Another Go at Jeremiah 31:31-34

A fellow preacher inquired about Jeremiah 31:31-34 nearly a year ago. I responded to him in a rushed fashion at that time, and you can see the earlier response on the website (which I still agree with). But, here, I'd like to give the text another shot and offer a clearer analysis . . .

We'll do this . . .

First, I will say a thing about the prophetic trajectory.

Second, I will say something about context and the NT's use of the OT.

Third, I will uncover Jeremiah's text in its context.

Fourth, I will make some remarks about how the NT (particularly, Hebrews) uses the passage.

Let's give this a go . . .

First, all of the prophets look to the same ultimate era. Acts 3:24 is clear enough: all of the prophets from Samuel and forward were looking to “these days.” That's what Peter said, anyway. It's clear that all of the prophets made their contributions toward, in the direction of, the coming Messiah. That is, the Messiah, His kingdom, His “era,” His “day” – well, it's all “wrapped up together.” One can't separate the era of the Messiah from the coming of the Messianic kingdom or the time of the Messiah; it is all – rightly! – mixed together into one big deal. It either “is” or “isn't” – it stands or falls together.

So, the prophets were all anticipating the Messiah's “day.” They all contribute to this direction, it seems. And, I'm convinced that even the one's that don't include an explicit “when the Messiah comes . . .” or “in the last days . . .” line need a second look. Jonah doesn't have anything like “prediction” in his text, but the NT reads “Jonah” as prophetic of Jesus (cf. Mat. 12:40,41). Obadiah deals specifically with Edom, but the tail end of his text concludes with an “ideal” vision, imagining a time that is contrasted with the oppressive rule of Edom; he “imagines” the contrasted time as one under the Messiah's rule. Joel does the same thing (cf. Joel 2:18-3:21). Others, like Nahum and Habakkuk can all be read with the “ontological” overtones, and it's only a step to see that the immediate point/application/context is within arm's reach from being “read again” in a new, more remote context. That is, I think that it becomes easy to read the prophets as 1) initially situated in their own historical contexts but 2) as also being “lifted” and moved forward a few years to speak also of the Messiah.

Even when the prophets speak about the Messiah, they're not giving dates on calendars and specific names – though Daniel is an exception, here! The prophets all “imagine” – with substance, I might add! – the coming, ideal day. Let me give the idea . . .

What would you say would make “the perfect day” for you? A day off of work, time to sleep in, time with the family, a tasty and expensive lunch, a day on the town, a round of golf, a relaxing dinner and a concluding evening with the wife?! Aren't we “imagining” now?! But, let's say that that day isn't too far into your future?! Let's say that you know that work is getting close to a point where it will settle down and when the time is right, that “perfect day” is coming your way! And, imagine that work has really been “gutting” you for the past few weeks, so you come home tonight, rather frustrated, only to be reminded by your wife after the long day, when the kids are already tucked away in bed, “Don't worry. The perfect day is coming soon. Just a few more weeks and this will all be over, and you'll be able to relax with ease.”

Now, that kind of platform captures several of the notions of the prophets quite well, I think. I don't think that Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah and the others have to be “predictive” – though don't misunderstand me, Yahweh had that power and does enable his prophets in such a way in many cases – but I think that they often “paint” the ideal day, “imagining” the direction that all of the “covenantal history” leads. The entire “covenant” that God had made with Abraham, Moses, David and the people consistently pushed and pointed to the Messiah (cf. Gal. 3:24,25). So, it's not a shock that the entire OT “canon” consistently “imagines” – though with real grit and substance behind it (cf. Rom. 15:8; 2 Cor. 1:20)! – And, don't get the idea that the prophets are “dreaming” or having wispy, fake, silly ideas! – the “ideal day” when the Messiah would arrive.

