The book of Hebrews is important for understanding covenant theology. This is seen from the fact that 14 of the 30 New Testament uses of the word “covenant” are found in Hebrews. The first use of the term in the book is in Hebrews 7:22, as “Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant” (NASB 1995). This leads into nine uses of “covenant” in chapters 8 and 9 of Hebrews (8:6, 8, 9, 10; 9:4, 15, 16, 17, 20). This brings us to Hebrews 8:6-13, which makes the point that the new covenant we are under is a “better” covenant than the Mosaic covenant. Here is the full text of Hebrews 8:6-13 for reference:
But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says,
“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;
9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers
On the day when I took them by the hand
To lead them out of the land of Egypt;
For they did not continue in My covenant,
And I did not care for them, says the Lord.
10 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 on their hearts.
And I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.
11 And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen,
And everyone his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
For all will know Me,
From the least to the greatest of them.
12 For I will be merciful to their iniquities,
And I will remember their sins no more.”
13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
So we see that the author of Hebrews says that the “first” (or “prior”) covenant—the Mosaic covenant—had “fault” (Hebrews 8:7-8). This was because that covenant was weak and ineffective (7:18). The Mosaic law was not able to “perfect” the people (7:19; 9:9; 10:1). And the fact that God gave a second covenant is proof that the Mosaic covenant was insufficient. The Mosaic covenant, the tabernacle/temple, and the Levitical priests were a “copy” (or better, “sketch,” NET) and “shadow” of the heavenly reality that was to come (8:5; 9:23; 10:1). Therefore, with the coming of Christ, the Mosaic covenant is now “obsolete” and “ready to disappear” (8:13).
In support of this argument, the author of Hebrews quotes the prophecy of the new covenant from Jeremiah 31:31-34. There God said the “days are coming…when I will effect a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (Hebrews 8:8). Thus, God made this new covenant with the kingdom of Israel (8:10). The party to this covenant in 8:8 and 8:10 undermines the dispensationalist view that there are two peoples of God (Israel and the church) and two different ways of salvation. The new covenant was not made with Gentiles but with Israel, meaning Israel has been expanded with Gentiles grafted in and unbelieving Jews cut off (Romans 11). This is covenant theology—meaning there is continuity between Israel and the church. There has been a change in administration because we are no longer under the Mosaic covenant and its ceremonial laws, but there is only one people of God.
What Is New About the New Covenant?
Hebrews 8:9 contrasts the new covenant with that older Mosaic covenant. This new covenant is, as the Lord said, “Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.” So there is something different about the new covenant. At first these things may sound like they stand in complete contrast to the Mosaic covenant, but let us look closely. Verses 10-12 tell us four things about this new covenant. First, in the new covenant, God will internalize the law—“I will put My laws into their minds, And I will write them on their hearts” (8:10). Second, in the new covenant, God’s people will belong to Him—“And I will be their God, And they shall be My people” (8:10). Third, in the new covenant, everyone will know God—“And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen, and everyone his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all will know Me, from the least to the greatest of them” (8:11). Fourth, in the new covenant, God will forgive their sins— “For I will be merciful to their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more” (8:12).
But wasn’t much of this true of the Old Testament? Yes, God promised the internalization of the law that would lead to a love of Him (Deuteronomy 30:6). The promise to be their God was repeated throughout the Old Testament, such as in Genesis 17:7—“I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your seed after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your seed after you.” And God forgave the sins of His people, seen in Psalm 32:5—“I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the LORD’; And You forgave the guilt of my sin.”
So the newness of the new covenant is not entirely new in substance, but new in degree. What is seen here is a greater effectiveness of the new covenant. The sketches and shadows of the Mosaic covenant have been fulfilled by the heavenly reality of Christ’s coming (9:23-24). Therefore, in the new covenant there is a greater internalization of God’s law (8:10), a greater knowledge of God (8:11), and the complete forgiveness of sins because Christ has done what animal sacrifices could not do (8:12; 10:4). The main interpretive challenge here is Hebrews 8:11:
And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen, and everyone his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all will know Me, from the least to the greatest of them.
This does not seem to entirely describe our age, as not everyone in the church knows the Lord (e.g., Matthew 7:21-23). And the New Testament tells us that God gifts some men as teachers for the church (e.g., 1 Timothy 5:17).
