The New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

By Michael Borg

Walter Kaiser once wrote: “Hardly has the exegesis of this passage begun when the interpreter discovers to his great delight and consternation that he is involved in some of the greatest theological questions of our day. No matter what he says, some evangelicals are bound to be scandalized because of their commitments.” [1] Jeremiah 31:31-34 is a watershed passage that divides covenant and dispensational theologies. [2] But it further divides Presbyterian and Baptist theologies as well. [3] Consequently, this text influences one’s hermeneutics and ecclesiology.

This article will argue from a Reformed and Presbyterian perspective that God promises His covenantal people a renewed covenant that is the same in substance as previous administrations of the covenant of grace but new in form/mode, thereby exalting His covenantal faithfulness in bringing His people to the full realization of redemption. Because a full treatment of views cannot be here given, this article will necessarily be limited to several individuals who represent their respective theological systems. We will proceed by first briefly noting the structure of the passage before turning to an exegesis of the text itself.

Structure

Jeremiah 31:31-34 is often regarded as the climax of Jeremiah’s Book of Comfort (chaps. 30-33). Broadly conceived, Jeremiah 1-29 is focused on God’s judgment against His people and against the nations. But there is a decided change of tone beginning in chapter 30 as God speaks of the time when He will bring His people back from exile (see 30:3). The Book of Comfort is largely a section of Jeremiah where God promises restoration and salvation to His people.

The majority of commentators agree that Jeremiah 31:31-34 ought to be treated as a pericope. One telling grammatical note is the repetitive use of “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD” in both 31:31 and 31:38. Some commentators argue that 31:35-37 cannot be separated from what precedes it, [4] though all of chapters 30-33 are integral to understanding the theological emphasis of 31:31-34.

Restricting ourselves to 31:31-34, we can structure this passage in three main sections. The first section (v. 31) is the promise of the new covenant stated. The second (v. 32) contrasts this new covenant with the old covenant; that is, the new covenant is negatively considered. The third section (vv. 33-34) puts forth the promise(s) of the new covenant; that is, the new covenant is positively considered.

While Jeremiah 31:31-34 is the only OT passage that speaks directly of the “new covenant,” there are other passages that speak of the work of God in the new covenant (cf. Ezek. 37). Furthermore, an important aspect to understanding Jeremiah 31:31-34 is to remember that this passage is quoted extensively in the NT, especially in Hebrews 8:8-13. For brevity’s sake, however, this article will not deal directly with the unfolding of Jeremiah 31:31-34 in other canonical contexts. What concerns us is the specific theological message of these verses in their present context.

The Promise Of The New Covenant (V. 31)

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah (31:31).

Three major issues surface in an interpretation of this passage: (1) What it means to “cut a covenant”; (2) the meaning of the adjective “new” (Heb. חדשׁ); and (3) the concept of “house” language as it pertains to a greater OT understanding.

Cutting A Covenant

The verb and direct object “to cut a covenant” is a common idiomatic phrase meaning “to make a covenant.” [5] But it is a bit reductionistic to simply translate this phrase as “make.” The significance of the verb “to cut” (Heb. כְּרַת) is not fully appreciated with a simple translation. For example, Meredith Kline notes (concerning the Abrahamic covenant): “The practice of slaying an animal in the ceremony of covenant ratification is widely attested, and out of this common rite arose the familiar biblical…terminology of ‘cutting a covenant’ and the synonymous ‘cutting a curse.’” [6] As God promises the new covenant, He employs canonical language building on previous covenantal administrations. The important aspect to note is that the new covenant does not merely contain blessings but also curses—not only against the promised mediator Christ, but against those who, like Ishmael, refuse to embrace the promises of the covenant by faith.

New Or Renewed?

A second issue is the debated meaning of the Hebrew word חדשׁ, which most English translations simply translate as “new.” There are many commentators, however, who desire to translate this adjective in a way that carefully nuances the word to mean “renew.” The theological significance of one’s translation is apparent: is God renewing the substance of His covenant or instituting a covenant that has not previously existed in form and substance?

Traditionally, the case for “new” has emphasized the disunity of the new covenant with the old covenant, whereas “renew” has stressed continuity. One’s perspective impacts both hermeneutics and ecclesiology. If Jeremiah’s intent is to show that the new covenant is wholly unlike the old covenant, then there is a large degree of discontinuity between covenantal administrations affecting one’s understanding of such issues as the Decalogue, the nature of faith, and the identity of Israel. Similarly, if the new covenant is wholly new, then it is at least one small logical step to argue that the covenant community has also been redefined in relation to the new covenant.

