Jeremiah 31:31-37 – Exegesis

Nick Hauenstein

Box ### Biblical Exegesis

November 15, 2004

Word Count: 3,050

1

I. Introduction to the Text

The Bible suggests that the author for the book of Jeremiah was Jeremiah son of Hilkiah.

Jeremiah, born sometime between 652 B.C.-648 B.C., lived in the town of Anathoth, within

approximately 2.5 miles of Jerusalem1. The Lord called Jeremiah into prophetic ministry

personally around the year 627 B.C., placing Jeremiah in his early to mid twenties in age2.

Serving as a prophet to Judah, the Southern Kingdom, he prophesied over a span of forty years --

at earliest,3 until the fall of Judah. As such the book bearing his name could be seen as a

commentary on those years (627 B.C.–587 B.C.) 4

Jeremiah 31:31-37 itself falls into a poetic discourse spanning from Jeremiah chapter 30

up to chapter 32.5 This passage also falls into a broader three chapter segment of Jeremiah called

by scholars the “Book of Comfort.” 6 Charles H. Dyer dates the prophecy contained within this

section of Jeremiah between 595 B.C. and 596 B.C., placing it in time at a point right after the

second deportation, and before the fall of Judah – in the midst of the exile.7 Those who read this

section of Jeremiah would find relief from the strong words in his prophecies against the Lord’s

sinful people. Even when it had seemed that the Lord had given up on Judah, the Book of

Comfort, “proclaimed an exciting message – God had not cast aside his people! A glorious future

would follow their judgment.”8

II. Exegetical Analysis

1 Shultz, S.J., “Jeremiah,” in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill C. Tenny. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 3:437 2 Shultz, “Jeremiah,” 3:437 3 Dyer, Charles H., “Jeremiah,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord, and Roy B. Zuck. (Colorado Springs: Cook Communications Ministries, 2000), 1123. 4 Carroll, Robert P. Jeremiah: A Commentary. (Philadelphia: Westminster P., 1986), 65 5 Dyer, “Jeremiah,” 1127 6 Arnold, Bill T., and Beyer, Bryan E. “Jeremiah 21-52 and Lamentations,” in Encountering the Old Testament, ed. Eugene H. Merrill. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 396 7 Dyer, “Jeremiah,” 1126 8 Arnold, and Beyer, “Jeremiah 21-52 and Lamentations,” 396

2

The passage Jeremiah 31:31-37 breaks down logically into three basic sections. In the

first section, the Lord announces the coming of a new covenant, unlike the old covenant (31:31-

32). The second section of this passage (31:33-34) describes the key characteristics of the new

covenant. Finally, in the last section, the Lord asserts the immutability, eternality, and

permanence of both the nation of Israel, and the New Covenant by proxy (31:35-37).

A. Announcing a New Covenant, Unlike the Old (31:31-32)

The first section opens with the statement, “Behold days are coming,” a line repeated

throughout the Book of Comfort. Of these words Charles L. Feinberg notes that, “They are an

eschatological formula that places the prophecy in messianic times in the Day of the Lord, the

consummation period of the nation's history.”9 However, the use of this phrase not only signals

the eschatological nature of the message following it10, but the phrase also precedes each item in

a five item chiasm contained within Jeremiah chapters 30-33. Each item of the chiasm represents

an action set to occur in the “days” that “are coming.” The preceding key statements in the

chiasm, which include “I will restore,” (30:3), and “I will sow,” (31:27), each represent a form

restoration and serve to build up to the action in 31:31, “I will make,” which represents the center

of the chiasm and the start of a discourse announcing the New Covenant. The centrality of this

discourse introducing the New Covenant within the chiasm indicates that it exists as the focal

point11 of said acts of restoration.

After stating that the Lord intends to make a new covenant, verse 31 reveals the parties of

the new covenant as the “house of Israel,” and the “house of Judah.” Since Jeremiah gave this

prophecy after the division of Solomon’s empire into Israel and Judah, the people within each

9 Feinberg, Charles L., “Jeremiah,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, and Richard P. Polcyn. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 6:574 10 Ibid., 6:574

3

must receive mention to include the totality of the Jews. Though Gentiles do not receive specific

mention in this passage as parties of the New Covenant, prophecies do exist the Old Testament

that include gentiles in the Lord’s redemptive plan. For example Isaiah 49:1-6 offers hope for

the gentiles, in mentioning the scope of the Servant’s task: “first to Israel and then to the whole

world.”12 In addition Feinberg notes the case Paul makes in the New Testament saying that, “it is

correct to say that all believers in Christ are by virtue of this covenant grafted into the stock of

Abraham (cf. Rom 11:16-24)."13

In Jeremiah 31:32 one finds reference to the covenant which the New Covenant stands to

replace. Described as the covenant the Lord made when he brought his people out of Egypt, the

older Covenant in this passage could only be the Mosaic covenant.14 Verse 32 references the

Mosaic covenant not only to demonstrate what the New Covenant will replace, but also to

provide a basis of contrast for it, since the New Covenant will have an entirely different

character from the Mosaic covenant.

