Jeremiah’s New Covenant

When Jeremiah 31, with its promise of a new covenant, is read in context, it is clear that the prophet cannot possibly be referring to the events of the first century. So why is the passage quoted in the book of Hebrews?

Most of Hebrews 8 consists of a quote from Jeremiah 31:31-40, a passage in which God not only promises to make a new covenant with His people, but one in which God would write His laws on their hearts instead of engraving them on tablets of stone. At face value it seems to refer to the New Covenant in the blood of Christ and the subsequent pouring out of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.

However, Jeremiah’s promised “new covenant” with Judah and Israel would not only make the Sinaitic covenant obsolete but also see the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem. In contrast, Jesus predicted the destruction of the city and the establishing of a heavenly City of God. In Jeremiah 32, the prophet buys a field during the siege as a testimony to his listeners that their descendants would return from captivity and dwell once again in the inheritance given to their forefathers.

I charged Baruch in their presence, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Take these deeds, both this sealed deed of purchase and this open deed, and put them in an earthenware vessel, that they may last for a long time. For thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Houses and fields and vineyards shall again be bought in this land.’ (Jeremiah 32:13-15)

In contrast again, the believers in Acts 4:35-36 sold their houses and lands in light of the coming destruction of the city. So the question is why would the author of Hebrews would cherrypick a few verses from a passage that was not only fulfilled half a millennium earlier, but also contained promises that obviously no longer applied?

As was the practice of all the biblical prophets, Hebrews’ author refers to an earlier event to explain an imminent one. In the same way that the Restoration or oikoumene Covenant had made the Mosaic Covenant obsolete, so the New Covenant had now made the entire Old Covenant obsolete.

There are many “new” covenants in the Bible. The shedding of blood to cover Adam’s sin was in fact a new covenant. The institution of animal sacrifice allowed the continuation of human life. But the sacrifices did not annul the original covenant. They were a temporary measure made within the Adamic Covenant that humanity might not be cut off.

Likewise, the Covenant with Noah was made within the modified Adamic Covenant. It still encompassed “all flesh,” as well as substitutionary animal sacrifices, but the history of mankind was narrowed to one faithful man and his existing offspring. The possibility of another global judgment was removed, yet the curse of death remained.

The Circumcision was yet another “new” covenant, and it was made within the Noahic one, but this time it split humanity into Jew and Gentile. Four centuries later, the Mosaic Covenant was made with all Israel, yet its focus was a single house of Israel, the tribe of Levi. Every subsequent covenant was made within the earlier ones, yet although it never wiped out the obligations or curses of those covenants, it provided a continuation of life through substitutionary bloodshed. Thus, at the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, when James spells out the requirements for Gentile believers, he refers to their obligations regarding “flesh” under the Noahic Covenant, one which was superseded as far as Jews were concerned, but not as far as Gentiles were concerned. Of course, the coming of Christ and the new rite testifying to circumcision of heart made both circumcision and uncircumcision of the flesh redundant.¹1 For more discussion, see “Cosmos and Covenant” in Michael Bull, Dark Sayings: Essays for the Eyes of the Heart.

However, until that point, every “new” covenant was part of a process of cutting away the flesh. As in the Garden of Eden, the flesh would be cut to the bone, finally exposing the foundation for a new city, the Bride of Christ.

(Chart from Bible Matrix II: The Covenant Key, 234.)

The Davidic Covenant was a promise of greater glory, but also a narrowing of focus, a shift from one priestly Israelite tribe to the kingly lineage of one man. Under Ezra, the genealogical requirement was expanded from the members of the priesthood to every Jew (prefiguring the priesthood of all believers). Corresponding to this expansion of the reach of Israel’s ministry, the emphasis moved from the glory of a physical temple to an empire-wide Jew-Gentile temple of “flesh,” the “household” of the oikoumene. This construct is described in the terminology of sacred architecture in Ezekiel 40-48.

This is the context of Jeremiah’s prophecy: not the events of first century but the establishment of worship once again for the purpose of Jewish testimony during the era of the four empires. Although the move was not from an earthly country to a heavenly one, it most certainly prefigured it. This “new Israel” was very different from the old one.

Just as the Covenant progressed from physical buildings to spiritual ones, so the focus moved from the outside to the inside, from the “external law” of the spoken word to the “internal law” of the Spirit, from words carved on stone to words carved on flesh. The removal (and possible “ascension”) of the Ark of the Covenant was an act of God. But in the big picture, this transformation is not something that happened in an instant, but in a historical progression through a number of stages.

Every new “giving of the Law” made the previous giving obsolete. Each of these dispensations comprised a pattern of “death and resurrection.” The law required the corroborated testimony of a minimum of two legal witnesses, and the law itself always comes as two witnesses. When Jeremiah speaks of a “new covenant,” he refers to the requirement for a second set of tablets after Israel’s sin with the golden calf.