So there are two options for understanding Hebrews 8:11. First, “from the least to the greatest of them” means there is an increased knowledge of the Lord in the new covenant among various groups. In this case, “all will know me” means all types of people will know God, not all without exception. There are variations of this interpretation, one being that “from the least to the greatest” means from children to adults. Hebrews 8:11 is quoting Jeremiah 31:34 (“from the least of them to the greatest of them”), and similar Hebrew language is found in Jeremiah 44:12 for “small and great” where children are in view. Yet some argue “from the least to the greatest of them” in Hebrews 8:11 means Christians are no longer under the ceremonial law of the Mosaic administration, and instead of having priests teach us, we all have access to the knowledge of God.[1] We may refer to this first interpretation as an expansive-but-not-universal promise.
The second option for understanding Hebrews 8:11 is that it refers to the end consummation of the new covenant, meaning it is a promise of the already but not yet.[2] This means “all” in the new covenant will in fact know the Lord, but this is not yet fulfilled. This makes good sense because Old Testament prophesy usually mixes the ‘already and not yet’—meaning for Christians, some promises still have future fulfillment. Three things in this passage suggest this ‘already and not yet’ reading: (1) The internalization of God’s law in Hebrews 8:10 is not entirely complete, as we constantly need the external hearing and reading of Scripture so as to internalize it; (2) We still need teachers, and some in the Christian community do not in fact know the Lord; (3) Though Jeremiah 31:32 in Hebrew says Israel “broke” the Mosaic covenant (Hebrews 8:9 says “they did not continue”), suggesting the new covenant is unbreakable. Yet the new covenant is still broken (Hebrews 10:29). (However, the contrast may be that Israel as a nation broke the Mosaic covenant, while God in the new covenant promises that the church will not corporately break the covenant—only individuals can.) Therefore, while those who believe in Christ have the law written on their hearts and their sins forgiven as blessings of the new covenant (Hebrews 8:10, 12), the full realization of the new covenant will be future—where everyone around us knows God and keeps His covenant.
Infant Baptism and Hebrews 8
This brings us to the issue of infant baptism. While water is not mentioned in this passage, infant baptists and credobaptists (believer-only baptists) debate this passage because it touches on the issue of covenant membership. The question of infant baptism is not so much a question of water but a question of the place of children. It is a debate over ecclesiology—namely, who is a member of the church. This is why the nature of the new covenant matters, and it is why Hebrews 8 matters.
Credobaptists contend that there has been a shift in the membership of the new covenant so that that the infants of believers are no longer members of the covenant. Here is my attempt to accurately summarize the credobaptist argument in relation to Hebrews 8 and the new covenant:
Unlike the old covenant, the new covenant consists only of the regenerate—those who know the Lord.
Only those who are regenerate should receive the sign of entrance into the new covenant (baptism).
We know the regenerate by a credible profession of faith.
Therefore, ministers should only baptize those who profess faith, not infants who do not profess faith.
However, I think there are several problems with these premises, so I will address them below.
Credobaptist premise #1—‘Unlike the old covenant, the new covenant consists only of the regenerate—those who know the Lord.’
This argument is based on the language of Hebrews 8 that all those in the new covenant shall “know the Lord.” This position argues for an increased individuality in the new covenant. As the prominent Baptist theologian, Thomas Schreiner, says in his commentary on Hebrews, “Israel under the old covenant was composed of believers and unbelievers in the covenant community. Hence members of the covenant community had to be exhorted to know the Lord, for many were unregenerate.” But in the new covenant, Schreiner says, “every member of the covenant community will know the Lord,” meaning they “will be regenerate.”[3]
One noticeable problem with Schreiner’s statement is that he equates the language of “covenant community” with “covenant membership.” Yet even if one says children are not members of the new covenant (as Baptists hold), those children are still part of the community of the new covenant. Such children still attend church with their families and join with the church community in worship and fellowship. Regardless, 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.
Schreiner also assumes too much from Hebrews 8:11. As noted above, there are two options for understanding this verse, and neither rules out infant baptism. But even if this verse means that all in the new covenant know the Lord, it does not speak of the timing of this fulfillment. If this promise is already and not yet, then v. 11 speaks of a day when all in the new covenant will fully partake of the covenant blessings. This does not preclude a distinction between the legal and vital aspects of the covenant during this time. In other words, Hebrews 8 (and Jeremiah 31) does not say anything about the administration of the covenant. It only tells us that the new covenant is aimed at bringing about the knowledge of the Lord.
Yet this covenant goal of the knowledge of the Lord was also true of the Abrahamic covenant, and the infant males received that covenant’s sign of circumcision. This promise was even found in Deuteronomy 30:6—“Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants [lit. seed], to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.” The context here concerns God bringing Israel into the land. So there was regeneration and knowledge of God in the Old Testament.