In this verse, the Lord also takes the time to note both that the Old Covenant had been

broken, and that he had acted as a husband to those who had broken it. According to Feinberg,

the Old Covenant being broken was a necessary prologue to the presentation of the New

Covenant, he notes that, “the new covenant is built on the fact of Israel's failure under the old

covenant. Because the old covenant was a legal one [...] it was incumbent on both parties to the

covenant [...] to maintain its provisions." Contrasting the faithfulness of the people to God’s

faithfulness, the book of Jeremiah uses interesting language. He uses the word “husband” – a

11 Duvall, J. Scott, and Hays, J. Daniel, Grasping God’s Word. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2001), 73 12 Motyer, J. A., and Broomall, Wick, “Servant of Jehovah,” in New International Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, and Merrill C. Tenney. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1987), 919 13 Feinberg, “Jeremiah,” 6:575 14 Dyer, “Jeremiah,” 1171

4

word it would seem more descriptive of a marital relationship than the relationship of deity to

humanity. Jeremiah uses this language twice, first in 3:14, and here in 31:32.15 Isaiah uses the

same Hebrew word, b�’all, in the same fashion in Isaiah 54:5. In fact these represent 3 of the

only 4 times b�’all is translated as husband.16 William T. Koopmans says of the use of the word

husband here: “The imagery not only implies the ownership and authority that god has over his

people, but God in his perfection exemplifies those characteristics of love, fidelity, and goodness

that ideally ought to be evident from every husband.”17 He would also caution that one not

misconstrue the use of this imagery as portraying God as harsh in any way, but that instead one

should note that this imagery anticipates Christ’s fulfillment in the New Testament as the,

“loving, sacrificial Lord of his bride, the church.”18 Feinberg says this of Jeremiah’s use of

husband imagery:

"The blame for breaking the covenant rested wholly on Israel and Judah, for there was no

fault in God; he had ever been as faithful to them as a faithful husband to his wife. This

marriage relationship was the very basis on which God expected obedience to and fidelity

in the covenant."19

B. Characteristics of the New Covenant (31:33-34)

Verses 33 and 34 of Jeremiah 31 flesh-out the distinguishing characteristics of the New

Covenant. These verses mention a total of three major characteristics of the New Covenant,

which include: internalization of law (31:33b), the Lord’s relationship to his people (31:33c), and

knowing the Lord (31:34b) enabled by the forgiveness of sin. Discussing the forgiveness of sin

15 Kohlenberger III, John R., and Swanson, James A. The Hebrew-English Concordance to the Old Testament With the New International Version. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988), 314 16 Goodrick, Edward W., and Kohlenberger III, John R. NIV Exhaustive Concordance. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 1401 17 Koopmans, William T., “1249 ���” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 682

5

alongside knowing the Lord in this essay attempts to respect the author’s apparent intent. This

exegetical analysis will demonstrate that discussing the forgiveness of sin apart from knowing

the Lord undermines the connection between forgiveness of sin and the Lord’s desire for

relationship, in effect cheapening the passage, and the whole purpose of the New Covenant.

i. Internalization of Law (31:33b)

Under the New Covenant the Lord writes his law on people’s hearts instead of on tablets

of stone like in the Old Covenant. Dyer suggests that the internalization of the law did not exist

in the Old Covenant since the Holy Spirit did not, “universally indwell” all believers at that

time20. This would suggest that the internalization of the law as described in verse 33 exists as

one function of the Holy Spirit. This follows logically as John 16:8 indicates that the Holy Spirit

will, “convict the world of guilt.” As such, one could easily reason and conclude that when

Jeremiah refers to the law written on people’s hearts, he describes using a figure of speech the

work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of men.

It would appear that Jeremiah’s use of a figure of speech in this context provides an

avenue of direct comparison to the Mosaic Covenant: under the Mosaic Covenant the law was

written on stone, but under the New Covenant the law will be written on hearts. The writing of

law on one’s heart makes the law more personal/closer to the person, and requires God to get

more personal with/closer to his people to do. Feinberg states it this way, "The new covenant

will include a revolutionary change in will, heart, and conscience. It will be an internal rather

than an external covenant [...] The law now becomes a principle of life."21 This element, of the

Lord’s closeness, ties in with the second aspect of the new covenant, the Lord’s relationship to

18 Ibid., 682 19 Feinberg, “Jeremiah,” 6:576 20 Dyer, “Jeremiah,” 1171 21 Feinberg, “Jeremiah,” 6:576

6

his people.