See, I don't think that we need to interpret every little remark from the prophets as either 1) predictive or 2) allegorical. Let me say it another way . . . I think we're bound to one of two options: either 1) literal or 2) non-literal, figurative. But, I don't think that there is only one way for “figurative” speech to be “figurative,” meaning that “allegory” is only one tool in the toolbox of figurative speech or language. We don't need to “itemize” every little piece of furniture in a prophet's oracle, but instead, we can easily put all of the pieces into an image of “the perfect day,” understanding that if the round of golf doesn't actually happen or that if the lunch isn't all that expensive – well, that was never the intent of the collective image anyway. The wife wasn't predicting literally, nor did every little piece of furniture in your “perfect day” need some kind of symbolism to it – the idea is more “ideal” or “imaginative,” where all of the pieces are “ideal” and fit into the broader, collective image. (Wasn't one preacher correct when he said that we often – incorrectly! – look at the finer details and brush strokes when we should be seeing entire portraits?! Read that line again and let the force of the point impact your thinking on the oracles of God's prophets.)

There are too many “Messianic” texts to count, and if we let Jesus have His say on the matter, the entire deal could be “read” as being about Him anyway (cf. Luke 24:25-27). All of those OT prophets need to be “interpreted” carefully and not just read with a naive, unstudied, casual glance . . . And, I think that if we take this approach, then Jeremiah 31:31-34 starts to find its' place – along with all of the other prophets – in a broader imagination that points to the coming of the Messiah in a fantastic way.

Second, let me say a brief word about the NT's use of the OT . . . First, I've tried to write a little thing on this issue, but I'm still not as contented with it as I'd like to be. The book is called “Essays in Intertextuality.” The whole thing, I think, needs reworked. I can't put my finger on it, but I'm not satisfied with the job that I've done there. Problem is, I'm not sure what I'd exactly do to change it and I don't have anything better to offer at the moment . . . so the book stays on the market. One day I'll – oh yes, I will! – get around to re-do-ing it and will feel content with it. (Hate that I have to do this, but I'd still recommend Richard Hays' “Echoes” books or “Reading Backwards” over my own. I had read a lot of G.K. Beale around the time that I was working on a lot of this; I no longer give much value to Beale's opinion or exegesis. I have my reasons. Read Hays and be satisfied.)

Anyway . . . This issue, how the NT uses the OT, is a broader one that needs more attention than this article can pretend to give to it. But, the NT is not just interested in reading the OT as a catalogue of predictions and concluding, “So, yeah, all of the OT predictions came true in Christ.” When we read the OT only as predictive (as set over against a wider/broader concept of “prophecy,” including something like the ideal/collective image), we reduce the “fulfillment” to something like crystal-ball gazing or fortune-telling. That is, we lose the provocative and practical power that naturally jumps out of both “covenants.” The prophets make powerful points to the people of their own day and they're certainly (in those cases) not speaking to Jesus' generation or Paul's contemporaries. They are preaching to the goons of their own days. So, Isaiah speaks to 8th century B.C. wicked folks; Jeremiah speaks to 6th century B.C. Judaeans and etc., etc., etc. You get the idea. When the NT quotes these kinds of texts, they're not saying that Isaiah or Jeremiah, in addressing the lousiness of their own days, were actually “predicting” – they are “recycling” these timeless truths or even saying “It's happening again.” Too many cases to count, but Isaiah 6:9,10 is clearly to Isaiah's own audience, but see how both Jesus and Paul “apply” the timeless truth to their own audiences to say, “It's happening again” (cf. Mat. 13:15-17; Acts 28:25-27).

As an aside, it isn't a big deal that the NT says that these NT events “fulfilled” Isaiah. More attention needs to be given to that, and whoever decided that “fulfillment” could only mean something like, “Well, it was 'fulfilled,' therefore, Isaiah must have actually been making a prediction” anyway?! Maybe, “fulfillment” is broader than what we've thought it to mean?! Yes, I'm sure that's right. The NT does actually use the idea of “fulfillment” (pleroo) to bring home not only that the OT was “predicting” in some cases but that the NT also reworks the OT in several ways, not only the predictive. Didn't Hebrews begin by saying that God spoke in “many portions and many ways.” Like it or not, but speaking in “many ways” inherently demands “many ways” of interpreting. Different disciplines demand different skills and – yes, Jimmy Allen was right – different texts or speech forms demand different hermeneutics.