Jeremiah 32:37-40 (only one chapter after Jeremiah 31:31-34) builds on this context of the new covenant. Many Reformed Baptists even agree this passage is a promise of the new covenant. Similar to Jeremiah 31:33 (“I will be their God, and they shall be My people”), God says in Jeremiah 32:38, “They shall be My people, and I will be their God.” The next verse adds:
and I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me always, for their own good and for the good of their children after them. I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me. (Jeremiah 32:39-40)
So we have the genealogical principle mentioned in the near context of Jeremiah 31. God said He would give His people a heart that would lead them to fear Him (regeneration). This is said to be “for the good of their children after them”—the same “good” as for the children and their parents (cf. Deuteronomy 6:24). This is very similar language to the promise in Deuteronomy 30:6 to regenerate the hearts of the Israelites and their seed, but in Jeremiah 32:39 it concerns the new covenant. Further, if the language “from the least to the greatest” in Jeremiah 31:34 refers to age (as in Jeremiah 44:12, “small and great”), then this is additional support for the inclusion of children in the new covenant—for it is saying that even children will know God in the new covenant. We conclude, therefore, that the genealogical principle continues in the new covenant. There is continuity regarding the place of children between the Abrahamic and new covenants, and this supports continuity in covenant membership in the covenant’s administration.
There is indeed a fuller knowledge of the Lord in the new covenant, and the covenant is more effective in bringing this knowledge about. But this does not speak to the legal administration of the covenant. Schreiner recognizes there are some who claim to be Christians who are in fact unregenerate, but he says, “such claimants are not truly and genuinely members of the new covenant, for the new covenant by definition means the law is inscribed on one’s heart.”[4] However, this assumes the consummation of the new covenant is equivalent to the current administration of the covenant (and thus rejects any dual aspect of the new covenant). Schreiner equates new covenant membership with regeneration based on Hebrews 8:10-11, even though there are several reasons to not read the text this way. As noted above, the language of Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31 supports either an already-and-not-yet reading of the new covenant promise or an expansive-but-not-universal promise.
Credobaptist premise #2—‘Only those who are regenerate should receive the sign of entrance into the new covenant (baptism).’
Refuting premise #1 is sufficient for undermining the credobaptist conclusion, but it is still important to address other premises in their argument. Both infant baptists and credobaptists acknowledge that it was not the case in the Abrahamic covenant that only the regenerate received the sign of entrance into the covenant (circumcision). Yet credobaptists contend that only the regenerate receive the sign of entrance into the new covenant (baptism). However, this is not the case. 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).
Moreover, when we read of adults repenting in the book of Acts, it says their entire “household” was baptized (Acts 16:15, 33; 18:8). Paul also baptized the “household of Stephanas” (1 Corinthians 1:16). Now these passages do not explicitly mention infants. But they do use the language of “household” that was used for God’s command to Abraham to circumcise infant males (Genesis 17:23, 27). In other words, “household” baptisms are covenant baptisms, supporting continuity in covenant membership between the Abrahamic and new covenants. The New Testament picks up Old Testament covenant language for baptism. And this is because 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).
Accordingly, Paul’s restatement of the Fifth Commandment for the new covenant church in Ephesians 6:1-4 shows continuity in covenant membership. When the law was first given to Israel, children were included in the covenant (Genesis 17), and there is no indication that this law can be given to such children if they are not in the covenant. In other words, the Fifth Commandment assumes covenant membership, and this command continues for the church. Although water is not mentioned, this certainly fits well with Presbyterian ecclesiology. Thus, the New Testament does not teach that only the regenerate should be baptized, but instead it gives evidence that the children of believers were considered covenant members and should be baptized.
Credobaptist premise #3—‘We know the regenerate by a credible profession of faith.’
So the credobaptist argument is that the new covenant consists only of the regenerate, and only the regenerate should be baptized. They therefore look to a profession of faith as evidence of regeneration, and since infants do not profess faith, they cannot be baptized. While not their main argument, credobaptists still affirm the premise that we know the regenerate by a credible profession of faith. Yet we must be careful here to not equate regeneration with a profession of faith. For there are lots of people who profess faith in Christ who are unregenerate (even those whose profession may seem credible). There are also people who are regenerate who do not profess faith (i.e., young children). It is certainly possible that God regenerates a person’s heart in the womb. He did so for Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:5), as well as John the Baptist (Luke 1:15, 41, 80). And based on the generational promises of the Old Testament, we have reason to expect God will save the children of us who believe. Therefore, the children of Christian parents may very well be regenerate in the womb or at a young age prior to professing faith. The hearing a profession of faith is not equivalent to knowing whether a person is regenerate. It may be a false profession, or the regenerate person may be unable to profess faith.