ii. The Lord’s Relationship to His People (31:33c)

The third part of verse 33 asserts, and describes the state of the Lord’s relationship with

his people under the New Covenant – “I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” This

promise exists at the center of each successive Covenant between God and man, including the

Mosaic covenant.22 According to Arthur J. Murray, this promise in the New Covenant, “brings

this relationship to the highest level of achievement, and there will be no further expansion or

enrichment than that which the new covenant provides.”23 Thus this promise should not be

looked at as a change in God’s relationship to his creation, but as a guarantee of continued

fulfillment of that aspect of previous covenants, with completed fulfillment in the New

Covenant.

iii. Knowing the Lord (31:34b)

The next verse goes on to describe the greatest covenant guarantee of all, knowing the

Lord. The beginning of the verse hints at what it means when it says knowing the Lord. It says

that people will not have to teach about the Lord, and exhort people to “Know the Lord” because

all will know him. The New Covenant brings with it not simply knowledge of the Lord, but the

ability for man to know him personally. The idea of having dealings with God without a

mediator would be a foreign idea to the Old Covenant. The phrase “the least of them” in this

verse holds within it a broad meaning that could include the least in influence, position, or moral

capacity.24 In short it simply attempts to encapsulate the idea that all, not simply those of priestly

descent shall have access to deal directly with the Lord under the New Covenant. Feinberg sums

22 Murray, Arthur J., “Covenant,” in The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), 267-8 23 Ibid., 268 24 Feinberg, “Jeremiah,” 6:577

7

this point up, saying, "A vital feature of the old covenant was human mediation for both Jew and

Gentile. In the new one there is immediate access to God through Christ, our High Priest."25

Near the end of verse 33 lay a clause with the additional guarantee that the Lord will

forgive the sins of his people. Since the clause before the forgiveness guarantee begins with the

word “for,” and the sin guarantee clause also begins with the word “for” it would follow that

these have some relation to one another. Looking in the context of the entire verse it would seem

that both these clauses serve as ways how, or reasons why people will no longer need to be

taught to “Know the Lord.” Even if the clause in this case does not serve as a reason why people

will no longer need to be taught to “Know the Lord,” it at least serves as a reason why people

will know the Lord – the clause immediately preceding the one in question. Either way, the word

“for” here could in fact be read as “because.” Viewing the clause in this manner reveals that

through, or because of the forgiveness of sin, man can know God. As previously noted, breaking

this guarantee off, alienating it from and ignoring the context of the entire verse, makes the

promise of the forgiveness of sin rather lackluster. Without taking into account the full context, it

almost seems to lack purpose. Taking into account the context reveals a loving God, who

forgives sin not simply for our own good, but so that we might know him, and to restore us into

right relationship with him. Under the Old Testament view, forgiveness of sin would be received

with a grateful heart and, “regarded with awe and wonder.”26

Here would be a good place to note that the verse mentions nothing about the existence of

a sinless world under the New Covenant, quite to the contrary in fact. In order for God to forgive

sin, man must sin in the first place. Feinberg asserts, "The new covenant does not envision

25 Ibid., 577 26 Morris, L. L., “Forgiveness,” in The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), 435

8

sinless-ness but forgiveness of sin resulting in restoration of fellowship with God."27 The

difference lay in the fact that here, unlike the Old Covenant, the New Covenant in its fulfillment

provides a framework to overcome the sin barrier – the death of Jesus Christ on the cross.

C. The Lord’s Preservation of Israel (31:35-37)

The next section of text to look at spans from verses 35-37 in which the Lord asserts the

immutability of the New Covenant. At the beginning of this section the Lord rhetorically asks

who controls the cycle of day and night, and also the cycles of the sea. Both these things lay

beyond any kind of human control, and the verse even notes that at the end of this line of

questioning. It states that the Lord controls these ever continuing cycles of nature. This asserts

not only the Lord’s sovereignty over nature but, as one will see reading on from this point, his

power of preservation. The Lord next submits that in order for Israel to cease from being a

nation, the fixed order of nature would have to cease – a feat that the preceding verse reserves for

God’s ability alone. However throughout this whole section the Lord does not present, or even

suggest the idea that it would be his intention to throw away the order of nature. Quite the

contrary, the passage indicates that as the master creator of natural order, and creator of the

nation of Israel, so he will serve as the perpetuator of both.

The Lord continues his assertion of his power to preserve Israel by noting that unless the

heavens can be measured, and the “foundations of the Earth [can be] searched out below,” then

Israel will remain. Here the Lord calls to focus not divine power, but divine knowledge. By

adding this clause the passage requires one to not only have abilities that only the Lord himself

posses, but it also requires that one know the Lord’s own secrets. Again this indicates, and points

to the fact that only the Lord would hold any kind of power against Israel.