Those who advance the position for “new” state the following arguments: (1) Neither חדשׁ or καινη (see Matt. 26:28) in their adjectival form mean “renew.” “Rather, they mean novel, fresh, unprecedented, or not yet in existence.” (2) The contrast given as “not like the covenant” (Heb. לא כַבְּרִית) is an “absolute emphatic negation.” (3) The phrase “new covenant” points to the newness of the new covenant; there is not a focus on continuity with the Mosaic covenant (or any other covenantal administration). (4) The new covenant includes no stipulations of how to have fellowship with the LORD restored (cf. Lev. 1-7), which highlights the significance of absolute forgiveness. (5) The use of “law” (31:33) does not refer to the Mosaic law but to “fresh commandments from Yahweh.” Further, Jeremiah uses “law” in several ways: a) “sayings of the prophet” (cf. Isa. 5:24); b) “the voice, the word, the status, and the testimony of the Lord”; c) the law will be obeyed by everyone; and, d) the abrogation of the old covenant is an abrogation of the old covenant law. [7]

On the other hand, those who advance the meaning “renew” state the following arguments: (1) The most common title of the new covenant in the OT is “everlasting covenant” and ratification of the “sure mercies of David” (cf. Isa. 55:3; Jer. 32:38-42; Ezek. 37:26-27). Thus, there is strong continuity between the new covenant and previous covenantal administrations. (2) The adjective חדשׁ often means to “renew” or “restore.” (3) The Hebrew word means “new in time and renewed in nature. Thus for Jeremiah 31, the context, content and New Testament vocabulary [καινη] distinction decides in favor of a ‘renewed covenant.’” (4) There is a great amount of continuity seen between this passage and the greater context of Jeremiah and the OT. [8]

How is the precise meaning of “new” in this context to be determined from the seemingly contradictory arguments laid out above? It is helpful to observe the following. First, while חדשׁ in its adjectival form can mean “brand new” (see Lev. 23:16; Deut. 20:5; Eccl. 1:10), the semantical range of חדשׁ is beyond simply defining it as “novel,” “fresh,” or “not yet in existence” (cf. Jer. 26:10). For example, the adjective חדשׁ is used in reference to a “new king” (Ex. 1:8). Likewise, Isaiah appears to contrast the “new” things with the “former” things in a way that does not necessitate a “brand new” thing (see Isa. 42:9). Isaiah also uses the adjective to refer to the “new heavens” and “new earth” carrying a strong intonation of “renewal” (Isa. 65:17). Ezekiel uses the adjective when referring to the “new spirit” and “new heart” that God gives to His covenantal people (see Ezek. 11:19; 36:26). Finally, the argument against “renewal” is unconvincing when חדשׁ can mean “unprecedented” but cannot be applied to Jeremiah 31:31. If this definition were applied here, one is not pressed to understand this adjective as completely new but there would appear to be continuity though a greater manifestation.

Second, those who argue for an absolute emphatic negation and the emphatic use of “new” in this context overstate their case. While the comparative negation can be used emphatically (see Jer. 10:16), it does not appear to be exclusively so (see Ex. 1:19; Isa. 10:11). Prior theological understandings appear to be lurking beneath the surface and grammar alone is not sufficient to settle the disagreement.

Third, those who argue that Jeremiah’s prophecy has absolute forgiveness and a new law ascribed to it as a defense of disunity (as laid out in arguments 4-5) will be dealt with throughout the remainder of this article.

These considerations, however, are not an argument in favor of “renew” as much as an attempt to argue for the possibility of this meaning in the present context. Within the greater part of this exposition, we will understand why “renew” is preferable to “new”—largely based on the continuity this prophecy maintains in the substance of the old and new covenants.

House Of Israel And Judah

The third major issue of v. 31 is understanding the prepositional phrase “with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.” This phrase is used regularly throughout Jeremiah (see 2:4, 26; 3:18, 20; 5:11; 10:1; 11:10; 18:6; 23:8; etc.). The central contention with this prepositional phrase relates to the identity of the house of Israel and the house of Judah—an identity understood differently among dispensationalism and covenant theology. Dispensationalists have traditionally argued that this is a literal reference to the national houses of Israel and Judah. This literalism requires seeing Jeremiah 31 as a future promise to a political entity and influences one’s view of the millennial kingdom. This has caused some tension in that Jesus institutes the new covenant with His disciples and NT believers/Gentiles. Some dispensationalists argue that there are multiple new covenants, [9] while others argue that NT believers are somehow included in the new covenant. [10] The promise, however, is a prophecy of an eschatological reunification of Israel and Judah (cf. v. 33). The restoration which the prophets prophesied and the NT confirms (cf. Heb. 8:7-13) moves beyond a literalistic understanding of national Israel and Judah coming back into the physical land of Canaan (cf. Isa. 60-66; Jer. 33:14-26). Furthermore, Jeremiah is clear that the restored “house of Israel and house of Judah” will include Gentiles (see Jer. 4:2; 16:14-18; etc.). The context shows, therefore, that restoration extends beyond a literal interpretation.