There's more here, but I'll leave us with this final point, here . . . The context of the OT can never be ditched or simply betrayed. Whatever we do with our NT exegetics, we do not get the liberty of interpreting the OT at the expense of its own context. Too many “scholars” of the conservative hue have done poor exegesis by reading the NT and then making the OT conform to the NT's use of the text. This is poor. Instead, Brevard Childs is precisely correct to insist that we should not ditch the OT's “voice” because of the NT but rather seek to hear the OT's “voice” initially on its own merit and in its own context because only then are we prepared to see “how” the NT is actually using it. Again, there are too many cases to cite, but the NT actually wants us to read the OT it its context, noting the actual scenario, because only then will the NT use actually gain its full strength. By abandoning the OT context to try to force the NT interpretation, I'd argue that two things happen: first, we are intentionally abandoning the OT context, which is unforgivable or unjustifiable, and, second, we are actually misinterpreting the NT. If we can only get the NT use of the OT to make sense by “forcing” the OT text against its own context, then we're actually misinterpreting even what the NT is doing with that particular text. Paul or the others would not allow a use of the OT that simply abandons the context and abuses the actual reading of a given text, so instead of “forcing” the OT into comformity with what we “assume” is the right (NT) way of reading it, perhaps, we should rethink our NT exegetics, too, as we reconsider the OT context and how the NT might be using it at a deeper level.

But, that's enough, for now, about the NT use of the OT. That's for another time . . .

Third, let's wrangle with Jeremiah's text . . .

Jeremiah's context is the 6th century B.C. He is working with the Judaeans who are about to and do go into Babylonian captivity. The situation is “the exile.” He insists that the exile is coming because it functions as God's punishment to the people for their forsaking God; in contrast, he then also pronounces hope after the punishment/exile and speaks of the era under the Messiah.

So, in Jeremiah 31:31-34, we have one of his “hope oracles” (cf. 3:11-18; 12:14-17; 23:5-8; 30:3,9; 31:31-40; 32:36-44; 33:15-26) – this one (31:31-34) is in the wider block of Jeremiah 30-33, which is an entire section of “hope” – and Jeremiah consistently imagines the coming day after the exile/punishment as being one under the Messiah. As the wife consoles her hard-working husband or as Europe's poets and songwriters assured those under Adolf Hitler's nightly bombings, Jeremiah, too, simply “imagines” – with real substance! – a coming, ideal day, as envisioned under the Messiah, as set over against the very-present horror and terror that presently was upon the people.

Jeremiah gives 6 primary elements when imaging “the days that are coming” (31:31) under the Messiah (cf. Acts 3:24). He said that there would be 1) a new singular covenant for all, 2) an internalization of God's laws in the hearts and minds of the people, 3) a perfect relationship with God and the people, 4) a perfect knowledge of God by all, 5) an equality among the people before God and 6) a perfect forgiveness for iniquity.

Now, we could interpret this literally, but if we do this, we'll have to agree that it hasn't yet happened. A quick glance confirms that all of the people don't “know” God.

Second, we could interpret all of this “allegorically,” but this doesn't resolve the issue either. And, for what it's worth, there are some rather unconvincing explanations from some on several strands of these texts.

Third, I'm convinced that we're bound up to one approach . . . Jeremiah is “imagining” the coming day under the Messiah as the ideal day. He's doing some good painting with a broad brush and wants us to step back to admire his entire portrait, as a collective whole, rather than stand with our nose to the canvas, critiquing how we see a line that is crooked or a smudge that looks out of place. By stepping back to take in the entire trajectory (which all of the prophets share), we'll notice that Jeremiah (31:31-34) is only but one of hundreds of contributions to the broader prophetic direction. They all pointed to the Messiah (cf. Acts 3:18-26).