The threat to Israel in this section, however, differs from that of the first declaration. The

27 Feinberg, “Jeremiah,” 6:577

9

destruction of Israel served as the threat in the first section. In the second section the casting off

of Israel for their sin serves as the threat. Just as an interesting note, the first declaration required

a concrete possession (might/power), to do a concrete thing (destroy Israel). The second

declaration requires a more abstract possession (knowledge). The first declaration protects Israel

from physical threat, by virtue of the assumption that the Lord would not turn against his people,

and the second declaration protects Israel from spiritual threat, by virtue of the same assumption.

This assumption would be safe to make too, because as a loving husband to his people, the Lord

much like under the Old Covenant, will not turn against his people. Thus here the Lord lays out

for the reader his duel role as Israel’s physical protector, and spiritual protector.

An eternal covenant has little value, if certain parties to it are limited in life span, but this

case does not exist in the new covenant because, “it is made with an eternal people."28 Since the

Lord has the power, and the intention to preserve the nation of Israel, the one he will covenant

with, the New Covenant simply cannot be broken. As such the New Covenant represents not a

temporal/provisional covenant, but an immutable eternally permanent covenant. Feinberg notes

that, "Scripture knows no greater guarantee for the validity and permanence of the covenant than

that stated here [v.35-37]. As unchangeable as the laws of nature is God's covenant with the

deathless nation."29

III. Concluding Thoughts

This passage would have provided passionate hope in the hearts of early Jewish readers,

reading it in a time of crisis and exile – a time when it had seemed the Lord had abandoned his

people. Not only would this provide the hope in the Lord’s active thought of his people, but also

his provision, and plans for his people. It would’ve provided a hope for escape from sin, and

28 Ibid., 6:578 29 Ibid., 6:578

10

condemnation, and hope for ever available grace. John Bright says this of the New Covenant:

"Yahweh would again call his people, as he once had from Egypt, and, forgiving their

sins, would make with them a new covenant, inscribing its law on their hearts. The awful

chasm between the demands of Yahweh's covenant, by which the nation had been judge,

and his sure promises, which faith could not surrender, was bridged from the side of the

divine grace. The very exodus theology that had condemned the nation became the

foundation of its hope."30

In light of the New Testament, this passage demonstrates how far into the past the Lord’s

redemptive plan extended, and that Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection were fully in the Lord’s

view, long before anyone so much as knew his name. As a single element within the Book of

Comfort, this passage represents the center of God’s plan of restoration for his people. Alone,

and as a whole this passage reflects the entire purpose, and will of the Lord in regards to his

creation. The Lord desires relationship with his creation, and will stop at nothing to do what is

necessary to provide a way for right relationship to be played out. In this sense the passage not

only serves as a prophecy of the New Covenant that began with Jesus’ death on the cross, and

the shedding of his blood, but it also serves as a testimony of God’s intense love, and eternal

faithfulness to his people.

30 Bright, John. A History of Israel. (London: Westminster John Knox Press., 2000), 339

11

WORKS CITED Arnold, Bill T., and Beyer, Bryan E. “Jeremiah 21-52 and Lamentations.” In Encountering the

Old Testament, ed. Eugene H. Merrill. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999. 396.

Bright, John. A History of Israel. London: Westminster John Knox Press., 2000. 339.

Carroll, Robert P. Jeremiah: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. 65-8.

Duvall, J. Scott, and Hays, J. Daniel. Grasping God’s Word. Grand Rapids: Zondervan

Publishing House, 2001. 73.

Dyer, Charles H. “Jeremiah.” In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, ed. John F.

Walvoord, and Roy B. Zuck. Colorado Springs: Cook Communications Ministries, 2000.

1123-1206.

Feinberg, Charles L., “Jeremiah.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein,

and Richard P. Polcyn. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986. 6:574-8.

Goodrick, Edward W., and Kohlenberger III, John R. NIV Exhaustive Concordance. Grand

Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990. 1401.

Kohlenberger III, John R., and Swanson, James A. The Hebrew-English Concordance to the Old

Testament With the New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing

House, 1988. 314.

Koopmans, William T., “1249 ���” In New International Dictionary of Old Testament

Theology & Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing

House, 1997. 681-2.

Morris, L. L., “Forgiveness,” in The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids:

WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962. 435-6.

12

Motyer, J. A., and Broomall, Wick, “Servant of Jehovah,” In New International Bible

Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan

Publishing House, 1987. 919.

Murray, Arthur J., “Covenant,” in The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids:

WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962. 264-9.

Schultz, S. J. "Jeremiah." In The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill C.

Tenny. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975. 3:434-49.