Covenant theologians largely agree that these references have always referred to the church—which under the OT was embodied in the religious-political nation of Israel and Judah. The house of Israel and house of Judah in the OT were understood as God’s corporate people, the visible community of Israelites redeemed from Egypt (cf. Ex. 16:31; 40:38), and ought to be conceived of as nothing less than the church. Jeremiah 31:31-34 not only looks back to the OT covenant community but forward to the NT covenant community.

In this way, strong lines of continuity exist between an OT and NT understanding of the church.

Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum in their recent work have argued contrary to this understanding, stating that the definition of “house” has been redefined or restricted in the NT to refer to believers only. [11] “It is interesting to note that Jesus gives this meal [of the new covenant] to his disciples. That is to say, the new covenant is not made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah interpreted as all of Judaism indiscriminately in the first century, but rather it is interpreted specifically as those who are followers of Jesus, regardless of ethnicity, Jew first, and later on, also non-Jew.” [12] The implications of their argument are apparent and lend to the Baptist exclusion of children of believers as properly belonging to the covenant or church.

But their argument appears superficial and circular. Properly speaking, the “covenant partners” at the Last Supper were the twelve disciples—including Judas (cf. Luke 22:14). But even if one were to allow that Judas was somehow disassociated from the disciples at this point in Jesus’ life, the covenant (at this particular institution) was clearly not yet given to women or Gentiles, yet no one would exclude these groups from belonging to the new covenant. Rather, the disciples are to be regarded as representative of the church, not as a reference to all parties involved. [13]

This argument does little to justify a Baptist ecclesiology. Rather, the opposite appears to be the case. As the people of Judah heard this promise of the new covenant, it is unlikely that they would have restricted the household imagery to only true believers of the Lord and not to the visible church or people of God. One would expect that had “household” terminology been redefined or restricted, there would be clear NT witness to this fact—something Gentry and Wellum fail to put forward.

Contrast Of The Old Covenant With The New Covenant (V. 32)

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD (31:32).

The promised new covenant given in v. 31 is now shown in what it is not. Though the verse is relatively straightforward, it is theologically potent and variously understood. Understanding the significance of this contrast affects the way in which the reader will understand vv. 33-34.

Not Like What?

It has been commonly agreed among commentators that Jeremiah 11:1-17 serves as the backdrop of v. 32. Summarizing this understanding, Gerald Keown writes: “This passage…interprets the indictments against the people in the rest of the book as evidence of covenant breaking…and the disaster they suffer as the judgment that results from it (11:1)…. Jeremiah was forbidden to pray for his community (11:14). This command ruled out the possibility of covenant renewal [from a human perspective].” [14] Jeremiah 11:1-17 focuses on Judah’s rebellion in the wilderness after their deliverance from Egypt. The initial covenant administration was perpetually broken by God’s covenant people in their acts of disobedience. For the time being, God restricts Jeremiah from preaching renewal and restoration. Jeremiah’s message is simply impending destruction.

Understanding the disobedience of the people as the backdrop of v. 32 is pertinent to understanding what is being contrasted. Joshua N. Moon argues that the point of contrast in Jeremiah 31:31-32 is not the “new” and “old” covenant per se. Rather, “we learn that the infidelity of the people of Yhwh—the broken covenant—has been broken from the very start, from the time in which Yhwh acted to call and bring them to himself.” [15] The central contrast between the new and old covenant is that of covenantal disobedience with obedience (cf. Jer. 11:4, 7). Understanding the contrast in this way has a decided influence on Gentry and Wellum’s ecclesiology. Because disobedience and obedience is the central point of contrast, they argue for a NT covenant community comprised of the faithful only—only believers.

While the contrast of covenant faithlessness and faithfulness ought to be appreciated, Gentry and Wellum’s conclusion is not necessary. W. J. Dumbrell similarly comments that the (Mosaic) covenant was broken from a human perspective, but from the divine, God was still wed to His people. He summarizes: “The language of the marriage relationship, therefore, as applied to the Sinai arrangement underscores its permanency and provides thus the counter to the discontinuity of ‘my covenant which they broke’ (v. 32). In short the element which will characterize the New Covenant and thus render it ‘new’ will be its irrefragability.” [16] But it does not necessarily follow that the new covenant community is restricted to believers because of this contrast. Dumbrell writes: “Divine continuity would continue, divine consistency, as it has been expressed [in earlier covenants and] will be expressed in the new age and within a New Covenant.” [17] If we understand this insight, the new covenant places more of an emphasis on God’s faithfulness in the covenant than on the individual faith of believers. Brevard Childs succinctly explains: “Even when Israel misunderstood the covenant as privilege, rather than responsibility, God’s commitment was not withdrawn. Rather the new covenant reiterated the initial commitment and promised a new form for its actualization.” [18] Concluding, therefore, the contrast made here in v. 32 focuses more centrally on the effectiveness of the covenant to deal with sin as understood in light of disobedience and obedience. The new covenant is not so much a decisive break with the Mosaic covenant but represents a further development of the covenant of grace. [19] The new covenant will deal with the covenantal peoples’ sins in an unprecedented way—namely, through God’s faithfulness.