The problem for credobaptists here is that the Bible does not say to look for regeneration in order to apply the covenant sign of baptism. When it comes to the infants of believers, we have theological reasons to mark them as covenant members, along with the example of household baptisms in Acts. When it comes to adult converts requesting baptism, we do look for a credible profession of faith, not because it guarantees they are regenerate but because we want to help them keep their vows to Christ and the church. So we approach a profession of faith with a judgment of charity (though in the case of an adult covert, it is reasonable to also provide some sort of catechesis prior to baptism). Jesus speaks of the kingdom of God as consisting of the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13:24-30), so we should expect to baptize some who are not regenerate and who never truly believe in Christ. We should do our best here, but we will inevitably baptize some adults who make a false profession of faith and some infants who never truly embrace the promises of the covenant.
Baptizing Babies unto the Knowledge of the Lord
Some Reformed theologians of old argued that we presume that our children are regenerate and baptize them on that basis (presumptive regeneration). There is a case for this, and if correct, it does in fact undermine the credobaptist argument that infants should not be baptized because they are not regenerate. However, I am merely arguing that neither Jeremiah 31 nor Hebrews 8 requires regeneration (or evidence thereof) for the administration of baptism. We are to give the sign of baptism to those who are legally in the covenant. This is based on the argument from Genesis 17, Colossians 2:11-12, and household baptisms in Acts. Hebrews 8 does not undermine this but promises a renewal and expansion of the Abrahamic covenant. Contra the claims of some credobaptists, the new covenant is not more individualistic than the Abrahamic covenant, and the new covenant is not unbreakable on the individual level (Hebrews 10:29). Moreover, Jeremiah 32 shows the new covenant includes the genealogical principle similar to the old covenant. So while Reformed Baptists like to go to Hebrews 8 as if this ends the debate in their favor, this passage is by no means determinative for credobaptism.
Presbyterians and others in the Reformed tradition baptize our infants because God has always included the children of believers in His covenant. We mark them as Christians. And this brings covenant obligations, namely, to educate the children and train them up in the Lord. Even credobaptists know something should be done here, which is why many of them do infant dedications. I would only encourage them to go further and add some water.
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, “judge” the body of Christ (cf. v. 24), and not partake of the Supper in an “unworthy manner” (1 Corinthians 11:27-29). These are actions that require a level of maturity, and thus we require a credible profession of faith for all who would partake of the Supper. The wine of the Supper symbolizes maturity, and a degree of maturity is required of the baptized in order to partake of the bread and wine. What this means is that Reformed infant baptists properly distinguish the sacraments, preserving a rite of maturity in the church. We have a sacrament of entrance into the covenant that is given to adult converts and children who are born into the covenant (baptism), and we have a sacrament for the mature who embrace the covenant by faith (the Lord’s Supper). We do not flatten the sacraments as credobaptists do (and as paedocommunionists do). Rather, we train children up to maturity, which includes training them to partake of the Lord’s Supper in due time.
As for Hebrews 8, there is nothing in this passage that requires children to profess faith before they are baptized. And there is nothing in Hebrews 8 that says the nature of covenant membership has changed in the new covenant. Rather, this passage teaches that God is effecting a greater knowledge of the Lord with the inauguration of the new covenant (and even more so with its consummation). We see some of this increased knowledge even now in Christ’s church. Accordingly, we would expect the covenant sign to be applied more broadly, and this is seen in that baptism as a sign is given to females and not just males as in the Abrahamic covenant.
Christians baptize their babies and train them unto the knowledge of the Lord that He promised in this new covenant. Our infants may lack knowledge, but we baptize them unto knowledge. They have a legal connection to the covenant and are part of the covenant community we call the church. For this reason, it is good for infant baptisms to be accompanied by parents taking vows to train their children in the Christian faith.
[1] Jeffrey D. Niell, “The Newness of the New Covenant,” in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism (P&R, 2003), 127–55.
[2] Richard L. Pratt, Jr., “Infant Baptism in the New Covenant,” in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism (P&R, 2003), 156–74.
[3] Thomas R. Schreiner, Hebrews, Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), 252.
[4] Ibid., 253.
