Zachary Garris (PCA) recently published Does the Newness of the New Covenant Exclude Children? Hebrews 8 & Infant Baptism. Please give it a read first. I appreciate the opportunity to be sharpened, and to offer some sharpening as well.
Greater in Substance or Degree?
Garris argues that the blessings listed in Hebrews 8 are not new “in substance, but new in degree” because they are all “true of the Old Testament,” pointing to Deut. 30:6, Gen. 17:7, and Ps. 32:5. He means the New Covenant has “greater effectiveness… greater internalization… greater knowledge,” but also “the complete forgiveness of sins because Christ has done what animal sacrifices could not do (8:12; 10:4).”
However, this last comparison is a difference in substance, not degree. Christ did not do what animal sacrifices did, just to a greater degree. Christ did, as Garris acknowledges, “what animal sacrifices could not do.” That is a difference in kind/substance/essence. To be consistent with his interpretation, Garris would have to argue that forgiveness by the blood of Christ was a blessing of the Old Covenant, and we just have greater Christ-forgiveness today (whatever that means). But Scripture explicitly denies that. “Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38-39).
Forgiveness in the Old Covenant
What then of the forgiveness of David’s sin that Garris mentions (Ps. 32:5)? Garris’ argument goes:
P1: If someone in the Old Covenant received ordo salutis blessings (regeneration, saving faith, forgiveness by the blood of Christ) then those blessings are not unique to the New Covenant.
P2: David (someone in the Old Covenant) experienced ordo salutis blessings.
C: Therefore ordo salutis blessings are not unique to the New Covenant.
P1 is false. It assumes those blessings came from the Old Covenant. I suggest this is a better syllogism.
P1: If someone in the Old Covenant received ordo salutis blessings (regeneration, saving faith, forgiveness by the blood of Christ) then they received blessings unique to the New Covenant.
P2: David (someone in the Old Covenant) experienced ordo salutis blessings.
C: Therefore David received blessings unique to the New Covenant.
OT saints were not saved by the Old Covenant. They were saved by the New Covenant. “Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant” (Heb. 9:15).
This has actually been the dominant understanding from at least Augustine onward (see Joshua Moon’s Jeremiah’s New Covenant: An Augustinian Reading), followed by Aquinas, the Lutherans, Owen, and many others, including in our day John Frame, Doug Wilson, and Michael Horton who said “There are clear passages indicating that ‘the forgiveness of sins’ is unique to the New Covenant (“remember their sins no more”; Jer 31:34)… the energies of the Spirit at Pentecost worked retroactively in the lives of OT saints.” Wrestling with Hebrews 8:10, Calvin put it this way “[W]hatever spiritual gifts the fathers obtained, they were accidental as it were to their age; for it was necessary for them to direct their eyes to Christ in order to become possessed of them… There is yet no reason why God should not have extended the grace of the new covenant to the fathers. This is the true solution of the question.”
This is exactly what we see played out in David’s Psalms. Commenting on Psalm 51, Calvin notes “it was utterly vain for him to think of resorting to sacrifices and burnt-offerings with a view to the expiation of his guilt; that his criminality was of such a character, that the ceremonial law made no provision for his deliverance.” David appeals to ceremonial washing for cleansing a leper (Lev 14:8) or an otherwise unclean person (Num 19:19) to deliver him from bloodguilt, something those washings could not do. David asked God to blot out his transgressions, a phrase only used here, in Isaiah’s prophecy of the New Covenant (43:25; 44:22) and Acts 3:19 – and God did (2 Sam 12:13), even though David did not offer an Old Covenant sacrifice. He looked above and beyond the Old Covenant sacrifices to what they pointed to (by way of analogy). He was saved by the New Covenant. Or, to put it another way, the New Covenant is union with Christ.
Regeneration in the Old Covenant
Garris claims regeneration was not unique to the New Covenant by pointing to Deut. 30:6 “And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart[.]” But, as Calvin notes “This promise far surpasses all the others, and properly refers to the new Covenant, for thus it is interpreted by Jeremiah.”