Exodus And Redemption

Having established the central contrast of v. 32, it is helpful to examine the exodus imagery used in this verse. [20] The exodus serves both as a contrast and a mold for understanding the new covenant in light of two important issues. First, the whole Book of Comfort utilizes exodus imagery. In a helpful study, Gary Yates notes four specific passages that relate to the exodus: 1) 30:1-4 relates to the land of promise; 2) 31:2-6 relates to the past exodus event, preservation in the wilderness, and the conquest of Canaan; 3) 31:31-34 relates to the covenant God made with Moses on Sinai; and 4) 32:16-25 is a prayer for the restoration of the people of Israel in exodus. [21] More specifically, the allusion to God taking the hand of His people and leading them out of Egypt reoccurs throughout narratives relating to the exodus (see Ex. 3:19; 13:3, 14, 16; 32:11; Deut. 3:24; 4:34; 5:15; 6:21; etc.). To the exilic community, this familiar imagery recounted God’s graciousness in leading His people out of bondage and into redemption.

Second, the use of exodus-like imagery throughout the Book of Comfort, and more specifically here, shows that the promise of restoration draws an analogous relationship between the Israelites leaving Egypt and the restoration of the exilic people. This is the sustained argument for the Book of Comfort. The restoration from exile was typified in Israel’s deliverance from Egypt: “Jeremiah retells the story of the creation, the exodus from Egypt, and march through the desert, the making of the covenant at Sinai, and the conquest of the promised land.” [22] And at every step in his prophecy, Jeremiah is showing that the restoration from exile will be a greater act of redemption (i.e., “not like”) than the exodus; the new covenant will succeed where the old covenant had failed, particularly in relation to covenantal obedience and faithfulness. Understanding the restoration from exile as a greater exodus gives us the hermeneutical principle of both continuity and discontinuity. The continuity lies in how restoration from exile is cast within an exodus mold and the discontinuity exemplified here is one of form and not substance.

The Faithful Wife

The final clause in v. 32 is a concessive clause that contrasts Israel’s disobedience with God’s lovingkindness. He has wed His people—the verb is from the Hebrew בעל which can mean to “marry” or “lord.” The pun is intentional. The Hebrew can mean to wed but comes from the same root word for the god Ba’al. The people of Judah were condemned for their Ba’al worship (cf. 2:8, 23). God is in effect condemning them for their Ba’al worship and revealing that He is their true Lord who has wed them.

The marriage imagery here highlights Jeremiah’s extensive references to God and Judah’s marriage and Judah’s adulterous affairs with Ba’al. Yates helpfully notes: “In his opening sermon the prophet charged that Israel/Judah had become Yahweh’s unfaithful ‘wife’ and must return to Him, her ‘husband.’ The remainder of the book substantiates this accusation, describes the punishment of the unfaithful wife, calls for the wife to change her ways, and promises restoration of her relationship with Yahweh.” [23]

The controlling allusion here is to Jeremiah 2:1-4:4, which itself looks to the image of an unfaithful wife. The love of Judah had been given to idols (2:25, 33). Judah was further likened to a prostitute (2:20; 3:1-3, 6, 8-9). They were guilty of adultery (3:8-9). Judah’s sin is put in sexual terms (3:20; cf. 13:25-27). But as the “wife” of the Lord, Judah was supposed to be the “property” of God (i.e., first fruits [2:3]). [24] The Book of Comfort speaks of the restoration of Judah as God’s faithful wife (cf. 30:3, 18; 31:23; 32:44; 33:7, 11, 26) because God is a faithful husband. The explicit statement in v. 32 is that Judah’s transgression is symbolized as the breaking of the strongest (temporal) bond. But the implicit promise is that the new covenant will restore Judah to her husband as a bride in purity (cf. 31:4; Eph. 5:25ff).