As an aside, there are some “contradictions” between the prophetic portraits, if we're committed to either a literal or allegorical interpretation. That's true! Whether literal or allegorical, we can't have one prophet saying that the final, coming era of the Jewish people will be under a physical, Davidic king while another says that there will be no king, or we can't have one prophet saying that lions will be present and another not, one prophet saying that there will be Gentiles present and another not, one prophet saying that Jerusalem will be the center and another not, yet this is exactly the kind of difference that we consistently find between the prophets and their “imagination” for what the Messiah's time will look like (cf. Isa. 2:1-5; 11:6,7; 19:18,19; 33:22; 35:9; 56:3-8; Eze. 44:5-9; Hos. 3:5; 13:10; Zec. 14:21). I'm arguing this . . . If we allow each of these prophets to “imagine” – well, they all land on the same ultimate conclusion; they're all speaking of the ideal era under the Messiah, but the furniture or the details were never literal or allegorical, they simply contribute to the core, essential picture! See, it doesn't matter that the details (furniture) of the images differ, they all say the same essential thing, and the little details that the prophets give are secondary and not legitimate “contradictions” when the collective, ideal image is the main focus. But, some have a tendency to focus on the minor points and ignore the big thrust . . .

I mean this . . . Jeremiah's “hope oracle” of 31:31-34 includes some elements that certainly haven't been fulfilled literally, but there are also elements that haven't been fulfilled allegorically (in spite of what some very poor attempts say). Jeremiah's elements are “imaginative” in the broader idea of the Messiah's coming. So, his “imagination” hasn't run astray; it's perfectly in-line with the big idea, but some elements are ideal rather than actual.

And, it's especially noteworthy that Jeremiah's “hope oracle” (31:31-34) is an “ideal” reversal of the bad, punishing, exilic situation of his own historical day. See, the people had forsaken God and broken the covenant (Jer. 11:1-10), so Jeremiah's ideal imagination for the Messiah's era included the people's not forsaking God and breaking the covenant (see also Jer. 33:3, which reverses this). The people hadn't etched the law of God on their hearts but had rather carved iniquity into them (Jer. 17:1), so Jeremiah imagines the ideal internalization of the law of God as a reversal that would take place when the Messiah came (cf. Deut. 6:6-9; Prov. 3:3; 7:3; Eze. 11:19,20; 18:31; 36:25-27). The people of Jeremiah's day had claimed to “know God” but betrayed such a claim with their actions (Jer. 9:23,24; 22;15,16), so Jeremiah's “hope” included the ideal element of all knowing God. In Jeremiah's day, all of the people had gone astray, from the least to the greatest (Jer. 6:13; 8:10), so Jeremiah's imagines a perfect reversal, where the least to the greatest know God. Then, in Jeremiah's day, God had remembered the people's sins and punished them for it (Jer. 14:10), but in Jeremiah's hope oracle, he imagines a day where God does not remember sin but expunges such (cf. Isa. 43:25; 44:22). To see the contrast of the earlier texts, where Jeremiah is speaking of his own day in the exile/punishment, and the hope, one needs to read these earlier texts and then read Jeremiah's hope oracle (31:31-34). The “hope oracle” is a perfect inversion of the actual, historical situation before Jeremiah. When Jeremiah thinks of the coming, ideal day under the Messiah, he imagines it to be a precise reversal of the very day before him at that time. He is “imagining” in many ways, not necessarily making a literal or allegorical prediction.

There are two specific points of interest, to me, in Jeremiah's hope oracle (31:31-34) before moving into the final section of this article, and those are these . . .

First, Jeremiah includes the idea of a singular covenant for Israel and Judah. His point, here, is (again) “imaginative,” meaning that the kingdom had become “divided” after Solomon. During the days of Saul, David and Solomon, the kingdom was united, so when the prophets speak of the coming and better days, as “imagined” under the Messiah, they anticipated the Messiah's “restoring” things as they had been with David (cf. Amos 9:11,12). One of the elements, then, that gets some attention is the idea of a “peace” between Israel (north) and Judah (south). See Isaiah 11:13, Ezekiel 37:15-27 and Hosea 3:5 for this ideal/motif/element. Jeremiah is “imagining” the coming day of the Messiah as “ideal,” as a physical restoration (though with the necessary spiritual reform, too, of course) of the days of David.

