Jeremias 31
John MacArthur · Citado em PreceptAustin
Jeremias 31
MacArthur - Study Bible. Lindsey adds "The divine appearance was through providential means in the Maccabean period but will be literal and visible when Christ appears victoriously at His Second Advent. - Bible Knowledge Commentary). Tub is translated in Jer 31:14 with agathos which means intrinsically good, inherently good in quality but with the idea of good which is also profitable, useful, benefiting others, benevolent (marked by or disposed to doing good). Tub - 31 verses - Gen 24:10; 45:18, 20, 23; Exod 33:19; Deut 6:11; 28:47; 2 Kgs 8:9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 9:25, 35f; Job 20:21; 21:16; Ps 25:7; 27:13; 31:19; 65:4; 119:66; 128:5; 145:7; Prov 11:10; Isa 1:19; 63:7; 65:14; Jer 2:7; 31:12, 14; Hos 3:5; 10:11; Zech 9:17. Here are the uses in Psalms... Ps 25:7 Do not remember the sins of my youth or my transgressions; According to Your lovingkindness remember me, For Your goodness' sake, O LORD. Ps 27:13 I would have despaired unless I had believed that I would see the goodness of the LORD In the land of the living. Ps 31:19 How great is Your goodness, Which You have stored up for those who fear You, Which You have wrought for those who take refuge in You, Before the sons of men! Ps 65:4 How blessed is the one whom You choose and bring near to You To dwell in Your courts. We will be satisfied with the goodness of Your house, Your holy temple. Ps 119:66 Teach me good discernment and knowledge, For I believe in Your commandments. Ps 128:5 The LORD bless you from Zion, And may you see the prosperity of Jerusalem all the days of your life. (A GOOD PRAYER TO PRAY FOR YOUR FAMILY AND OTHER SAINTS). Ps 145:7 They shall eagerly utter the memory of Your abundant goodness And will shout joyfully of Your righteousness. Swanson on tub - 1. good thing, i.e., something which has good, attractive, or beneficial qualities (Ge 24:10), note: this can refer to produce, fine wares, etc.; 2. goodness, i.e., the state of moral goodness with absolutely no evil (Ex 33:19); 3. prosperity, wealth, i.e., the condition or state of having an abundance (Pr 11:10); 4. beauty, fairness, i.e., the state of attractiveness, pleasant to look at (Zec 9:17); 5. unit: טוּב לֵבָבl gladness, joy, formally, goodness of heart, i.e., the state or condition of being in a joyful, glad attitude or feeling (Dt 28:47; Isa 65:14) Jeremiah 31:15 Thus says the LORD, "A voice is heard in Ramah, Lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; She refuses to be comforted for her children, Because they are no more." A voice is heard in Ramah - Rachel, the mother of Benjamin and Joseph (and as such was representative of all Israelite mothers as Benjamin and Joseph's sons Ephraim and Manasseh were representative of all Israelites, both southern and northern divisions), was buried in Ramah (1Sa 10:2) and we hear her voice in a poetic picture, weeping over the exiled tribes (from her grave so to speak), only to be comforted in Jer 31:16-17 that her "children" will be supernaturally returned to her. This famous verse is quoted by Matthew when magi did not return to King Herod who became enraged and "sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its environs, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the magi." (Mt 2:16-18) Harrison comments "Cf. Matthew 2:18, where the words are cited, not as a prophecy but as a type, in connection with the killing of the infants by king Herod." (See comment below by Dyer). NET Note - Ramah is a town in (the land allotted to the tribe of) Benjamin approximately five miles (8 km) north of Jerusalem. It was on the road between Bethel and Bethlehem. Traditionally, Rachel’s tomb was located near there at a place called Zelzah (1Sa 10:2). Rachel was the mother of Joseph and Benjamin and was very concerned about having children because she was barren (Ge 30:1–2) and went to great lengths to have them (Ge 30:3, 14–15, 22–24). She was the grandmother of Ephraim and Manasseh which were two of the major tribes in northern Israel. Here Rachel is viewed metaphorically as weeping for her “children,” the descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh, who had been carried away into captivity in 722 B.C. (Jeremiah 31 NET Notes) Ramah was apparently used as an assembly point for the Jewish captives who were to taken into exile in Babylon (Jer 40:1). Bitter weeping...weeping - Both uses are the noun beki (01065) expressing sorrow with noise and tears. (cp use of beki in Jer 31:9). The Septuagint translates beki in with the noun klauthmos which means weeping, bitter crying, even wailing. Scalise writes that "“Rachel’s life story sets her apart from the other Israelite ancestors. She alone had only a grave and never a home in the promised land (Jer 30:3). She died ‘on the way’ (Gen 35:19), and her last words express her sorrow (Gen 35:18). Not every mother will give up her own life for her child’s (e.g., Jer 19:9; Lam 2:20; 4:10; 2Ki 6:28–29). Rachel’s death in childbirth makes her deeply credible as an example of the profound extent of a mother’s love. Rachel is a mother who does not forget her children (cf. Isa 49:15).” (Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 27, Jeremiah 26-52) Criswell - Rachel, the mother of Benjamin, continues to live through the descendants of that tribe. Rachel's tomb, according to tradition, was located near Bethlehem, and her weeping represents the overwhelming sorrow of the families of these slain infants (cf. Mt. 