But what warrants Jeremiah to understand the exodus as a marriage between God and His people? This is certainly common imagery throughout the prophets (see Isa. 54:4; 62:4; Hos. 2:16; Mal. 2:11; etc.). But does it have a source in the historical books? While this article cannot develop this thought in depth, there are allusions in the law to the exodus being a marriage between God and His people. The use of the Hebrew word lag can be understood as a kinsman redeemer which carries “marriage” or “property” undertones (cf. Ex. 6:6). By implication, this word is used when a previous relationship has already been established between two parties. But it is further helpful to remember that throughout Israel’s history, sin is seen as spiritual adultery (see Judg. 2:17; 1 Chron. 5:25; Ezek. 16). [25] Clearly the prophets are not imposing marriage imagery on the Exodus without reasonable warrant to do so, but rather developing this concept in greater clarity.

Summarizing v. 32, we can say that God contrasts the new covenant with the old covenant by focusing on the ineffectuality of the old covenant to ensure God’s people will be a faithful wife. This ineffectuality does not come as a result of the covenant of God, but from the fact that the people caused the covenant to be broken; they were the unfaithful wife. But in contrasting the covenants in this manner, Jeremiah coordinates the substance of the covenants. God is not seeking to form a new relationship with His people as much as He is looking to renew the covenant in a way that will effectually deal with His people’s sins.

Promises Of The New Covenant (Vv. 33-34)

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more (31:33-34).

Having negatively considered the new covenant by contrasting it with the former covenant, Jeremiah’s prophecy goes on to detail the promise(s) of the new covenant. These two verses lend themselves to a brief discussion of three issues.

New Covenant And Eschatology

This temporal phrase “after those days” has caused some confusion among interpreters as various options have been put forth. Dumbrell helps us understand that the key to discerning these days is to understand it as eschatological. [26] In 31:27-30, God promises to replant His people in the land as a sign of their restoration from exile. [27] But there is a greater reference than just to the restoration of Judah and its eschatological undertones; this prophecy points forward to the eschatological age relating to Jesus’ Person and work (cf. Matt. 26:28). This eschatological age is marked by unity between the house of Israel and the house of Judah, giving warrant to see Jeremiah’s transition from two houses to one house.

Understanding that the phrase is eschatological helps us understand how to interpret the new covenant. Jeremiah’s prophecy extends beyond the mere inauguration of the new covenant to its consummation. [28] Taking into consideration the hermeneutical principle of the prophetic perspective, it is important to understand Jeremiah 31:31-34 through an already/not-yet lens. That is to say, the inauguration and consummation of the new covenant are separated by time. Failing to grasp this aspect of the new covenant, Gentry and Wellum appear to conflate the inauguration and consummation of the new covenant, believing that the inauguration creates a community of only believers. [29] This conclusion, however, runs the risk of an over-realized eschatology. Waltke elaborates: “By his death, Christ inaugurated the new covenant, and in that sense brought it to realization, but he did not bring it as yet to its full realization.” [30] In looking forward to the promise(s) of the new covenant, the difference between inauguration and consummation must be forefront in our minds. The realization of these promises awaits a future fulfillment, even as Kaiser helpfully writes: “The full realization of the tripartite promise formula is only totally realized in the eschaton.” [31] Though we currently participate in the new covenant, the fulfillment of these promises is a future reality. The church is still in “exile” [32]; we still await the full salvation as here revealed. [33]

What Law?

Wellum and Gentry, representing a mediating position between dispensationalism and covenant theology, are relatively ambiguous regarding the “law” (Heb. תּרה) of v. 33. Speaking in ambiguous terms they speak of this law as simply instruction, apparently in contrast to the law that God revealed to Moses on Mt. Sinai. [34] This definition appears to yield a more general or theoretical understanding of precisely what God’s holy standard is. Elsewhere, they readily dismiss the perpetual nature of the Ten Commandments: “I am not bound by the Ten Commandments, because they are part of an agreement between God and Israel that does not apply to me. My relationship to God is based upon and defined by the new covenant.” [35] Aside from its relative obscurity, can this argument be maintained from the text?

Richard Barcellos offers a helpful response. He argues that the law of v. 33 is nothing short of the Decalogue. He reasons along these lines: 1) The law is God’s law (cf. 6:19; 9:13; 16:11; 26:4 and 44:10). 2) The law is written by God, first on stones then on hearts (cf. Ex. 31:8). 3) Therefore, the law is not a new law, but one that was revealed by God, belonged to God, and written. 4) “The promise of the New Covenant includes both a law to follow and a disposition of heart to obey.” [36] Similarly, Keown argues: “There is no indication, however, that the content of the law, God’s will revealed in commandment, statute, or ordinance, will be altered in the new covenant.” [37] There is, therefore, no precedence to see that the law of the new covenant will be substantially different from the Decalogue; rather, within the greater context of Jeremiah, one should expect that this is the most viable definition. [38]

