Jeremiah 31:31-37 Behold, the days come, said the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:… 1. Of two things we may be sure beforehand. (1) The prophet's hope of permanent well-being in the future wilt not be based on any expectation of the people doing better, but rather on the faith that God in His grace will do more for them and in them. The action of Divine love may, nay, doubtless will, transform human nature so as to make the people of the new covenant veritable sons of God; but the initiative will lie with God, not with men; and just on that account the new covenant will be stable as the ordinances of the sun and moon and stars. (2) Since the new constitution is to be introduced on the express ground of dissatisfaction with the old, its provisions will be found to have a pointed reference to those of the latter, and to be of such a character as to supply the needful remedy for their defects. 2. Looking now into the prophecy itself, we find that the description which it gives of the peculiarities of the new covenant exactly answers to these expectations. (1) God appears most conspicuously throughout as the agent. He is the doer, man is the passive subject of His gracious action. He is the giver, man is but the receiver. The old covenant ran, "Now therefore, if ye will obey," &c. (Exodus 19:5). In the new covenant there is no "if," suspending Divine blessing and favour on man's good behaviour. God promises absolutely to be their God, and to regard them as His people, and to insure the relation against all risk of rupture by Himself making the people what He wishes them to be. (2) There is an obvious reference to the defects of the old covenant in the provisions of the new. Whereas, in the case of the old, the law of duty was written on tables of stone; in the case of the new, the law is to be written on the heart; whereas, under the old, owing to the ritual character of the worship, the knowledge of God and His will was a complicated affair in which men generally were helplessly dependent on a professional class, under the new, the worship of God would be reduced to the simplest spiritual elements, and it would be in every man's power to know God at first hand, the sole requisite for such knowledge as would then be required being a pure heart. (3) Whereas, under the old, the provisions for the cancelling of sin were very unsatisfactory, and utterly unfit to perfect the worshipper as to conscience, by dealing thoroughly with the problem of guilt — of which no bettor evidence could be desired than the institution of the great day of atonement, in which a remembrance of sin was made once a your, and by which nothing more than an annual and putative forgiveness was procured — under the new, on the contrary, God would grant to His people a real, absolute, and perennial forgiveness, so that the abiding relation between I-lira and them should be as if sin had never existed. 3. We must enter a little into detail by way of further explanation. (1) That the contrast is rightly taken in the first of the three conditions will be disputed by few, if any. One cannot read the words, "I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts," without thinking of the tables of stone which occupy so prominent a place in the history of the Sinaitic covenant. And the writing on the heart suggests very forcibly the defects of the ancient covenant, in so far as it had the fundamental laws of life. The slabs on which the ten words are inscribed may abide as a lasting monument, proclaiming what God requires of man, saying to successive generations, Remember to do this and to avoid doing that. But while the stone slabs may avail to keep men in mind of their duty, they are utterly impotent to dispose them to perform it; in witness whereof we need only refer to Israel's behaviour at the foot of the mount of lawgiving. Manifestly the writing on the heart is sorely wanted in order that the law may be kept, not merely in the ark, but in human conduct. And that, accordingly, is what Jeremiah puts in the forefront in his account of the new covenant, on which restored Israel is to be constituted. How the mystic writing is to be achieved he does not say, perhaps he does not know; but he believes that God can and will achieve it somehow; and he understands full well its aim and its certain result in a holy life. (2) Dispute is most likely to arise in connection with the second condition, referred to in the words, "They shall teach no more every man his neighbour," &c. The primary lesson we take to be, that spiritual knowledge in the new time will take the place occupied by ritual under the old. Spiritual knowledge is a kind of knowledge which can be communicated to each man at first hand, and which indeed can be communicated in no other way. God, as a Spirit, reveals Himself to each human spirit, to each individual man who has a pure heart and who worships in spirit and in truth. On the other hand, the knowledge of positive precepts, such as those contained in the ritual system, can be only obtained at second hand. One man, who has himself been taught, must teach others. The reason, the conscience, or the heart could never reveal God's will as embodied in such carnal ordinances. And only on supposition that a tacit reference to the ritual system is intended can the full force of the words "They shall teach no more every man his neighbour" be perceived. For what was it in the Sinaitic covenant that made men dependent on their neighbour for the knowledge of God? Surely it was the ritual system. The priest s lips kept knowledge, and men had to seek the Torah, the needful instruction in religious ritual, at his mouth. And it was a grievous bondage, a sure index that the old covenant could not be the final form of God's relation with men, but was destined one day to be antiquated and replaced by a better covenant with better promises. For these reasons, we find in this part of the oracle concerning the new covenant the prediction that the ritual law would form no part of the final covenant between God and His people, and that in the good time coming men should not be kept dependent on priests and far from God by an elaborate ceremonial; but, taught of the Spirit, should worship God as Father, offering unto Him the spiritual rational service of devout thoughts and gracious affections. So it was understood by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who gives prominence to the ritual of the old covenant as one of the things most urgently demanding antiquation (Hebrews 9:1). (3) The third blessing of the new covenant, the complete and perpetual forgiveness of sin, is so clearly defined that no dispute can arise as to its nature; the only point open to debate is the feature of the old covenant, to which it contains a tacit reference. We assumed that the mental reference is to the provision in the Levitical system for the cancelling of sin, especially the great day of atonement. Jeremiah evidently speaks as one who feels that the old Sinaitic covenant, at this point as at others, was seriously defective. It made elaborate arrangements for cancelling the sins of ignorance and precipitancy committed by the people, so that these might not interrupt their fellowship with God; and yet there was no real effective forgiveness. For many of the more grievous offences there was not even an atonement of any kind provided. The Levitical forgiveness was thus both partial and shadowy; the problem of human sin was not thoroughly grappled with. All this Jeremiah felt; and therefore, in his picture of the ideally perfect covenant, he assigns a place to a forgiveness worthy of the name — a forgiveness covering the whole of Israel's sins: her iniquities as well as her errors; and not merely covering them, but blotting them out of the very memory of heaven. 4. But on what does this free, full, and absolute forgiveness of the new covenant rest? The Levitical forgiveness was founded on Levitical sacrifices. Is the forgiveness of the new covenant to be founded on the sacrifice "of nobler name"? That is a question which the student familiar with his New Testament will very naturally answer in the affirmative; and we all know the answer given in the Epistle to the Hebrews. But if it be asked, What is Jeremiah's answer to the question? we must reply, None. The glorious thought that the ideals of priesthood and of sacrifice can then only be realised when priest and victim meet in one person, does not seem as yet to have risen above the horizon. And yet one may well hesitate to make an assertion when he reads Isaiah 53, or even those significant words of Jeremiah himself, "I was like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter." The idea that a man, and not a beast, is the true sin-bearer is struggling into the prophetic consciousness. If the sun of this great doctrine is not yet risen, its dawn may be discerned on the eastern sky. (A. B. Bruce, D. D.) Parallel Verses KJV: Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: |
    |