Jeremiah 31 Nuances

[Karl Kozlowski]

So, I was trying to take a closer look at Jeremiah 31, and it seems that verses 1-25 are referring to the return from the Babylonian Exile. Is that right?

I’m working through a book written by someone trying to deny a future restoration of Israel, and he said the following about the phrases “not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt” and “They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them”:

Jeremiah also said that the New Covenant would not be like the old Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant was centered upon earth, with a tabernacle (and later a temple) to which the people were required to assemble at set times for carnal sacrifices. Jesus told the woman at the well that the time had come when worship to God would no longer be centered upon a certain location (Jn 4:21-24). It was time for something “new”.
There would be a period of great trouble and return before the New Covenant went into effect (Jer 31:1-30). This occurred during the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. This, then, would be the period leading up to the New Testament.
…Under the New Covenant, Israel would be identified as God’s people. Dispensationalists try to make this sound like it is the world’s perception of Israel, but that is not the point. The point is found in the fact that God’s law would be within them. Because they keep the law, they will sustain this relationship with Him. We now have the “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” which is not written upon tablets of stone (Rom 8:2). God said, when he wrote His law upon their hearts, “I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Jer 31:33). That is precisely the circumstance in which all believers find themselves today (I Pt 2:9f; Rom 9:23-26).
Universal knowledge would characterize the New Covenant. This is one way the New Covenant would be different from the old. Under the law of Moses, one was physically born into covenant relationship. As they grew up, they had to be taught to “know the Lord.” Under the New Covenant, one can only come into covenant relationship by already knowing Jesus. Since that is the case, there is no need for citizens of the kingdom to teach “each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord.’” They already know the Lord. If they do not know the Lord, then they are not in the kingdom. If they are in the kingdom, then they must have already come to know the Lord. The Dispensationalist has no the same problem with this as Nicodemus in John 3. Nicodemus thought kingdom entry was by physical birth. When Jesus said you must be “born again,” Nicodemus had nowhere in his Jewish mind to run, other than his mother’s womb. What Nicodemus and the Dispensationalist fail to realize is that no one gets into the kingdom without already knowing the Lord! Therefore, they need not tell their “fellow citizens” to “know the Lord.”
The last aspect of the New Covenant is the requirement that sins be forgiven. I believe we all agree that this is accomplished in the blood of Jesus. For any who might state that Israel has not been forgiven “nationally,” I must wonder if there is another sacrifice anticipated to accomplish that. They know that there is none (Heb 9:28; 10:10). The New Covenant shifts God’s focus from a nation to individuals — all individuals.

It seems to me that this is a mixture of true statements and false ones, but I’m having trouble teasing apart what’s what.

Is his claim accurate that John 4:21-24 tells us one of the ways the New Covenant was “not like” the Mosaic Covenant? If so, how do we reconcile the New Covenant persisting into the Kingdom for eternity future with the sacrifices at the temple laid out in Ezekiel 40-48 (implying a central location for worship)? To be clear, I know those sacrifices are to be memorial, so that’s not what I’m asking.

I also find it funny how he manages to switch from “Israel would be identified as God’s people” to “the circumstance in which all believers find themselves today” within a single paragraph!

What are your thoughts on these details in Jeremiah 31:31-34? And should we be concerned that the implication of the Lake of Fire someday being cleansed appears in the Masoretic Text of Jeremiah 31:40, but not the Septuagint version? After all, Hebrews 8 quotes the Septuagint version!

[Timothy]

Karl,

I believe that the first part of Jer. 31 concerns the Millennium yet it also foreshadowed the return from the Babylonian exile. There are actually several prophecies which appear to have this kind of dual fulfillment.

The author is not correct in the final statement. “The New Covenant shifts God’s focus from a nation to individuals — all individuals.” Jer. 31:31-34 specifically states that God would make the New Covenant with “the house of Israel and the house of Judah.” It is a national covenant. The statement that “they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them” (v. 34), is why Paul could say, “all Israel will be saved” (Rom.11:26).

The New Covenant became a reality with the death and resurrection of Jesus. But that does not mean that Jer. 31:31-34 is completely fulfilled. When the Law was given through Moses, not everything was fulfilled instantly. They did not enter the Promised Land until 40 years later. And the curses of the Law took many more years, which even included the Babylonian Exile and the return from exile as mentioned in Duet. 30. The ultimate goal of the New Covenant is that all Israel will be included. This does not happen until the second coming and Zechariah’s prophecy is fulfilled.

Zech. 12:9-14 (NKJV)
9 “It shall be in that day that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10 “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. 11 “In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning at Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. 12 “And the land shall mourn, every family by itself: the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves; 13 “the family of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of Shimei by itself, and their wives by themselves; 14 “all the families that remain, every family by itself, and their wives by themselves.

Entrance into the New Covenant requires repentance. And since it is clearly a national covenant, it requires a national repentance. So Jeremiah’s prophecy fits nicely into the Millennium and the many promises of the restoration of Jerusalem and Israel.

The problem is in the fact that the New Testament shows that only a remnant of Israel entered the New Covenant: the disciples, those saved on Pentecost, etc. But this does not mean the prophecy failed. It only means that its ultimate goal (that all Israel is saved) is yet to be realized. Also, the Mosaic Covenant has not been abolished by the coming of the New Covenant. Those who refused the New Covenant are still under the Law. This is shown by Jesus’ statement in Matt. 5:17-18 and several statements by Paul that they are under the curse of the Law described in Deut. 28-30. The Gospel provides an early entry into the New Covenant. But its ultimate fulfillment is in the Millennial Kingdom.

Regarding vs. 40 in the LXX, I see no problem.

Jeremiah 31:40 (NRSV) 40 The whole valley of the dead bodies and the ashes, and all the fields as far as the Wadi Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be sacred to the LORD. It shall never again be uprooted or overthrown.

Jeremiah 38:40 (NETS – LXX) 40 And all hasaremoth as far as Nachal Kedron, to the corner of the gate of horses in the east, a holy precinct to the Lord, and it shall never again fail and shall never ever be destroyed.

While the LXX does not mention the corpses specifically, the geographical location is the same which includes the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna). The LXX uses a word “hasaremoth” which appears nowhere else and its meaning is uncertain. But it was probably a derogatory name for this place.

(The order of chapters in Jeremiah is different in the LXX, as ch. 31 in the Hebrew is ch. 38 in the LXX).

[Author]

Posts