So, Jeremiah is working with an OT “eschatology.” He doesn't know of a “second coming” of the Messiah, since the prophets only know of a single coming. They're not expecting the NT events of a death-burial-resurrection-ascension and then interval between the first coming of the Messiah and a second coming. Jeremiah thinks that the Messiah's appearance will put the mark on the end of human history – and if understood properly, it certainly does! – but Jeremiah, imagining the ideal era of the Messiah and His kingdom sees a united kingdom again. It is not clear, at all, what place the Gentiles take in Jeremiah's imagination. It is clear, however, from the other prophets that the Gentiles are “imagined” to be either 1) invited into the Jewish people (cf. Isa. 2:1-5; 19:16-25; 42:6; 49:6; 56:3-8; 60:1-20; 66:18-23) or 2) destroyed (Eze. 44:5-9; Zec. 14:21). Again, these are “details” of the collective vision – they fit into an OT “eschatological” understanding. Jeremiah, a Jew, functioning long before the NT with the OT understanding of things and how the OT was presently arranged, would only know to see the Gentiles' place as being either 1) invited in or 2) destroyed. While Jeremiah does not tell us where he sees the Gentiles, the other prophets do reveal this, and I think that when we see that the prophets are not “predicting” but “imagining” it becomes clear that the Gentile invitation or destruction “fits” into the “imagination” of the OT “eschatology.” Both points are effectively the same: the Jewish hope is a real one. And it is that core/essential point that the details support; the Gentiles place, a detail that is superfluous, reaffirms that God's core/essential element of “hope” is legitimate. When transposed into the NT's understanding, the Gentiles, too, take their place, since Jeremiah 31:31-34 is a hope oracle about the Messiah. While Jeremiah's “imagination” is quite national in his own day, the NT will lift it beyond its “national” borders and speak its' core/essential truth to all. Gentiles, too, can now read Jeremiah 31:31-34 as a piece of earlier “hope” for beyond the punishment/exile. It isn't predictive. It is an ideal portrait of God's fulfillment of His promises, and when read as a piece of “hope” for God's people of faith, it is as reassuring for ethic Gentiles as it is for ethnic Jews; it is piece of “hope” for those who belong to an “ethnicity of faith.”

Second, I'm interested in pursuing the idea of all knowing the Lord. I think Jeremiah's point is, yet again, “imaginative.” Wouldn't you think it great if the whole world were already converted to Christ with perfect knowledge of him so that evangelism were absolutely non-essential and useless?! That's the kind of idea that Jeremiah “imagines” as a detail about the Messiah's era. Again, that hasn't literally happened, and I'm not sure what kind of “allegory” we could even dream up to explain the idea. (It's completely unsatisfactory to say that the Jew was physically born and then taught that the Christian is taught and then born spiritually – that is far out from Jeremiah's point for multiple reasons and subsequently quite unsatisfactory.) The only way that I know how to make sense of the remark is to see the idea, along with much of the other detail, as being “ideal” and “imaginative.” Jeremiah is “imagining” and this is one of those elements that sounds good on paper, so Jeremiah puts it into his portrait and expects us to read his text, seeing the bigger picture with supporting details, not getting carried away by discussions about “figurative vs. literal.”

