Jeremiah 31

User avatar
kaufmannphillips
Posts: 585
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm

Jeremiah 31

Post by kaufmannphillips » Sun Jan 06, 2013 3:05 pm

RE: Jeremiah 31 and its “new covenant.”
Jeremiah 31:31-34, ESV

31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
Some persons might view this passage as foretelling an abandoning of the Mosaic covenant, in line with developments near the onset of the Christian era.

I contend that the passage should be understood as part of a broader motif found in the literature of its time. This motif is addressed to a contemporary audience and deals with their proximal concerns. It would be anachronistic to apply the passage to circumstances and developments from centuries later, in the Roman era. And, taken in concert with other passages related to the motif, Jeremiah 31 clearly does not involve an abandonment of the Mosaic covenant.



The motif in question has to do with life in the community after the time of exile. In Jeremiah, this context is made clear by the refrain “behold, days are coming,” which recurs in 30:3, 31:27, 31:31, and 31:38. The refrain ties the material in chapters 30 and 31 together; and taken together, the material plainly addresses the restoration of people from exile, and the new life for the community.

The same motif appears in Ezekiel 36, and in Deuteronomy 30. (Ezekiel was an exilic prophet, and a contemporary of Jeremiah. Deuteronomy is thought of by traditionalists as Mosaic in origin, but some modern scholarship has dated it much later. All or part of the book may be late enough to be contemporaneous with Jeremiah and Ezekiel. But if one prefers to maintain a traditionalist outlook, then Deuteronomy 30 may be regarded as an early exemplar that yields a motif found in those later books.)



Now, in Jeremiah 31, we find that God is making a new covenant, with three major components: (1) putting his law within the people/writing his law on the people’s hearts; (2) him being their God/them being his people; and (3) all of the people knowing God. Some might view this “new covenant” as displacing the Mosaic covenant, but the passage need not be taken in such a way. This “new covenant” could align with the Mosaic covenant in the new lives of the people. In support of this understanding, let us consider the parallels in Ezekiel and Deuteronomy.
Ezekiel 36:24-28, ESV

24 I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. 28 You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.
In Ezekiel 36, we find elements similar to Jeremiah 31: God is gathering the people (cf. Jeremiah 31:10); he is bringing something new (new heart/new spirit); he is putting something within the people (new spirit); he will be their God/they will be his people. But here there is no mention of a new covenant per se. What is stated is that God will act so that the people will walk in his statutes and guard and perform his judgments.



Now, Ezekiel does not specifically indicate whether these are the statutes and judgments of the Mosaic code; one could argue that they might be new statutes and judgments in the future. But in order to do so, one would have to reckon with the fact that Ezekiel (like Jeremiah) is speaking in the context of the people’s restoration from exile. And did the people come back from exile and embark upon a new way of living, without concern for the Mosaic code?

Rather the opposite, if one is to accept Nehemiah 9:38-10:29. The language in 9:38 is particularly curious: the people do not speak of “cutting a covenant,” in the usual parlance, but of “cutting steadfastness/faithfulness.” So the diction seems quasi-covenantal, but it is not a new system so much as a new way of doing the old system: it is being faithful instead of unfaithful (cf. 9:33). And in 10:29, the people “enter into a curse and an oath to walk in God’s Law that was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the LORD our Lord and his rules and his statutes {ESV}.” Though it may not be evident in one’s English translation, much of the Hebrew diction is held in common with Ezekiel 36: “walk”; “careful/observe”; “obey/do”; “rules”; “statutes.”

So if one is inclined to pay much regard to Nehemiah 9 & 10, it would seem that Ezekiel 36 was being fulfilled in the faithful commitment of the community, which was being restored after the time of exile. And that faithful commitment did not displace the Mosaic code, but re-engaged it with a change of heart.