2:18). These babies are not lost forever, though, and will be honored as members of the covenant nation (cf. Jer 31:16; 1Cor 15:25, 26). Dyer asks "In what sense was Herod’s slaughter of the babies (Matt. 2:17–18) a “fulfillment” of Jeremiah 31:15? Jeremiah pointed to an Old Testament deportation of children from a town north of Jerusalem; Matthew used the passage to explain the New Testament slaughter of children in a village south of Jerusalem. The answer to the problem hinges on Matthew’s use of the word “fulfilled” (pleroo). Though Matthew did use the word to record an actual fulfillment of an Old Testament prediction (cf., e.g., Mt. 21:4–5 with Zech. 9:9), he also used the word to indicate that the full potential of something in the Old Testament had been realized (cf. Mt. 3:15; 5:17). In these latter instances there is no prophetic significance to the word “fulfill,” which is how Matthew used the word to associate the slaughter in Bethlehem with the sadness in Ramah. Matthew used Jeremiah 31:15 in his book (Mt. 2:17–18) to explain the sadness of the mothers of Bethlehem. The pain of those mothers in Ramah who watched their sons being carried into exile found its full potential in the cries of the mothers of Bethlehem who cradled their sons’ lifeless bodies in their arms." (Bible Knowledge Commentary) As an aside it is interesting that the ESV Study Bible offers no study notes for most of Jeremiah 31 with notes only on Jer 31:1, 15, 31 and specifically no notes regarding the clearly eschatological passages in this great chapter!. Jeremiah 31:16 Thus says the LORD, "Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears; For your work will be rewarded," declares the LORD, "And they will return from the land of the enemy. Rachel is weeping over the exiles in Jer 31:15 but here is told to cease weeping because of the assurance that the exiles will return. Your work - weeping and refusing to be comforted. Will be rewarded - "The reward for Rachel's work is that her children will come back from exile from all over the world, just as Jacob and Rachel returned from serving Laban with all their children as their "reward."" (Select "Library," then Study Bible Notes) Rewarded (07939)(sakar) is masculine noun indicating wages, a reward, pay. The first use in Ge 15:1 Jehovah speaks words of comfort to Abram "After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, saying, "Do not fear, Abram, I am a shield to you; Your reward (misthos) shall be very great." Return (07725)(shub/sub) means to turn back or return and is translated in the Lxx in Jer 31:16 with the verb epistrepho which describes a physical movement, in this can a return or turning back (cp Jn 21:20). Clearly this Hebrew verb shub/sub is a key word in Jeremiah 31 occurring 8x in 7 verses - Jer 31:8, 16-17 prophesy Israel will return to the promised land. Jer 31:19 speaks of Israel's choosing to turn away from or straying from God. Jer 31:21 is God's call for her to return (twice in this passage). Jer 31:23 speaks of restoration of Israel's fortunes. Rob
Jeremias 31
MacArthur says "The hope of Israel’s restoration brought a moment of peace in Jeremiah’s otherwise tumultuous ministry." Feinberg notes that "Jeremiah goes on to give his own response to the bright promises of the millennial time under Messiah....Jeremiah’s sleep was sweet because the truths he received in them were comforting Previews of future glory for God’s people (contrast the disappointing dreams in Isa 29:8; cf. Pr 3:24)." Michael Brown - What a relief it must have been for the beleaguered and battered prophet to receive a revelatory dream that was not a nightmare! Jeremiah wakes up and takes stock of his surroundings; in other words, he realizes he has been dreaming and has received a word from the Lord, and he describes his quiescent experience as pleasant (ʿārbâ). One can readily picture a smile forming on his lips as he basks in the reality of the blessed days to come for his people. Kroll - Although Jeremiah repudiated dreams (Jer 23:25–28), here he was like a man asleep while God gave him this vision. He awakens with a sweet confidence in God’s purpose for His people. Jeremiah 31:27 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man and with the seed of beast. MEN AND BEASTS MULTIPLIED WHEN MESSIAH REIGNS Dyer introduces the last portion of chapter 31 - The establishment of a new relationship with Israel and Judah (Jeremiah 31:27–40). The rest of the chapter focuses on the new relationship God will establish with His people. Behold (02009) (hinneh) is an interjection meaning behold, look, now; if. "It is used often and expresses strong feelings, surprise, hope, expectation, certainty, thus giving vividness depending on its surrounding context." (Baker) Hinneh generally directs our mind to the text, imploring the reader to give it special attention. In short, the Spirit is trying to arrest our attention! And so hinneh is used as an exclamation of vivid immediacy (e.g., read Ge 6:13)! Hinneh is a marker used to enliven a narrative, to express a change a scene, to emphasize an idea, to call attention to a detail or an important fact or action that follows (Isa 65:17, Ge 17:20, 41:17). The first use of hinneh in Ge 1:29 and second in Ge 1:31 - "And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day." W E Vine observes it is notable that when behold (hinneh) is used in Isaiah, it always introduces something relating to future circumstances and that is exactly the sense of hinneh in this passage in Jeremiah.