Fourth – and last – how does Hebrews use Jeremiah 31:31-34? It seems clear to me that it uses Jeremiah 31:31-34 for one main purpose: to say that the era of the Messiah has come. (This eliminates any serious discussion about Jeremiah 31:31-34's needing to be interpreted literally, since that's obviously excluded.) Hebrews 1:1,2 started by saying that the author and readers were “in these last days” (of the Jewish nation, the final era, that of the Jewish Messiah?!) and proceeds to give multiple evidences to support the claim. Jeremiah 31:31-34 is yet another “hope oracle” from the prophets, but they all spoke of “these days,” the days of the Messiah (the “Christos” [Greek] = “Messiah” [Hebrew]); see Acts 3:24. Hebrews' discussion of “the new covenant,” as spoken by Jeremiah, assures that the Messiah and His day have come, and it identifies such with Jesus of Nazareth. (Other allusions in the NT do the same thing [cf. Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6].)

See, Hebrews also insists that Jeremiah's “imagination” was more radical than just another “restoration” of the old covenant that Moses received. It was something of a completely different order.

See, Jeremiah's proclamation of the coming “covenant” included these primary elements: 1) the law would be internalized (“I will put my law within them and on their heart I will write it”) . . . (cf. Deut. 6:6-ff.; 11:18; 30:14), 2) the covenant relationship would be present (“I will be their God; they shall be my people”) . . . (cf. Exo. 19:1-6; 24:3-8; Deut. 26:16-19; 29:12-15; Hos. 1:3), 3) the personal relationship with the Lord would be present (“They will all know me from the least of them to the greatest of them”) . . . (cf. Isa. 1:3; 54:13) and 4) the forgiveness of sins will be present (“I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more”) . . . (cf. Exo. 34:5-7). But, not a one of these elements was distinctly “new” as the Old Covenant texts listed demonstrate. These elements were always the direction that God sought for the OT people to go, as generated by the Old Covenant. So, Jeremiah's text, as used by Hebrews, also has an additional purpose . . .

Not only does Hebrews insist that the whole trajectory is fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, but it also insists that something more radical had to happen in order to accomplish the direction, the ideal collective image. Maybe, a Jew wanted to read Jeremiah 31:31-34 and say, “There's nothing distinctly new here! This could be just a revision of the Old Covenant. The 'new' Covenant could be a revision of the old!” But, that won't go . . . Hebrews’ use of Jeremiah, in effect, reveals to us that more than a mere “resurfacing of the old covenant of Moses” was intended. (One might’ve thought that from reading Jeremiah alone!) Hebrews tells us that the “new covenant” in Christ is to be far more radically understood than just a “newer old covenant” – it’s a completely “new system.” (As an aside, only 5 texts in Hebrews use the word “new” – see 8:8, 8:13, 9:15, 10:20 and 12:24 . . . All of them speak about the “new system” in Christ. The first 4 all use the word “kainos” but the last one uses the word “neas” . . . The “covenant” in Christ is both “fresh” and “radically new” [and both of the Greek words are used as adjectives of it]. Max King made a blunder – again! – when he said that it was always a “kainos” covenant and never a “neas” covenant; 12:24 rejects that whole nonsensical business.)

Let me see if I can tidy this up a bit . . .

First, the prophets were concerned (with the rest of the OT and its historical and canonical direction) to bring us to the Messiah, the central point not only of the Bible but our entire world and existence. He is central to it all. We'd do well to recognize and remember that, even on a practical, day-to-day level.

Second, the NT uses the OT in a variety of ways, but they're certainly not contradictory. Whatever the OT is saying, the NT is content to agree with it and even use it positively to make similar points that all revolve around the same ultimate goal of bringing us to the Messiah Jesus.

Third, Jeremiah's hope oracle is a perfect inversion of the kind of crime that was prevalent in his own day. He “imagines” a substantive day under the coming Jewish Messiah, which he knows God is “good for,” since He is trustworthy.

Fourth, Hebrews insists that the Messiah Jesus, the central piece of our world, has come, should impact the way that we live our lives, fulfills Jeremiah's (and the other prophets') notion of a coming, ideal day and affirms that God has actually kept His promises and that Jesus is the king of the world.

There are some difficulties, but the central point is this: God is God, He is faithful, He has provided for our needs in the Messiah, who is Jesus of Nazareth. Our lives should conform to this worldview and thesis.