But if the law here refers to the Decalogue, is there a substantial change in the reception of the law? Jeremiah promises that the law will be internalized (Heb. קֶרֶב and לבֵ); does this contradict the external law found in previous covenantal dispensations (i.e., stone tablets)? Dumbrell argues that the contrast is not between an external and internal writing of the law. Throughout the OT, it is understood that the law must be internalized: “The fact remains, however, that in Deuteronomy, on whatever level the address is based, the law is required to be lodged in the heart, presumably in both the national and the individual heart (cf. Deut. 6:4-6, 11:18; see also Deut. 30).” [39] This is further confirmed by the whole context of the OT (see Ps. 51:10, 17; 73:1, 13; Prov. 22:11; Isa. 57:15; Jer. 4:4; Ezek. 44:7, 9) and defended by Jewish exegesis. Dumbrell concludes: “Thus, the stipulation of v. 33 that the law will be put in the heart is presumably a stipulation that the same law which was inserted into the national and personal consciousness of Israel earlier at Sinai will be reapplied in the same way in the new age.” [40]

That the new covenant law stands in continuity with the Decalogue is further confirmed by the covenantal formula, “I will be their God and they shall be my people.” [41] This covenantal formula arises out of a long covenantal history between God and Israel. [42] But it is not as though Israel was not considered God’s people prior to the inauguration or consummation of the new covenant. This promise is likely a cognate to Genesis 17:8, where God promises to be the God of Abraham’s descendents (see also Ex. 6:1-8; 29:42-46; 26:40-45; etc.). This formula was common in Israelite history and clearly links previous covenant administrations and the new covenant. By using this formula, Jeremiah effectually points to the continuity of God’s saving purposes stated throughout the OT to the returning exiles and to the NT church. And this formula, far from many interpretations, is not in the present age restricted to believers only. [43] In this way, one can rightly assert that under the new covenant, the Decalogue is being renewed in an unprecedented way: God is remaining faithful despite His people’s faithlessness.

Covenant Knowledge

Following the writing of the law upon the hearts, God promises that men will no longer teach their neighbors, saying, “Know the LORD,” because the knowledge of God will be had by all. Some treat this promise as proof that new covenant partners are all believers. Paul House gives a typical understanding: “Yahweh’s assertion that all the covenant people will know the Lord provides a profound shift in the definition of the elect…. Now, in effect, the whole covenant group will be believers, or what has been called the remnant up to now…. The unbelieving majority will no longer exist.” [44] Similarly, yet more nuanced, Wellum and Gentry argue that this covenant knowledge is not a lack of mediated knowledge, [45] but that under the old covenant, neighbors were at times required to exhort their non-believing neighbors to “know the LORD.” [46] Under the new covenant, they argue, this type of exhortation is not necessary because the covenant community is only made up of believers. [47] This verse, they argue, “shows that the Presbyterian understanding is flawed. There are no covenant members who are not believers.” [48]

But again, it appears that such a radical change among the covenant members is not necessitated by the text. This passage is likely referring to the inaugural democratization between prophet and people (cf. 42:1-3). [49] With God’s final word of revelation spoken in Christ (Heb. 1:1-4) and the giving of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2), the prophetic office which mediated the word of God to individuals was eliminated. Rather than removing the need of encouraging fellow covenant members to “know the LORD” (cf. Heb. 3:13), the aim of this promise mitigates the necessity of the prophetic office. Keeping close to this understanding, it is not necessary to see a radical shift in the definition of the elect.

Covenant And Forgiveness

The causal clause reveals a further promise contained in the new covenant. This is the promise of forgiveness of sins. Gentry and Wellum again argue that this promise promotes the view that only believers belong to the new covenant community. [50] They see the forgiveness at work here as a salvific and individually applied promise in the hearts of God’s people. Along a different line, Keown understands this promise to be an encouragement to those returning from exile that they would not bear the sins of their fathers who were exiled. From this perspective, the promise merely offers a new start to the exilic people (cf. Num. 14:20-23). [51] But is this the emphasis of the passage?

Timothy M. Willis rightly argues that personal forgiveness of sins cannot be in view here, per se, because “there are numerous references to divine forgiveness in the OT, yet Jeremiah’s prophecy suggests that (some aspect of) the forgiveness of sins will be part of what is ‘new’ in the new covenant” [52] (see Ex. 34:6, 7; Ps. 103:8-12; Isa. 43:25).

Beale argues along similar lines concerning the knowledge of God. Setting Jeremiah 31:31-34 within the context of Hebrews, he argues: “The forgiveness of sin promised in the new-covenant prophecy…has now been accomplished.” [53] The priestly work of Christ, from a temporal perspective, has been completed, and there remains nothing more to be done for sin from a sacrificial perspective. Within the new covenant, no atonement for sins is required because Christ has died once and for all.