So let us consider, then, Deuteronomy 30.
Deuteronomy 30:1-10, ESV

1 And when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the LORD your God has driven you, 2 and return to the LORD your God, you and your children, and obey his voice in all that I command you today, with all your heart and with all your soul, 3 then the LORD your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you, and he will gather you again from all the peoples where the LORD your God has scattered you. 4 If your outcasts are in the uttermost parts of heaven, from there the LORD your God will gather you, and from there he will take you. 5 And the LORD your God will bring you into the land that your fathers possessed, that you may possess it. And he will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers. 6 And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. 7 And the LORD your God will put all these curses on your foes and enemies who persecuted you. 8 And you shall again obey the voice of the LORD and keep all his commandments that I command you today. 9 The LORD your God will make you abundantly prosperous in all the work of your hand, in the fruit of your womb and in the fruit of your cattle and in the fruit of your ground. For the LORD will again take delight in prospering you, as he took delight in your fathers, 10 when you obey the voice of the LORD your God, to keep his commandments and his statutes that are written in this Book of the Law, when you turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
Here we find elements of the motif again: God gathering the people; God changing the hearts of the people. And here we find some of the recurring Hebrew diction (though, once again, this might not be evident in one’s English translation): “obey/do/keep”; “careful/observe/keep”; “statutes.” But here it is stated explicitly: the new life will involve all the commandments Moses is giving “today”, it involves the commandments in Moses’ “book of the law.” In both cases, this is referring to the material in Deuteronomy, with injunctions both sublime and mundane.


And so we may articulate a general outlook for these passages: God will be doing something new in the hearts of the people; there will be a new life for the community after the exilic interval; this new life will involve observance of Mosaic commandments. The new covenant is not one that displaces the Mosaic paradigm; it is one that involves a new orientation of heart, guarding and performing the Mosaic paradigm as part and parcel of a new faithfulness.

This is the message that was pertinent to the contemporary audiences for these texts. They were to know the importance of faithful hearts and adherence to the Mosaic code. To construe Jeremiah 31 as prophesying a break with the Mosaic code runs contrary to the indication of the broader motif; and to apply it to the Christian era, many centuries later, is to wrest it to anachronistic (and rather contradictory) purposes.
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================

dwilkins
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:54 pm

Re: Jeremiah 31

Post by dwilkins » Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:54 pm

That is an interesting analysis. However, if we consider the material in Hebrews authoritative it is clear that these OT references to a New Covenant were being fulfilled as discreet prophecies in the narrative of the NT. Since I accept an old date of Deuteronomy I'll start there.

Towards the end of Deuteronomy we find that chapters 28-32 are the declaration to the nation of the blessings and cursing of the covenant. Chapter 32 is particularly important because it's a song that the nation was to sing on a regular basis to remember the penalty clause of the Mosaic Covenant. The previous chapters represented a process where the nation would be blessed when it did right and punished when it did wrong. Theoretically, the process could have repeated more than once (which I think matches the history of Israel after the covenant was agreed to). But, chapter 32 declares that one day there would be "a generation" that is so degenerate that God decides to terminate them. Christ, Peter, and Paul apply this penalty clause to their generation (I suggest everyone take a good reference Bible and follow the references to chapter 32 throughout the Bible):



Mat 17:17 And Jesus answered, "O faithless and twisted generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him here to me."

2Pe 2:12 But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction,
2Pe 2:13 suffering wrong as the wage for their wrongdoing. They count it pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, while they feast with you.

Php 2:14 Do all things without grumbling or questioning,
Php 2:15 that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world,

Deu 32:5 They have dealt corruptly with him; they are no longer his children because they are blemished; they are a crooked and twisted generation.

Later, Paul refers to the second part of the phrase in Romans where he explains that Gentiles are being embraced by God,

Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?"
Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Rom 10:18 But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for "Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world."
Rom 10:19 But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, "I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry."
Rom 10:20 Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me."
Rom 10:21 But of Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people."

Deu 32:20 And he said, 'I will hide my face from them; I will see what their end will be, For they are a perverse generation, children in whom is no faithfulness.
Deu 32:21 They have made me jealous with what is no god; they have provoked me to anger with their idols. So I will make them jealous with those who are no people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.