Jeremias 31
MacArthur - The “former things” are already fulfilled or about to be fulfilled prophecies of Isaiah (cf. Isa 41:22). The “new things” pertain to the future accomplishments of the Lord through His Messiah-Servant when He comes. Isaiah 43:19 “Behold, I will do something new, Now it will spring forth; Will you not be aware of it? I will even make a roadway in the wilderness, Rivers in the desert. MacArthur - In the Messiah’s future kingdom, the barren places of Israel will be well-watered (41:18) and will supply refreshment for God’s chosen people (43:1). Isaiah 48:6 “You have heard; look at all this. And you, will you not declare it? I proclaim to you new things from this time, Even hidden things which you have not known. MacArthur - From this point onward, the prophecies of Messiah’s first and second coming and the restoration of Israel have a new distinctiveness. Babylon becomes the Babylon of Revelation (Isa 48:20), and God uses Isaiah to communicate truths about the messianic kingdom on earth and the new heavens and new earth that follow it (e.g., Isa 11:1–5; 65:17). Isa 48:7 indicates that God had never before revealed these features about the future. Isaiah 62:2 And the nations will see your righteousness, And all kings your glory; And you will be called by a new name, Which the mouth of the LORD will designate. MacArthur - Jerusalem’s new name will reflect Israel’s new favored status (Isa 62:4, 12; 65:15). Isaiah 65:17 “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind. MacArthur - Israel’s future kingdom will include a temporal kingdom of a thousand years (see notes on Rev 20:1–10) and an eternal kingdom in God’s new creation (Isa 51:6, 16; 54:10; 66:22; cf. Rev 21:1–8). The prophet uses the eternal kingdom here as a reference point for both. Isaiah’s prophecy does not make clear the relationship between the kingdom’s two aspects as does later prophecy (Rev 20:1–21:8). This is similar to the compression of Christ’s first and second advents, so that in places they are indistinguishable (cf. Isa 61:1, 2). Isaiah 66:22 “For just as the new heavens and the new earth Which I make will endure before Me,” declares the LORD, “So your offspring and your name will endure. MacArthur - National Israel will have a never-ending existence through the Millennium, and on into the new heavens and the new earth throughout eternity. Similarly all of the uses of chadash in Ezekiel have an eschatological significance, all referring to the New Covenant... Ezek 11:19-note “And I shall give them one heart, and shall put a new spirit within them. And I shall take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, Ezek 18:31 “Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel? Comment: The only way Israel could "make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit" would be by entering into the New Covenant by grace through faith. MacArthur adds that "The key to life eternal and triumph over death is conversion. This involves repentance from sin (Ezek 11:30, 31a) and receiving the new heart which God gives with a new spirit, wrought by the Holy Spirit (Ezek 36:24–27; Jer 31:34; Jn 3:5–8)." Ezek 36:26-note “Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. Chadash = 48v translated (NAS) as new(47), New(2), new thing(1), new things(2), something new(1). - Ex 1:8; Lev 23:16; 26:10; Num 28:26; Deut 20:5; 22:8; 24:5; 32:17; Josh 9:13; Jdg 5:8; 15:13; 16:11-12; 1Sa 6:7; 2Sa 6:3; 21:16; 1Ki 11:29-30; 2Ki 2:20; 1Chr 13:7; 2Chr 20:5; Job 29:20; 32:19; Ps 33:3; 40:3; 96:1; 98:1; 144:9; 149:1; Eccl 1:9-10; Song 7:13; Isa 41:15; 42:9-10; 43:19; 48:6; 62:2; 65:17; 66:22; Jer 26:10; 31:22, 31; 36:10; Lam 3:23; Ezek 11:19; 18:31; 36:26 The Lxx translates chadash with the adjective kainos which refers to that which is new kind (unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of). It has not been previously present. In short, this covenant is BRAND NEW. The Reformation Study Bible note on house of Israel and house of Judah says that "Using both names stresses the unity of God’s covenant people." Comment: Yes, that is true, but specifically in this context these words are addressed to the divided nation of Israel, so that this is clearly a prophetic promise that the 12 tribes would again be united in days that are coming, days that have not yet been fulfilled but will be at Messiah's Second Coming. It is sad that the Reformation Study Bible (RSB) notes for the most part tend to ignore the clear literal teaching in Jeremiah's prophecy. For example in the RSB comment on the phrase "after those days" in Jer 31:33 we read "The prophet speaks of a time after exile, without being specific. The New Testament shows that the time arrived with Christ, the Messiah." That is simply not correct, for even if one interprets the reborn nation of Israel (May, 1948) as the fulfillment of the reunited nation, the Jews in Israel today are for the most part not believers and thus have not had their iniquity forgiven (Jer 31:34). The only way to justify such a comment is to assume that either all in