Adding insight to this thought, Dumbrell notes, and I quote at length:

The final and important factor which controls the era of the New Covenant, Jeremiah tells us, is that it is the era of the forgiveness of sins. God, he tell us, in the new era, “will forgive their iniquity, and…will remember their sin no more.” The forgiveness of sins in the Old Testament was, as we have seen, bound up, other than in exceptional instances, with the system of institutionalization approach through sacrifice. God forgave on the condition of repentance, and this was the very basis of forgiveness. There is no mention, however, in v. 34 of any such preconditions in the new age. In fact a situation seems to be envisaged in which sin has been once for all dealt with. No more action in the new age will be called for against sin, for, remarks Jeremiah, “I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” That parallel statement is not simply the language of prophetic hyperbole nor merely a reference to the psychological attitude of God in the new age, namely that he will “forgive by forgetting” sin. It refers rather to the new age as one in which no action (in this biblical sense of remembering [via sacrifice]) needs to be taken against sin. [54]

It is in this sense that we can come back to Willis and see that something has definitely changed in regards to God’s forgiveness of sins, and yet not fall into the stickiness of Wellum and Gentry that does not deal with the already/not-yet tension of this passage. From a covenantal perspective, the substance of the covenant remains the same, but the form has changed—namely, the abrogation of the continual remembrance of sin in the offering up of sacrifices.

Conclusion

The issues of Jeremiah 31:31-34 are many, and exegetes have differed greatly in their interpretation of the new covenant. One’s understanding of this watershed passage influences both one’s hermeneutic and one’s ecclesiology. But it is exegetically unsatisfying, given the context and theological concerns of this passage, to stress disunity both in regards to the promises and the partners. Dispensationalism’s emphatic stress of covenantal disunity cannot be sustained in light of Jeremiah’s portraying the new covenant utilizing old covenant terminology— especially redemption from Egypt. Further, a Baptistic emphasis on the newness of the new covenant and its community is insufficient because the text does not warrant us to see this division and because of the way these verses focus on God’s covenantal faithfulness. A proper reading of Jeremiah 31:31-34 will yield the understanding that God promises a future time in which He will renew His covenant with His church in such a way that exalts His own covenant faithfulness in bringing His people to a full realization of redemption.