It's possible that the earlier passages could be seen as idealistic statements that could be repeated throughout history. However, in Old Testament prophetic literature I'm not aware of a climatic embracing of the Gentiles for their salvation more than once. That means it's a discreet prophecy.

Moving to Hebrews, this book is clear that the Mosaic Covenant was inadequate, that the promise made in Jeremiah was being fulfilled in the work of Christ, and that the Old Covenant given to Moses was going to be deprecated (upgraded) by the New Covenant (chapter 8, but specifically verses7-9. sorry for the long quote).

Heb 8:1 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven,
Heb 8:2 a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man.
Heb 8:3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.
Heb 8:4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law.
Heb 8:5 They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain."
Heb 8:6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
Heb 8:8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
Heb 8:9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more."
Heb 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

If it weren't for the inspired commentary of Hebrews then I think you'd have a more powerful point. But, the author makes it clear that a one time event of prophetic importance was unfolding in the 1st Century.

Doug

User avatar
jriccitelli
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Jeremiah 31

Post by jriccitelli » Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:30 am

I really do agree that the Mosaic Law would be written on our hearts, 'when' we see that Christ died and fulfilled the Law (This 'is' the Law Jeremiah was talking about). That is why I encourage people to read the Torah (Old Testament) to see what has been fulfilled and to see how they can fulfill it's 'purpose' in their lives. Unfortunately a lot of Christians ignore the Old Testament, and most likely because they are told that it has no application for them, just because we are not 'under' the law. This is a horrible deception, the Law symbolizes ‘untold’ riches hidden and revealed in Christ. All is fulfilled through His death and LIFE, and the Law is good, and I have to say like David “I love your Law”, it instructs me in everything God says it would.
Although I really believe there could have been a partial fulfillment for Jeremiah, I would note that Jeremiah says God would give us 'His' Spirit, the Spirit wasn't given to all the faithful until Christ sent Him out. And the New Covenant wasn't 'ratified' till Christs death.

But ‘I’ am not ‘under The Law’. I am neither a Jew. But as Doug is correct, the Law had to be changed, because the law was not able to make anything perfect, and because a ‘better sacrifice’ was made - under the Law - yet under a different Priest, a Priest that lives forever.

(Thank God I am not UNDER the Law, the Law would kill me, I live by Grace)

User avatar
kaufmannphillips
Posts: 585
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm

Re: Jeremiah 31

Post by kaufmannphillips » Sun Apr 14, 2013 11:13 pm

dwilkins wrote:
[C]hapter 32 declares that one day there would be “a generation” that is so degenerate that God decides to terminate them. Christ, Peter, and Paul apply this penalty clause to their generation (I suggest everyone take a good reference Bible and follow the references to chapter 32 throughout the Bible)…
:arrow: I suggest everyone take and follow the actual context in Deuteronomy. Everyone will find that the song is aimed at the people’s whoring after Canaanite gods (lit., “gods of the foreigner of the land”, q.v., 31:16-22 & 32:16f.; cf. 32:21).

Now, whatever failings might be attributed to the Jewish people in the first century, whoring after “gods of the foreigner of the land” would scarcely be one of them. There is no major dalliance with Canaanite deities by the first century.

Rather, this song (like the rest of Deuteronomy) is addressed to the context and theological interests of a more ancient community, who lived in a time when indigenous Canaanite religions still posed a danger to Israelite faith.

:arrow: Furthermore, close attention to the passage will yield verses that challenge the notion that “one day there would be ‘a generation’ that is so degenerate that God decides to terminate them” (q.v., Deuteronomy 32:26f.; 32:36, cf. Psalm 135:14).

:arrow: If Jesus, Peter, and Paul chose to apply this passage to their generation, we might just dismiss this as some of the slipshod and cavalier methodology that can be found in early Christian treatment of scriptural texts.