“For they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest”
Garris argues “there are two options for understanding Hebrews 8:11. First… as an expansive-but-not-universal promise. The second option… is that it refers to the end consummation[.]” He does not consider the interpretation of Presbyterians like Samuel Rutherford and David Dickson. Rather than referring this promise to the eschaton, these men take the common Presbyterian distinction between the Covenant of Grace considered externally and internally (or as Garris prefers legal/vital; WLC 31) and argue that 8:11 refers to the New Covenant
as it is internally and effectually fulfilled in the elect according to the decree and the Lords will of purpose… But the parties contracters of the Covenant in the latter respect are, Jer. 31. Heb. 8. only, the house of Judah, the taught of God, the people in whose heart the Law is ingraven… Christ undertook from eternity for the fulfilling of the Covenant of Grace, and bestowing salvation upon them for whom he is Surety: for it is he who makes the new Covenant, Jer. 31.31, 32, 33, 34. Heb. 8.10, 11.
The covenant of life opened, 340
The invisible and not the visible Church is the prin∣cipall, prime, and onely proper subject, with whom the covenant of grace is made, to whom all the promises doe belong… For God saith only of, and to the invisible Church. and not of the visible Church in his gratious purpose, Jerem. 32. 38. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people, Jer. 31. 33. I will put my Law in their inward parts, 34. They shall all know me (all within the covenant) I will forgive their iniquity…
A church in covenant with God, and the Spouse of Christ, and his mysticall Body, and a church which he redeemed with the Blood of God, Acts 20. 28. Eph. 5. 25. 26. Col. 1. 18. 1 Cor. 12. 12. Is a church whereof all the members without exception are taught of God. Jerem. 31. 34. They shall all know me (saith the Lord) from the least, unto the greatest. Esa. 54. 13. All thy children shall be taught of the Lord. And therefore they all haveing heard and learned of the Father, come to Christ, John 6. 45. and therefore have all the anointing within them which teacheth them all things, 1 John 1. 27. And so they have all Eares to heare. Yea among such a company, Esai. 35. 9. 10. there is no Lyon, no ravenous beast, but the Redeemed and Ransom∣ed of the Lord.
The due right of presbyteries, or, A peaceable plea for the government of the Church of Scotland, 249
Berkhof likewise said “The idea that the covenant is fully realized only in the elect is a perfectly Scriptural idea, as appears, for instance, from Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:8-12. Moreover, it is also entirely in line with the relation in which the covenant of grace stands to the covenant of redemption.”
David Dickson said “As to the internal covenant of Grace… They shall all know me, saith the Lord, that is, as Christ doth interpret it, They shall be all taught of God, Joh. 6. 45.”
Jesus on “All Shall Know Me”
Note well Rutherford’s and Dickson’s appeal to John 6:45. Jesus says “It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me[.]” It is rare for John 6:45 to inform reformed paedobaptist interpretations of Hebrews 8:11. When I asked Garris, he did not seem to have previously given it any thought. But this text should be front-and-center as Jesus gives us the correct interpretation! A longer examination of the whole passage will show Jesus is particularly focused on “all” (v37, 39). All that are elected will come to Christ and all of them shall be raised on the last day. To prove this he quotes Isaiah 54:13 and Jeremiah 31:34 (two prophecies where “all” are key).
Jeremiah 31:34 “they shall all know me”
Isaiah 54:13 “All your children shall be taught by the Lord“
He says this prophecy refers to election, the effectual call, and regeneration. Calvin notes “As to the word all, it must be limited to the elect… he fastens on the general phrase, all; because he argues from it, that all who are taught by God are effectually drawn, so as to come… Hence it follows, that there is not one of all the elect of God who shall not be a partaker of faith in Christ.”
Jesus rules out the “expansive-but-not-universal promise” interpretation of Jer. 31:34.
Already/Not Yet?