The only reason a new Israel came out of the wilderness is because God made a “new covenant.” He had already prefigured this to their fathers through the giving of a second set of tablets to the nation after the sin with the golden calf. Between the first set and the second, the worshipers were executed under the testimony of two witnesses, the original tablets of Moses. The second set was, for all intents and purposes, a “new” Sinaitic Covenant.

Likewise, at a greater level, there was the initial (dual) giving of the Law at Sinai, and a second giving of the Law, hence the name Deuteronomy, which means “second law.” Between these two Covenants, the entire old generation was buried in the wilderness. She was consumed by God’s jealousy, as demonstrated to her on Sinai and in the destruction of the golden calf.

So, the pattern found in the initial giving of the Law was a microcosm of the entire journey, with Numbers as the fiery “Pentecost” of the greater pattern. Old Israel thus became the golden calf incarnate, Egyptian idolatry carried as a household god in the hearts of fearful men and women.²Michael Bull, Sweet Counsel: Essays to Brighten the Eyes, 180-182.

Just as a “new Covenant” was required at Sinai because of Israel’s idolatry, so a “new Covenant” was again required because of Israel’s idolatry. This is how we must understand Jeremiah’s “new Covenant.” If we read the passage without prejudice, it is clear that he is referring not to the reunion of Jew and Gentile as believers in the body of Christ, the situation in the book of Hebrews. He is in fact referring to the reunion of the northern and southern kingdoms, the house of Israel and the house of Judah (v. 31), through the process of exile.

The division of Israel into the northern and southern kingdoms occurred within the division of the Circumcision, and these two “cuttings” certainly speak to each other. But they are not the same event. One was a microcosm of the other.

So, the while author of Hebrews is referring to the reunion of Jew and Gentile through the death and resurrection of Christ, his proof was the historical fact of the reunion of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.³The first Babylon was priestly, the second kingly, and the final prophetic. For more discussion see “Altar of the Abyss” in Dark Sayings: Essays for the Eyes of the Heart.

Just as the “new Covenant” in Christ is better than the “new Covenant” which restored Israel to the Land, so Jeremiah’s Covenant was better than the one made at Sinai. This becomes apparent when we compare the structure of his prophecy with the structure of the account of Israel’s idolatry in Exodus 32.

EXODUS 32

Ironically, the narrative follows the pattern of “covenant renewal,” but some good does come of it. While the hearts of the idolaters were exposed, so were the hearts of the true “sons,” and the result of this judgment was a blessing upon the Levites for priestly service. Even here, in microcosm, we see the progress from external to internal law, from stoicheia to judicial maturity.⁵For more discussion, see “Internal Law” in Sweet Counsel: Essays to Brighten the Eyes.

But the final word of the Lord, before he sent a plague upon the people, was that he would not forget this sin against Him, despite the deaths of the idolaters.

“But now go, lead the people to the place about which I have spoken to you; behold, my angel shall go before you. Nevertheless, in the day when I visit, I will visit their sin upon them.” (Exodus 32:34)

The Lord did indeed visit them. In the book of Numbers, the entire generation was condemned to death. But in Jeremiah, just as the final word of our Old Testament is a threat and the final word of the New is a blessing, so the final word here is not a curse but a blessing.

JEREMIAH 31:31-34

At the center of this construct, it is the law that is internalized rather its curses. The people are refined by the holy fire instead of being consumed. The Lampstand, which corresponds to Testing, pictures the opening of the Law. Just as three thousand died at the original Pentecost at Sinai (external law), so three thousand were saved at the last Pentecost in Jerusalem (internal law). But that final event is not what Jeremiah describes. God’s works are fractal in nature, so there is some kind of “Pentecost” at the center of every covenant cycle. In this case, it was the absence of the Ark of the Covenant that heralded a renewed presence of the Lord in the hearts of the people. This expressed itself in a degree of decentralization — the establishment of synagogues across the empire and faithful teaching of the Word. The ultimate decentralization would come with the final Pentecost and the replacement of “Jerusalem below” with the heavenly city.

Most pertinent is the contrast between the final step in Exodus 32 and that in this passage in Jeremiah. At Sinai, the Lord promised to visit Israel again for their sin. In Jeremiah, He promises that He would remember their idolatry no more. However, it is not a true contrast, but a contrast between different stages in a similar process. In both cases, the entire nation was slain and resurrected.

Jeremiah’s prophecy is not a prediction of the New Covenant but a step on the way towards it. Judgment begins at the house of the Lord, and reconciliation begins with His people. Israel had to be reunited, restored and forgiven that the same blessing might eventually flow to all nations in the Gospel of Christ.

If you are new to this method of interpretation, please visit the Welcome page for some help to get you up to speed.