But we may spare a bit of mind to the passages cited above:
dwilkins wrote:
Mat 17:17 And Jesus answered, “O faithless and twisted generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him here to me.”
This brief remark need not necessarily have been intended to apply Deuteronomy 32 as a specific/direct prophecy. The phraseology might be mere allusion; but then again, it might have been a coincidental turn of phrase.
dwilkins wrote:
2Pe 2:12 But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction,
2Pe 2:13 suffering wrong as the wage for their wrongdoing. They count it pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, while they feast with you.
In context, this line of invective is directed at false teachers amongst the Christian community (q.v., 2 Peter 2:1-22). These persons appear to have been Christians – at some point, to some extent – but to have veered off into licentiousness.
dwilkins wrote:
Php 2:14 Do all things without grumbling or questioning,
Php 2:15 that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world.
The invective here is vague; context does not recommend identifying any particular group as the “crooked and twisted generation.”
dwilkins wrote:
Later, Paul refers to the second part of the phrase in Romans where he explains that Gentiles are being embraced by God,

Rom 10:19 But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, “I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry.”
Rom 10:20 Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.”
Rom 10:21 But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.”
:arrow: Last things first: in vv. 20f., Paul cites Isaiah 65 – applying verse 1 to Christians, and verse 2 to Israel.

But the broader context in latter Isaiah supports the understanding that both verses are referring to Israel (esp. Isaiah 63:19 & 64:7, cf. 63:14 & 64:3).

:arrow: Furthermore, the “disobedient and contrary people” of Isaiah 65 are accused in following verses of sacrificing in gardens or groves (probably a reference to heathen worship), of keeping vigils in tombs, of eating pork, and of aloof sanctification (probably according to heathen ritual). Though we should not imagine that all first-century Jews were pious, Judaism of the time was marked by attention to ritual purity (which would have been compromised by tombs), and by dietary tabu against pork; and we do not hear much of dalliances with heathen sacrifices or rituals. If Isaiah 65 were focused upon the generation of Jesus, Peter, and Paul, we might expect a different litany of faults – say, pride and avarice and lack of love for brother.

:arrow: Also, close attention to Isaiah 65 will yield verses that challenge the notion that “one day there would be ‘a generation’ that is so degenerate that God decides to terminate them” (q.v., vv. 8-10; cf. 13-16). And one should consider the general theme within the surrounding chapters in latter Isaiah – one of redemption and hope, not final eclipse.

:arrow: First things last: When Deuteronomy 32:21 refers to a foolish goy, the goad to Israel’s jealousy, this phraseology may be construed as indicating the oppressors of Israel – for their ascendancy might appear to telegraph that they have displaced Israel in the favor of G-d (thus inspiring jealousy). But the passage eventually reveals that the oppressors are not favorable, but are foul; and G-d’s vengeance falls upon them (q.v., Deuteronomy 32:26-43).
dwilkins wrote:
It’s possible that the earlier passages could be seen as idealistic statements that could be repeated throughout history. However, in Old Testament prophetic literature I’m not aware of a climatic embracing of the Gentiles for their salvation more than once. That means it’s a discreet prophecy.
Deuteronomy 32 is not about a “climactic embracing of the Gentiles for their salvation.” The passage is about temporary ascendancy of Israsel’s oppressors, and it may be compared to the well-known cycle in Judges and the paradigms in Isaiah 9 & 10 and Jeremiah 25.
dwilkins wrote:
Moving to Hebrews, this book is clear that the Mosaic Covenant was inadequate, that the promise made in Jeremiah was being fulfilled in the work of Christ, and that the Old Covenant given to Moses was going to be deprecated (upgraded) by the New Covenant….