But what of the “end consummation” interpretation that “‘all’ in the new covenant will in fact know the Lord, but this is not yet fulfilled”? First, this interpretation rightly recognizes that the “all” of Jer. 31:34 refers to everyone in the covenant (“‘all’ in the new covenant will in fact know the Lord” cp Rutherford “all within the covenant”). Jesus says “all” refers to “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father.” The necessary conclusion is that those in the covenant are those who have heard and learned from the Father.
P1: “[T]hey shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest” (Jer. 31:34) refers to everyone in the New Covenant.
P2: “[T]hey shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest” (Jer. 31:34) refers to everyone who has heard and learned from the Father.
C: Everyone in the New Covenant has heard and learned from the Father.
Second, referring this prophecy to the end consummation/age to come breaks Jesus’ logic. Jesus does not quote Jer. 31:34 to prove that everyone in the new heavens and new earth will know the Lord (though that is also an implication). Rather, he quotes Jer 31:34 & Is. 54:13 (“and they will all be taught by God”) to prove that “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.” This refers to “the inward renovation of the heart” (Calvin), which does not happen at the end consummation. This happens now. Garris’ interpretation is that only some will come in this age, not all. Jesus’ interpretation is that all the Father gives him will come to him. When do they come? Now, not in the eternal state. Kostenberger notes
In light of the Jews’ largely negative response to his message, Jesus points out that while his ministry in fact fulfills the prophetic vision that one day – which has now arrived – all people will be taught by God, this applies only to those who are drawn by the Father, the sender of Jesus (6:44), and who subsequently come to believe in him as the Messiah… Jesus asserted people would witness at the present time the fulfillment of the prophetic vision that all would be taught by God (6:45; cf. Isa. 54:13a; see also Jer. 31:34; Joel 3:1-2; 1 Cor. 2:13; 1 Thess. 4:9; 1 John 2:20; Barn. 21:6). According to Jesus, the scope of ‘all’ included those who proved receptive to his teaching (6:45).
Commentary on the NT use of the OT, p.448-50
Third, if “all shall know me” is to be understood as referring to the “not yet” of the age to come, then on this point the New Covenant is just like the Old Covenant. But the author of Hebrews says that on this specific point, the New Covenant is not like the Old Covenant. Garris does not explain how this teaching is not like the Old Covenant. Owen is helpful here
This text hath been looked on as attended with great difficulty and much obscurity; which expositors generally rather conceal than remove… Howbeit some learned men have been so moved with this objection, as to affirm that the accomplishment of this promise of the covenant belongs unto heaven, and the state of glory; for therein alone, they say, we shall have no more need of teaching in any kind. But as this exposition is directly contrary unto the design of the apostle, as respecting the teaching of the new covenant and the testator thereof; when he intends only that of the old, and exalts the new above it; so there is no such difficulty in the words as to force us to carry the interpretation of them into another world…
There was an outward teaching of “every man his neighbor, and every man his brother,” enjoined under the old testament. This the people trusted unto and rested in, without any regard unto God’s teaching by the inward circumcision of the heart. But in the new covenant, there being an express promise of an internal, effectual teaching by the Spirit of God… The instructive ministry of the old testament, as it was such only, and with respect unto the carnal rites thereof, was a ministry of the letter, and not of the Spirit, which did not really effect in the hearts of men the things which it taught…
The knowledge of the LORD may be here taken, not objectively and doctrinally, but subjectively, for the renovation of the mind in the saving knowledge of God. And this neither is nor can be communicated unto any by external teaching alone, in respect whereunto it may be said comparatively to be laid aside, as was intimated before. We have, I hope, sufficiently freed the words from the difficulties that seem to attend them, so as that we shall not need to refer the accomplishment of this promise unto heaven, with many ancient and modern expositors…
Obs. XXII… The proposition is universal, as to the modification of the subject, πάντες, “all;” but in the word αὐτῶν, “of them,” it is restrained unto those alone with whom this covenant is made…
Obs. XXIV. Where there is not some degree of saving knowledge, there no interest in the new covenant can be pretended…
Obs. XXVII. Persons destitute of this saving knowledge are utter strangers unto the covenant of grace; for this is a principal promise and effect of it, wherever it doth take place.