Israel are believers or the church in the NT is the final recipient of Jeremiah's promise and/or that the promise is not to be interpreted literally and contextually! In the discussion on Keeping Context King we have emphasized that if one interprets a passage out of context, it will potentially yield an erroneous interpretation. And as we frequently teach, if the plain sense of a specific Biblical text makes good sense in context, then seek to make no other sense lest it be nonsense! Beloved better days are coming for the literal, reunited nation of Israel! The upshot is that the student (all of us) who seeks to rightly divide the Word of Truth must continually employ a Berean mindset (Acts 17:11-note) and not be "held captive" by one's particular systematic theology! As an aside I am NOT a dispensationalist, but a "literalist!" The ESV Study Bible comments on Jeremiah 31:31 that "The new covenant is fulfilled in the covenant that Christ makes at the Last Supper (Mt. 26:28; 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6; Heb. 8:8–13; 10:15–25) and includes Gentiles as well as Jews through union with Christ (Gal. 3:9, 14, 27–29)." Comment: I would not argue that it was inaugurated (initiated, commenced, set in motion) at the Last Supper, but it was NOT FULFILLED at the Last Supper! What the ESV Study Bible note fails to take into account is that the New Covenant was specifically (literally) addressed to the house of Israel and the house of Judah which together in no way constitute the Church! And so tragically this comment ignores the fact that the New Covenant is given to the nation of Israel in a clearly eschatological context, one which has not yet been consummated, but awaits the return of the Messiah. Paul was clear when he declared that "all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, “THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB.” 27“AND THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS.” (Ro 11:26-27). Who is THEM? If context is king in interpretation (and it is!), in the context of Romans 11 Paul is addressing his people, ethnic Jews, so clearly THEM is addressed to the Jews and not to the Church as erroneously interpreted by the ESV Study Bible. Furthermore, it is not at the Last Supper but at the time of Ro 11:26-27 that the New Covenant will be finally and fully fulfilled! Charles Dyer also refutes the ESV note asking "How is the church related to the New Covenant? Is the New Covenant being fulfilled in the church today? Ultimately the New Covenant will find its complete fulfillment during the Millennium when Israel is restored to her God. The New Covenant was made with Israel (Jer. 31:31, 33) just as the Mosaic Covenant had been (v. 32). One key element of the New Covenant is the preservation of Israel as a nation (vv. 35–37). However, though the ultimate fulfillment of this covenant awaits the millennial reign of Christ, the church today is participating in some of the benefits of that covenant. The covenant was inaugurated at Christ’s death (Matt. 26:27–28; Luke 22:20), and the church, by her union with Christ, is sharing in many of the spiritual blessings promised to Israel (cf. Ro. 11:11–27; Eph. 2:11–22) including the New Covenant (2Cor. 3:6; Heb. 8:6–13; 9:15; 12:22–24). But though the church’s participation in the New Covenant is real, it is not the ultimate fulfillment of God’s promise. The fact that believers today enjoy the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant (forgiveness of sins and the indwelling Holy Spirit) does not mean that spiritual and physical blessings will not be realized by Israel. That still awaits the day when Israel will acknowledge her sin and turn to the Messiah for forgiveness (Zech. 12:10–13:1). Some Bible scholars, however, take a slightly different view. They see one covenant (a covenant of grace), which God will apply to Israel in the Millennium and is now applying to the church in this present age. In both views the New Covenant is made possible by the blood of Christ. (Bible Knowledge Commentary) Covenant (01285)(berit/berith/beriyth) was the most solemn, binding agreement that could be made between two parties in the OT and often referred to a compact made by passing between pieces of flesh. With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah - As alluded to in comments above, Jehovah specifically addresses both divisions of the nation of Israel, which implies their reunification when He cuts this covenant with them. These words do not need to be spiritualized to mean the "church." The church is never referred to in any context as the house of Israel and the house of Judah. If one is intellectually honest and allows the text to say literally what Jehovah is declaring, it is clear that this New Covenant is addressed to the Jewish nation. To replace the literal nation of Israel with the church is in essence to be arrogant toward the branches, something that Paul sternly warned against in Romans 11 writing "if some of the branches (God has always preserved a believing remnant