…Heb 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
The conclusion in vs. 13 does not necessarily follow. Many times a new contract is enacted, without leaving any prior contract obsolete or superfluous or compromised or reduced in any capacity. The Mosaic covenant did not render the Abrahamic covenant obsolete; the Davidic covenant did not render the Mosaic or the Abrahamic covenants obsolete. These covenants added without taking away. It is not necessary to construe the new covenant in Jeremiah as rendering any of the prior covenants obsolete – including the Mosaic covenant.
dwilkins wrote:
If it weren’t for the inspired commentary of Hebrews then I think you’d have a more powerful point. But, the author makes it clear that a one time event of prophetic importance was unfolding in the 1st Century.
The author of Hebrews is indeterminate, and the text itself makes no claim to inspiration. On what basis should one consider it to be “inspired commentary”?

dwilkins
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:54 pm

Re: Jeremiah 31

Post by dwilkins » Sun Apr 14, 2013 11:44 pm

If we can't agree that Hebrews is inspired scripture and that Jesus, Peter, and Paul didn't make inspired, accurate commentary on the meaning of the texts they referenced then I don't know what kind of common ground we can find to debate the topic. It goes without saying that I disagreed with all of your analysis, but our foundations are so different that I don't know how to move forward.

Doug

User avatar
kaufmannphillips
Posts: 585
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm

Re: Jeremiah 31

Post by kaufmannphillips » Mon Apr 15, 2013 7:18 am

dwilkins wrote:
...our foundations are so different that I don't know how to move forward.
Since you believe that "Hebrews is inspired scripture," then you could tender an argument for why that premise should be accepted.

Since you believe that "Jesus, Peter, and Paul [made] inspired, accurate commentary," then you could defend the soundness of their commentary against the particular challenges that I have posed.

And even though you do not share my premises, you could critique my analysis in terms of cogency and internal consistency. One can engage argumentation itself, apart from its premises.

dwilkins
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:54 pm

Re: Jeremiah 31

Post by dwilkins » Mon Apr 15, 2013 7:24 pm

kaufmannphillips wrote:
dwilkins wrote:
...our foundations are so different that I don't know how to move forward.
Since you believe that "Hebrews is inspired scripture," then you could tender an argument for why that premise should be accepted.

Since you believe that "Jesus, Peter, and Paul [made] inspired, accurate commentary," then you could defend the soundness of their commentary against the particular challenges that I have posed.

And even though you do not share my premises, you could critique my analysis in terms of cogency and internal consistency. One can engage argumentation itself, apart from its premises.
Maybe we can start with this: Do you think that when one of the New Testament writers says that something is a fulfillment of an Old Testament passage that it's a fulfillment of a discreet prophecy, a fulfillment of a type of event, or what?

Doug

User avatar
kaufmannphillips
Posts: 585
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm

Re: Jeremiah 31

Post by kaufmannphillips » Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:20 pm

Not all NT writers would necessarily have held to the same hermeneutics; some might have been willing to interpret texts in ways that others would not. And in the NT, we will not always see a writer discuss their hermeneutic; we may not be able to show how a writer understood their mode of interpretation to "work" - what they thought it meant or considered it to accomplish in terms of argumentation.

When the author of Matthew invoked Hosea 11:1, what was his understanding of how that "fulfillment" worked? Was he relying upon the same understanding when he invoked Zechariah 9:9?

The Hosea invocation might seem typological; the Zechariah invocation might seem "discrete" (so to speak). But we cannot show the author's reasoning. Perhaps he understood Zechariah typologically. Perhaps he held to a mode of rationalization that we are not aware of. Or perhaps the connection was not so much rationalized as it was a matter of "fuzzy" rhetoric.


What we can do, is weigh particular claims of "fulfillment" according to our own hermeneutics. My hermeneutic places high priority on construing a text within its initial historical context. When an interpreter starts construing a text beyond its initial context, there is danger of going beyond the genius of the text itself (= eisegesis).

dwilkins
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:54 pm

Re: Jeremiah 31

Post by dwilkins » Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:22 pm

Do you have an example of a discreet fulfillment?

Doug

User avatar
kaufmannphillips
Posts: 585
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm

Re: Jeremiah 31

Post by kaufmannphillips » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:03 pm

Acts 2:25-35 might have a couple of examples. The writer portrays Peter as discounting fulfillment in the initial context, but asserting fulfillment in a first-century context. The reasoning behind this might amount to a sense of "discrete" fulfillment.

Any example(s) you'd like to offer?

Post Reply

Return to “Major and Minor Prophets”