Notes

1. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., “The Old Promise and the New Covenant: Jeremiah 31:31-34, ” Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 15 (1972): 11.
2. See, for example, William D. Barrick, “New Covenant Theology and the Old Testament Covenants,” in The Masters Seminary Journal 18 (2007): 165-80; R. Bruce Compton, “Dispensationalism, the Church, and the New Covenant,” in Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 8 (2003): 3-48; Elliott E. Johnson, “Covenants in Traditional Dispensationalism,” and Darrell L. Bock, “Covenants in Progressive Dispensationalism” in Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views, ed. Herbert W. Bateman IV (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 121-223; and Robert L. Saucy, “The New Covenant and the Salvation of the Gentiles,” in The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: The Interface Between Dispensational and Non-Dispensational Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 111-42.
3. See, for example, Bruce A. Ware, “Believer’s Baptism View,” in Baptism: Three Views, ed. David F. Wright (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2009), 41ff., and Stephen J. Wellum, “Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants,” in Believer’s Baptism: Sing of the New Covenant in Christ, eds. Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright (Nashville, Tenn.: B&H Publishing, 2006), 97-162.
4. See especially Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2012), 491.
5. See Gen. 15:18; Ex. 24:8; 34:10; Deut. 4:23; 29:1; 1 Chron. 16:16; 2 Chron. 7:18; 21:7; Ps. 105:9; Jer. 11:10; 34:13; Hag. 2:5. For references to the “new covenant” see Isa. 55:3; 61:8; Ezek. 34:25; 37:26; Hos. 2:18.
6. Meredith Kline, By Oath Consigned: A Reinterpretation of the Covenant Signs of Circumcision and Baptism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 42.
7. These arguments are taken from Femi Adeyemi, “What is the New Covenant ‘Law’ in Jeremiah 31:33?” in Bibliotheca Sacra 163 (2006): 319-21.
8. These arguments are taken from Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., “The Old Promise and the New Covenant: Jeremiah 31:31-34, ” in Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 15 (1972): 16-19.
9. See Charles C. Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux, 1953), 107ff.
10. See John F. MacAruthur, Matthew 24-28 in The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1989), chap. 12.
11. Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 496ff. They later similarly argue that the “seed of Abraham” is considered differently in the NT than the OT with the coming of Christ (696).
12. Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 497.
13. A note that Gentry and Wellum observe as well.
14. Gerald L. Keown, Pamela J. Scalise, and Thomas G. Smothers, Jeremiah 26-52, vol. 27, Word Bible Commentary (Nashville, Tenn.: Nelson, 1995), 131. [Cited hereafter as WBC.]
15. Quoted in Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 504.
16. William Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation: A Theology of Old Testament Covenants (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock, 1984), 178.
17. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 178.
18. Brevard Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 355. Cf. also Bruce Waltke, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 437-38.
19. See Kline, By Oath Consigned, 75.
20. See also William L. Holladay, “The Background of Jeremiah’s Self- Understanding: Moses, Samuel, and Psalm 22, ” Journal of Biblical Literature 83 (1964): 153-64. Holladay argues that Jeremiah understands his task to be leading a people out of bondage in an analogous way to that of Moses leading the people out of Egypt. Holloday’s article is helpful in directing one’s attention to the importance of the exodus imagery.
21. Gary Yates, “New Exodus and No Exodus in Jeremiah 26-45: Promise and Warning to the Exiles in Babylon,” in Tyndale Bulletin 57 (2006): 4-6.
22. M. Vervenne, Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction, Reception, and Interpretation (Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1996), 560-65.
23. Gary E. Yates, “Jeremiah’s Message of Judgment and Hope for God’s Unfaithful ‘Wife’” Bibliotheca Sacra 167 (2010): 145.
24. See Yates, “Unfaithful ‘Wife,’” 147.
25. Thanks to Dr. Michael Barrett for this insight.
26. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 176. See also Kaiser, “The Old Promise and the New Covenant,” 13.
27. WBC, 132-33.
28. See Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 183-84.
29. See Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 508. Cf. also Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 33.
30. Waltke, Old Testament Theology, 442. See also Kline, By Oath Consigned, 42.
31. Kaiser, “The Old Promise and the New Covenant,” 20.
32. See I. M. Duguid, “Exile,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, eds. T. Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson, and Graeme Goldsworthy (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2000), 475-78.
33. See also Kline, By Oath Consigned, 76.
34. Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 506.
35. Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 513.
36. Richard C. Barcellos, In Defense of the Decalogue: A Critique of New Covenant Theology (Enumclaw, Wash.: Winepress, 2001), 16-21. Despite Barcellos’s seminal work against new covenant theology Gentry and Wellum have dismissed his arguments and not dealt with the case Barcellos makes. See also Waltke, Old Testament Theology, 438. For a dispensationalist critique of New Covenant Theology, see William D. Barrick, “New Covenant Theology and the Old Testament Covenants,” in TMSJ 18 (2007): 165-80.
37. WBC, 134.
38. Femi Adeyemi admits that this is the prevailing view maintained by men from Calvin to von Rad in “What is the New Covenant ‘Law’ in Jeremiah 31:33?” Bibliotheca Sacra 163 (2006): 312-21.
39. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 179. See also WBC, 133-34.
40. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 181. It is important, however, to bear in mind that the old covenant did have an external nationalistic emphasis that is not as prominent under the new covenant. This, perhaps, helps us to understand Paul’s polarizing treatment of the covenants in 2 Cor. 3ff. Contra to Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 75.
41. Jeremiah makes use of this formula often, see Jer. 7:23; 24:7; 30:22; 31:1; 32:28.
42. Cf. Wilber B. Wallis, “Irony in Jeremiah’s Prophecy of a New Covenant,” in Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 12 (1969): 107. Wallis defends that the whole new covenant as prophesied in Jeremiah is one of irony. While we are reticent to embrace everything Wallis says, he does point out the irony that what appears “new” in the new covenant is not actually “new.”
43. See also 2 Cor. 6:16; 1 Peter 2:9, 10.
44. Paul R. House, Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 1998), 318.
45. Cf. D. A. Carson, “Evangelicals, Ecumenism, and the Church,” in Evangelical Affirmations, ed. Kenneith S. Kantzer and Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 359-60.
46. This is a peculiar argument and, as far as I have read, there are no allusions or specific places in the OT where common laypeople exhorted their fellow brothers in such a way (cf. Jer. 9:4-9). If this is what is meant by this statement, it appears to lack biblical support or examples. Cf. also to Rata, The Covenant Motif in Jeremiah’s Book of Comfort, 44.
47. See Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 509-10.
48. Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 510. Interestingly, Gentry and Wellum do not deal with the prepositional phrase “from the smallest to the greatest.” These Hebrew adjectives, as used in Jeremiah, can be a simple attributive (see 49:15), a mark of social status (see 6:13), or as referring to children (see 16:6). Keown argues that children are most likely in view (WBC, 135).
49. See G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 734.
50. Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 510.
51. WBC, 135.
52. Timothy M. Willis, “‘I Will Remember Their Sins No More’: Jeremiah 31, the New Covenant, and the Forgiveness of Sins,” in Restoration Quarterly 53 (2011): 2.
53. Beale, New Testament Theology, 730 [emphasis mine].
54. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 182.