Exposition of Hebrews 8:11
“Legal” New Covenant Membership?
So Rutherford’s interpretation of the passage is correct, over against both of Garris’ options, yet Rutherford still affirmed an “external” New Covenant membership that granted infants the right to be baptized. Does Hebrews 8 only speak of an “internal” New Covenant, in distinction from an “external” New Covenant? The bedrock of this idea is a misunderstanding of the Old Covenant based on a misreading of Romans 9:6. Garris says
the question at hand is whether the new covenant makes the same distinction found in the old covenant—that is, a distinction between legal covenant membership and the vital partaking of all covenant benefits. That distinction was clearly there in the Abrahamic covenant. As Paul says, “they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel” (Romans 9:6). Some who were covenant members legally were not covenant members spiritually.
First, this rests on the same faulty assumption addressed above: that those who were saved in the Old Covenant were saved by the Old Covenant. The fact that Abraham was saved does not entail that he was saved by a “spiritual” membership in the Covenant of Circumcision.
Second, Romans 9:6 does not teach a “dual” membership in the Covenant of Circumcision. Rather, Paul is explaining the typology of Israel that he learned from Jesus (see above). Romans 9 opens with the question of the salvation of Israel according to the flesh. Paul says many (non-salvific) blessings belong to them (v4-5) and then says “But it is not as though the word of God has failed.” His purpose is to explain the meaning of the prophecies of Israel’s restoration (i.e. Jer. 31:31-34) in light of the fact that many of his kinsmen reject the gospel (similar to Jesus’ situation). He says not all who are descended from Israel belong to the eschatological Israel of New Covenant restoration prophecies. So yes, Paul is distinguishing between carnal Israel and spiritual Israel, but this is a distinction in redemptive history between different covenants (rooted in two distinct promises made to Abraham), not a two-fold membership in the same covenant.
He then uses the example of Isaac & Ishmael – not to teach that Isaac was in the Covenant of Circumcision spiritually/internally/vitally, while Ishmael was merely in it carnally/externally/legally – but to teach that God always sovereignly chose who would receive His covenant blessings. God promised Abraham that his carnal descendants would be as numerous as the stars and would inherit the land of Canaan and that one particular descendant would bless the nations. Then he said this would be fulfilled through the line of Isaac, not Ishmael, then Jacob, not Esau.
Paul takes this principle and applies it analogically (as he does in the parallel passage of Gal. 4:21-31) to the question at hand. Just as at the beginning it was not the child of the flesh (Ishmael) who would inherit the promised land and give birth to the Messiah, but instead it would come through the child who was promised through supernatural miracle, so now it is not the children of the flesh (old covenant) who are the children of God, but the children of promise (new covenant prophecies of restoration) are counted as offspring. It was always based on God’s choice, not mere physical descent, therefore the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob can have no objection when God says the restoration of Israel refers to those called “not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles” (v24-26). For much longer elaborations on Rom. 9-11, see here and here.
As for Hebrews 10:29, see Nick Batzig’s post explaining how Owen’s interpretation (that the sanctification refers to Christ’s priestly sanctification; Heb 9:12, 26) is a sound reformed interpretation.
Children Included in New Covenant Prophecies
Garris argues that “the genealogical principle continues in the new covenant” because Jeremiah’s prophecy of the New Covenant says “they shall be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them” (32:38-39). He could have added Isaiah 59:21 “‘And as for me, this is my covenant with them,’ says the Lord: ‘My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children’s offspring,’ says the Lord, ‘from this time forth and forevermore'” as well as 54:13 “All your children shall be taught by the Lord, and great shall be the peace of your children.”