of Jews) were broken off (speaking figuratively of the nation of Israel), and you, being a wild olive (Gentiles), were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches (There is no place in the church for spiritual pride, much less for anti-Semitism as at least implied in the errant doctrine of replacement theology); but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you." (Ro 11:17-21-note) MacArthur has an interesting note on Jer 31:31-34 - In contrast to the Mosaic Covenant under which Israel failed, God promised a New Covenant with a spiritual, divine dynamic by which those who know Him would participate in the blessings of salvation. The fulfillment was to individuals, yet also to Israel as a nation (Jer 31:36; Ro 11:16–27). It is set 1) in the framework of a reestablishment in their land (e.g., Jer 30–33 and in Jer 31:38–40) and 2) in the time after the ultimate difficulty (Jer 30:7). In principle, this covenant, also announced by Jesus Christ (Lk 22:20), begins to be exercised with spiritual aspects realized for Jewish and Gentile believers in the church era (1Co 11:25; Heb 8:7–13; 9:15; 10:14–17; 12:24; 13:20). It has already begun to take effect with “a remnant according to God’s gracious choice” (Ro 11:5). It will be also realized by the people of Israel in the last days, including the regathering to their ancient land, Palestine (Jer 30–33). The streams of the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants find their confluence in the millennial kingdom ruled over by the Messiah. Barry Horner (read his personal pilgrimage from ) has this comment on Jeremiah 31:31-40 - A common interpretation of Heb 8:7-13 has concluded that Jer 31:31-40 finds its fulfillment in the Christian church as the new Israel. For example, W. J. Grier wrote, "In the Epistle to the Hebrews (chapters 8 and 10), we have the sacred writer claiming that the new covenant (of New Testament times) is the fulfillment of these words of Jeremiah: 'Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.' Israel and Judah are evidently the Israel of God, the New Testament Church." Certainly this perspective has predominated through the centuries of the Christian church, which is very much in parallel with replacement theology and its derogation of national Judaism. On the other hand, anyone who reads Jer 31:31-40, especially in its immediate context without any recollection of Hebrews 8 and 10, is unlikely to conclude that we are solely considering the NT church. According to Henry Alford (Ed: Lived 1810-1871 - He was NOT a dispensationalist) (quoting F. Bleek), "It belongs throughout to the cycle of Messianic prophecies, and is one of the most beautiful and sublime of them; and its true fulfillment can only be sought in the covenant brought in by the Savior, and in the salvation through Him imparted to mankind, and ever more and more unfolded and completed. This is the case, however this salvation, in the perception and declaration of the prophet, is bound up with the restoration of the ancient covenant people and their reunion in the land of their home." (Future Israel - Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged - if you are wrestling with whether God is finished with Israel I would recommend this book by Horner). Lawrence Richards on the New Covenant - Jeremiah’s announcement did not in fact make a New Covenant with Israel. It simply promised that, in time, a New Covenant would be made. Until that time, the old, Mosaic Covenant remained in force. It is much like engagement and marriage: engagement is a promise that a couple will marry, but it is not a marriage itself. Until the marriage has taken place, each of the two remains single. For hundreds of years the Jewish people looked forward to the time when the New Covenant would be made. When finally it was made, Israel tragically failed to recognize it, for the nation refused to acknowledge Jesus as the long-promised Messiah. The night before Jesus’ death, He explained its meaning to His closest followers. At the Last Supper Christ said, “This is My blood of the New Covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt. 26:28). There were several types of beriths in Old Testament times. The most binding was a “covenant of blood”: one confirmed by the death of a sacrifice, and by those making the commitment passing between the severed halves of the sacrificed animals (cf. Ge 15:6–21). The blood of Jesus not only won our salvation. That blood confirmed in an unmistakable way God’s oath, promising forgiveness to all who would believe in Jesus. But it is important to realize that Jesus’ death made ("cut") the New Covenant. That is, the death of Jesus was the confirming oath, the promise of what God will do in the future. The death of Jesus did not fulfill the promise, for the New Covenant with the house of Israel promises a national renewal and conversion. Like the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants, the total fulfillment of the New Covenant awaits history’s end! (Teacher's Commentary) Jeremiah 31:32 