yoder. Herald Press, 1989. Hubmaier wrote, “We know that Christ has newly instituted baptism and the Lord’s Supper and abolished the ceremonies, figures, and shadows of the Old Testament with his coming, as the epistles to the Colossians and the Hebrews clearly prove, Col. 2:16ff.; Heb. 8:13.”

[21] The London Baptist Confession of 1689 affirms that “Believers in Old Testament times were justified in precisely the same way as New Testament believers” (11:6).

[22] Further substantiation of this interpretation is found in the writing of John Colquhoun. He wrote,

“[Regarding the meaning of Hebrews 8:6-10] concerning the old and new covenants. The design in this epistle to the Hebrew Christians was to show them the preference of the new dispensation of the covenant of grace, which has taken place since the death of Christ to that old dispensation of it, which had been established at Sinai, and had continued until His death. This the writer illustrates not by stating the difference between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, but by showing the difference between the old dispensation, or former manner of administration, of the covenant of grace and the new dispensation of the same covenant” (A Treatise on the Law and the Gospel, p. 69f. Reprinted, Soli Deo Gloria, 1999, emphasis added.).

Perhaps the clearest presentation, however, of this distinction between the covenant of grace, differently administered between the new and the old is seen in the seventh chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith (7.5-6). Note the clarity of the following paragraphs from the Westminster Confession of Faith:

This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old Testament.

Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new Testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.

[23] Walter C. Kaiser, Toward Rediscovering the Old Testament, p. 25f.

[24] In Hebrews 8:5, we read that all ceremonial aspects of the law shown to Moses on the mountain were to be made according to “the pattern.” The Greek word for pattern is tupos, where we get our word for type.

[25] John Calvin wrote, “The ceremonies… have been abrogated not in effect but only in use. Christ by his coming has terminated them, but has not deprived them of anything of their sanctity; rather he has approved and honored it” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.7.16). Dr. Greg Bahnsen clearly articulated this idea as well when he wrote, “The ceremonial observations no longer apply, but their meaning and intention have been eternally validated” (Theonomy in Christian Ethics, p. 209).

[26] Even non-believers have the “work of the law written on their hearts” according to Romans 2:15.

[27] The Lord, in Jeremiah, speaks of the Levitical priests as “My ministers” and as those “who minister to Me” (33:21-22). However, all of Israel is said to belong to the Lord: “I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine” (Leviticus 20:26; see also Isaiah 43:1 and Ezekiel 16:8). All of the children of Israel belong to the Lord and yet, among the Israelites, the Levites (especially?) belong to the Lord.

[28] According to Nehemiah 13:29, we may speak of a covenant of the priesthood. Therefore, we may refer to the priesthood—and all of its attendant, ceremonial elements—as a “covenant.” This is how we ought to understand the Old, contrasted with the New Covenant that is found in the Epistle of Hebrews. John Calvin understood the ceremonies in this way; “they were only the accidental properties of the covenant, or additions and appendages, and in common parlance, accessories of it. Yet because they were means of administering it, they bear the name ‘covenant,’…To sum up, then, in this passage ‘Old Testament’ means the solemn manner of confirming the covenant, comprised in ceremonies and sacrifices.” (Institutes, II.11.4)

[29] This Hebrew word zur is also used to describe those who did not belong to the nation of Israel (Isaiah 1:7; Jeremiah 5:19; 51:2). The inclusion of the Gentiles, the goyim, in significant measure, is also part of the newness of the New Covenant. See footnote 32 below.

[30] Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron, died as a result of disregarding the command of the Lord with respect to their priestly duties (Leviticus 10). The distinctiveness of the priests is also illustrated in that fact the Lord prescribed distinctive anointing oil to be used only upon the priests as part of their ordination. If this oil was applied to a “layman” (stranger), the one who applied it was to be excommunicated—cut off from among the people (Exodus 30:23-33).

[31] The law of ceremonies functioned in a tutorial, pedagogical manner, according to Galatians 3:24.

[32] We must also see the removal of the ceremonial distinction between Jew and Gentile as part of the newness of the New Covenant. Prior to their inclusion in the New Covenant era, the Gentiles were known as “strangers to the covenants of promise” (Ephesians 2:12). Since Jesus Christ has come, He has reconciled the two groups into one so that the Gentiles “are no longer strangers and aliens.” They are fellow citizens with the saints and are of God’s household (Ephesians 2:16-19).

[33] These words, least and greatest (Hebrew: qaton and gadol), refer to all classes (or ranks) of persons when they are (1) used in connection with each other and (2) are referring to people. Other times the words are used in connection with each other but are not referring to people (weights and measures in Deuteronomy 25:13-14, cities in Ecclesiastes 9:14, east and west in 1 Chronicles 12:15, animals in the sea in Psalm 104:25, and houses in Amos 6:11). Such occurrences do not apply to our context.

[34] See also Genesis 27:15; 1 Samuel 5:9; 30:2; Esther 1:5,20; 1 Chronicles 25:8; 2 Chronicles 15:13; 18:30; and 31:15.

[35] Along with Hebrews 8:11, see also Acts 8:11 and Revelation 11:18; 13:6; 19:5,18; 20:12.

[36] It has been asserted that the knowing of Hebrews 8:11 is a saving knowledge but it must be recognized that know can have a meanings other than saving knowledge (yada, Jeremiah 16:21; Genesis 4:1). As argued throughout this paper, the context is dealing with the removal of the ceremonial aspects of the law and is clearly referring to the “knowing” that is possessed and published by the priests—this is true whether or not they were elect before the foundation of the world. With the author to the Epistle of Hebrews, we must be careful to avoid equating covenant membership with election. This is seen through the warnings of apostasy that are applied to New Covenant members throughout this Epistle—this is referring to apostasy from the covenant not apostasy from election (Hebrews 3:6-4:6; 6:4-6; 10:26-31; 12:14-17, 25-29). The very same examples of Old Covenant faithlessness are applied to members of the New Covenant (Hebrews 3:7-11). Not all disciples continue—in John 6 some “disciples” withdrew from Jesus and followed Him no more (John 6:66); they were disciples, they were not elect. Paul went about “strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith” (Acts 22:14—this passage uses the very same word for continue that is used in Hebrews 8:9 to describe those who were covenant breakers in the Old Testament. Covenant breaking is a reality in the New Covenant as well). Judas was a covenant member who partook of the New Covenant meal (Luke 22) and yet, according to the decree of God, was “the son of perdition.” Judas was a covenant member and a covenant breaker. Jesus describes the fruitless branches of John 15 as “in Me” and yet are cut off and thrown into the fire—they are not cut off from election since the elect have been appointed to have fruit that will remain (John 15:16). There is one tree in Romans 11 and the natural branches (Jews) were cut off for unbelief and the wild branches (Gentiles) are warned about continuing in faith. All of this is in the New Covenant and we must avoid equating covenant membership with election.

[37] When Romans 11:27 quotes Jeremiah 31:34, it refers to the removal of the ceremonial distinction between Jew and Gentile. A distinction that is not made in the New Covenant (Galatians 3:28).

[38] Those who believe Hebrews 8, particularly 8:11, is teaching the exclusion of the children of believers from membership in the New Covenant need to observe that the word “least” (mikros) in 8:11 is used elsewhere in the New Testament to refer to children (Matthew 18:6,10,14; Luke 9:48). This is true also of the Hebrew word for least, qaton (Jeremiah 6:11-13).