But if you recall, we’ve already looked at that passage. How did Jesus interpret it? Did He say it referred to the inclusion of the offspring of those who professed faith? No, He said the “children” refers to the called elect. The OT prophecies of eschatological Israel’s restoration were spoken in the language of the Old Covenant. This is known as prophetic idiom, “that manner of expression by which the prophets of the Old Testament use the typological configuration of the things of Israel in order to portray the Messianic realities of the new covenant age. This is the nature of the prophetic idiom, and if we do not recognize it, then we will misunderstand the Prophets” (Estelle – see also Calvin and Lee Irons). The prophecies speak of the total restoration of Israel, that the Spirit will be poured out on all Israel down through its generations, such that they will never be exiled again. Lee Irons explains “It’s prophetic idiom for the the way in which God is going to bring all of his elect into the kingdom.”
Jesus taught Paul how to interpret the Old Testament, so it is no surprise to find Paul interpret the “children” of these prophecies in the same way. The “desolate one” of Isaiah 54 is Israel, whom the Lord cast off (divorced, scattered into exile) for her infidelity (Hosea 1-2; Ezekiel 16). But he will make a new covenant of peace with her so that she will be restored and never cast off again. At that time, all her (Jerusalem’s) children shall be taught by the Lord (v13). Paul quotes 54:1 in Gal. 4:27, saying that it refers to the “Jerusalem above” (the church: Jew & Gentile in Christ, spiritual Israel) in distinction from the “present Jerusalem” (the nation of Israel, Israel according to the flesh), and in verses 28-31 he says her “children” are Christians, born according to the Spirit (Jew & Gentile in Christ) – not that the “children” are the children of Christians.
These prophecies do not teach that “the genealogical principle continues in the new covenant.”
Repent and be Baptized?
While the New Testament says ‘repent and be baptized’ (Acts 2:38), it does not say what to do with those who are unable to repent (i.e., children). Are infants prohibited from baptism? No logic requires this. The context of the command to ‘repent and be baptized’ is for unbelievers who can understand the gospel, not for the infants of believers who cannot understand. And there is no prohibition or warning for baptism that would prevent infants or young children from receiving it (as there is for the Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29).
Garris’ logic is not sound. He says “We who baptize infants still require a profession of faith—and thus education in the faith—prior to partaking of the Lord’s Supper. This is because the New Testament requires that Christians ‘examine’ themselves[.]” But if “repent and be baptized” does not say what to do with those who are unable to repent, then “Let a person examine himself” does not say what to do with those who are unable to examine themselves.
Household Baptisms
If I say “We had family game night last night and we all played Uno,” does that entail that my infant played Uno? No, because Uno is not something that infants participate in. It is our understanding of Uno that determines this, not the language of “family.” Likewise, it is our understanding of baptism that determines who was baptized in Acts, not the language of “household.”
New Covenant is a Renewal of the Abrahamic?
Garris argues “the new covenant is a renewal of the Abrahamic covenant, as the church inherits the promises made to Abraham. The promises were made to “Abraham and to his seed”—ultimately Christ (Galatians 3:16)—and those who believe in Christ are “Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:29, author’s translation).”
In Gal. 3:16, Paul distinguishes between the Abrahamic promise made to seeds plural (first Abrahamic promise, Gen. 13:15; 15:18; 17:7; 22:17a) and the promise made concerning one seed singular (second Abrahamic promise, Gen. 12:3; 22:17b-18; cf. Gal. 3:8). The mistake of the Judaizers was to conflate these promises. Garris likewise conflates them. For a lengthy treatment, please see my essay on Galatians (83-86).
Regeneration Goggles?
It is unclear what point Garris tries to make regarding regeneration and the baptism of adults. Baptists agree that not all who are baptized are regenerate. We simply recognize with Hodge that “[B]y the clear teaching of the Scriptures, regeneration in the case of adults is assumed to precede baptism… faith and repentance are the fruits of regeneration. A man had, therefore, to profess to be regenerated before he could be baptized[.]” See also John Murray’s helpful comments.
Wheat and Tares
See Church Membership: De Jure or De Facto? as well as Hodge’s (Baptist) Understanding of the Visible/Invisible Church (his comments on the parables).
Conclusion
I appreciate the opportunity to test my understanding against Scripture. However, I am not convinced of Garris’ arguments. Hopefully I have provided some reasons for Garris and others to test their understanding as well.