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, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. NOT THE CONDITIONAL MOSAIC COVENANT LXE not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day when I took hold of their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; for they abode not in my covenant, and I disregarded them, saith the Lord. KJV 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: NET It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them," says the LORD. ESV 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. NIV It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. NLT This covenant will not be like the one I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand and brought them out of the land of Egypt. They broke that covenant, though I loved them as a husband loves his wife," says the LORD. ASV 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 a husband unto them, saith Jehovah. Related Resource: Jeremiah- The New Covenant - Bible.org Not like the old covenant - He is referring the Mosaic Covenant, the Covenant of the Law ("the Ten Commandments"), made with the nation of Israel at Mt Sinai, the blessings of which were conditioned on obedience. Warren
Jeremias 31
MacArthur - When New Covenant promises are ultimately fulfilled to Israel in its regathering to its land, rebuilt Jerusalem will meet certain specifications. (i) Holman Study Bible - Once again in days connected to the consummation of history, Jerusalem will be rebuilt from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. (j) Moody Bible Commentary (Charles Dyer) - War has ravaged Jerusalem from ancient times up until the present political turmoil. Therefore the city awaits the coming of her King Messiah to bring the peace that the prophets predicted. These promises await their future fulfillment during the millennium (Jer 31:31-40) when Israel will know, “I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore I have drawn you with lovingkindness” (Jer 31:3-4; Is 11:9). (k) David Baron who believes in a literal, rebuilt future Jerusalem reasons "In what particular locality in heaven are the tower of Hananel and the corner gate? And what will our allegorical Interpretations make of the hill Gareb, and Goah, and the brook Kidron? All these are known to me (Ed: I am not sure he really knows where Gareb and Goah are located) in the environs of the literal Jerusalem in Canaan; but I confess some difficulty in locating them in heavenly places. If Israel does not mean Israel, and "the land God gave to the fathers" does not mean Palestine, then I do not know what is meant. (The Jewish Problem-David Baron) (2) HEAVENLY NEW JERUSALEM - Some think this refers to the New Jerusalem (Rev 3:12-note, Rev 21:2-note). (a) Swanson discusses the Heavenly Jerusalem interpretation of Lutheran commentator, Theodore Laetsch - "In his commentary, he tries hard to give precise information as to the geographic markers of the passage, details their location and explains the options, but then concludes “the underlying idea of this passage (Jer 31:38–40) is not the enlargement of Jerusalem, but its complete sanctification. Even the areas formerly unclean ‘shall be holy unto the Lord,’” and equates the fulfillment with the “heavenly Jerusalem.” Though the sanctification or consecration of the land that would be within proper boundaries of Jerusalem is an important aspect of the prophecy, the fact remains that the geographical expansion of the city is central to its entire fulfillment. If the prophecy speaks of the “heavenly Jerusalem,” what need is present to speak of its “complete sanctification”? Is there a part of heaven that is in need of sanctification or some part of it that was “formerly unclean”? Feinberg correctly identifies the problem of this approach as he states, “[I]n the broader context of prophecy, this passage will not permit an interpretation that applies it to a spiritual, heavenly, or symbolic Jerusalem. If that were possible, why is it so full of literal detail?” (Expansion of Jerusalem in Jer 31:38-40: Never, Already, or Not Yet) (b) John Trapp (1601-1669) is another example of an older commentary on plucked up...overthrown...forever - This cannot be applied to the earthly Jerusalem, which was plucked up and thrown down by the Romans once and again; but especially by Aelius Hadrian the emperor, who laid the whole country waste almost, drove the Jews utterly out of it, set a sow of white marble over the chief gate of Jerusalem in reproach of their religion, and called the city by his own name, Aelia, commanding the Jews not once to look towards it from any tower or hill. It must be therefore meant to be the Church, which cannot be ruined." (Jeremiah 31:40 Comment) (c) Matthew Poole (1624–1679) is similar to John Trapp on plucked up...overthrown...forever - of a perpetuity, the church of God must here be understood, against which the gates of hell shall never prevail, as Christ hath promised. (Jeremiah 31:40 Comment) (Poole replaces Israel with the Church which he calls "the true Israel of God.") (d) Matthew Henry (1662-1714) allegorizes this section (Ed: See Allegorical Interpretation) on the rebuilt city (but see note below) - The rebuilding of Jerusalem which was now in ruins, and the enlargement and establishment of that, shall be an earnest of these great things that God will do for the gospel church, the heavenly Jerusalem...this promise was to have its full accomplishment in the gospel church, which, as it is the spiritual Israel (Ed: See replacement theology), and therefore God will not cast it off, so it is the holy city, and therefore all the powers of men shall not pluck it up, nor throw it down. It may lie waste for a time, as Jerusalem did, but shall recover itself, shall weather the storm and gain its point, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (In fairness it should be noted that in Matthew Henry's concise commentary he clearly believed in a literal Israel writing "As surely as the heavenly bodies will continue their settled course, according to the will of their Creator, to the end of time, and as the raging sea obeys him, so surely will the Jews be continued a separate people. Words can scarcely set forth more strongly the restoration of Israel.") (e) Philip Graham Ryken in the well respected series Preaching the Word in his discussion of Jer 31:38-40 combines interpretations (2) and (3). Ryken interprets Nehemiah's rebuilding of the walls of the city of Jerusalem as the initial fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy even going so far as to describe the rebuilt city after Babylonian exile as "holy to the LORD." To quote Ryken... As Jeremiah went on a grand tour of the city, he noted its landmarks and described its boundaries. God was making real promises for a real city. There would be life after death for Jerusalem. The parts of the city that lay in ruins would be rebuilt. What had been cursed would be blessed. The profane would be made sacred. Even the Valley of Ben Hinnom—the Auschwitz of ancient Palestine, where children were cremated on pagan altars (Jer 7:30–32)—would become “holy to the LORD” (Jer 31:40). The graveyard and the garbage dump would become holy ground. All these promises came true. When Nehemiah rebuilt Jerusalem after the Exile, his engineers started at “the Tower of Hananel” (Nehemiah 3:1) and worked their way around Jeremiah’s map to make repairs “above the Horse Gate” (Jer 31:28). That was the earthly, physical fulfillment of Jeremiah’s promise. (Ibid) (Bolding added) Ryken's interpretation is not tenable when compared with other Scripture and with history... First, post-exilic Jerusalem could hardly be described as "holy to the LORD". Consider Malachi's prophecy which was written about 100 years after the return of the Jews from exile, at a time when both the Temple and the city had been rebuilt. Malachi describes the rebuilt city (and inhabitants) as follows - Judah has dealt treacherously (bagad), and an abomination (toebah = the antithesis of "holy to the LORD") has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for (now he explains the reason for his charges of treachery and abomination) Judah has profaned (chalal = to defile, pollute, desecrate) the sanctuary (qodesh = that which is set apart, consecrated for sacred use = HOLY - Judah's defilement of the that which was to be holy constitutes a direct antithesis of Jer 31:40!) of the LORD which He loves, and has married the daughter of a foreign god. (Malachi 2:11-note) So the Scriptural evidence is clear that post-exilic Jerusalem was not "holy to the LORD." Second, the city of Jerusalem was overthrown in 70AD, something the prophecy stated would not happen forever! (Jer 38:40). Ryken then goes on to add that.... There is also a heavenly, spiritual fulfillment of the urban promise of the New Covenant. God is building his people an eternal city. In the words of Oxford theologian Oliver O’Donovan, “No destiny can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, other than that of a city.” When Christ returns, his people will see “the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God” (Revelation 21:2). (Ibid) Ryken gives no consideration to a rebuilt city in the Millennium, and in fact does not have a single mention of that time period (positive or negative) in his 800+ page tome! Acts 17:11! (f) NIV Study Bible note - "For the ultimate fulfillment compare Gal 4:26 and Rev 21:1-5." So clearly the NIV notes spiritualize Jeremiah's very specific and detailed boundary marks! (g) The NLT Study Bible notes say this rebuilt city will be "present in the heavenly realm and on the new earth (Rev 21-22). (h) The Geneva Study Bible says the rebuilt city "alludeth to the spiritual Jerusalem." (3) ALREADY FULFILLED = REBUILT JERUSALEM AFTER EXILES RETURNED FROM BABYLON - Some (see Philip Ryken; John Gill) interpret this prophecy as fulfilled when the Jews returned from exile in Babylon, but as discussed below (see note) that could hardly be the case as the city was not holy to the LORD (Jer 31:40) and secondly Jerusalem was overthrown (contrast "it shall not be plucked up, or overthrown anymore forever” - Jer 31:40) by the Roman general in 70 AD. (a) Swanson discusses Anthony Hoekema's "already fulfilled" interpretation - "Hoekema who, though not commenting directly on the text of Jer 31:38–40, nevertheless states, "Old Testament prophecies about the restoration of Israel may also have multiple fulfillments. In fact, they may be fulfilled in a threefold way: literally, figuratively, or antitypically.. .. As we have just seen, all the prophecies quoted about the restoration of Israel to its land have been literally fulfilled, either in the return from Babylonian captivity under Zerubbabel and Joshua (in 536 B.C.), or in a later return under Ezra (in 458 B.C.). Problems for Hoekema’s position here are several. First, as already detailed, the boundaries of the city predicted by Jeremiah were not set by post-exilic returns. In fact, as pointed out in discussion of the Corner Gate (see discussion), Jerusalem as fortified by Nehemiah was significantly smaller than it had been prior to the exile. Michael Avi-Yonah states, “In the days of Nehemiah, the city seems to have shrunk again, being limited to the eastern hill.” Avigad adds to this conclusion, stating, “from all the above we can conclude that the minimalist view of the settlement in Jerusalem in the period of the Return to Zion is correct—that is, that it was limited to the narrow confines of the City of David, and that the Mishneh on the Western Hill remained desolate and uninhabited.” Additionally, Kaiser brings a formidable challenge: While the sheer multiplicity of texts from almost every one of the prophets is staggering, a few evangelicals insist that this pledge to restore Israel to her land was fulfilled when Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah led their respective returns from the Babylonian Exile. But if the postexilic returns to the land fulfilled this promised restoration predicted by the prophets, why then did Zechariah continue to announce a still future return (Zech 10:8–12) in words that were peppered with the phrases and formulas of such prophecies as Isaiah 11:11 and Jeremiah 50:19? To conclude that the prophecy has already been fulfilled in the manner Hoekema suggests is untenable; historical and archaeological data and the remainder of the OT will not allow for it....Perhaps the decisive factor in rejecting this view is the fact that the last part of the prophecy asserts that Jerusalem “shall not be plucked up, or overthrown anymore forever” (Jer 31:40b). The simple fact is that since the rebuilding of Jerusalem under Nehemiah, the city has been destroyed on several occasions, the most significant being that of the Roman destruction of A.D. 70. Henderson’s attempted explanation where he postulates that “forever, is here to be taken with the same limitation as it is frequently when applied to matters connected with the old dispensation,” is most unsatisfactory. (Expansion of Jerusalem in Jer 31:38-40: Never, Already, or Not Yet) (b) Swanson gives "Another example of the “already” position comes from those, even among premillennialists, who take the 1948 reconstitution of Israel as a nation as a fulfillment of OT prophecy. In an article on his website, Hugh Ross offers this passage as “proof” of the Bible’s accuracy: The exact location and construction sequence of Jerusalem’s nine suburbs was predicted by Jeremiah about 2600 years ago. He referred to the time of this building project as “the last days,” that is, the time period of Israel’s second rebirth as a nation in the land of Palestine (Jeremiah 31:38–40). This rebirth became history in 1948, and the construction of the nine suburbs has gone forward precisely in the locations and in the sequence predicted. (See Reason #7) That the rebirth of Israel as a nation in 1948 is a fulfillment of any OT prophecy is dubious; beyond this, however, Ross forgets that from 1948 to 1967 Jerusalem remained under Jordanian control and that whatever building has gone on around the city since then, nothing has been done on the scale that Jeremiah’s prophecy demands, either geographically (in terms of size) or spiritually (in terms of holiness). (Swanson) (c) John Gill (1697-1771) on plucked up...overthrown...forever - which, if understood literally of the city of Jerusalem, can only signify, that it should not be destroyed soon, but should continue a long time (Ed: While I respect John Gill, notice that he says if long reads forever literally, it just means a long time - up to the time of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem! Can you see how inconsistent is such a line of reasoning?); for certain it is, that after it was rebuilt by Zerubbabel, it was plucked up, and thrown down by the Romans, and particularly by Hadrian, who ploughed it up, and built another city, and called it by his own name; but this figuratively rather intends the church of Christ, which is built on him the Rock, and so is immovable; and, like Mount Zion, shall abide forever (Ed: Notice that what