Jeremiah 31:31-32

     31 Behold, days are coming, says YHWH when I shall have cut with the house of Israel and the house of Judah a renewed covenant binding, 32 but it will not be like the covenant binding (that I cut with their fathers, at the time I acted to lead them by the hand to cause them to come out from the land of Egypt)– when they had acted to break my covenant, and I loathed against them, says YHWH.

'et^h–

wə k^haa raŧ·ŦEE

yah-WÆ^h

nə'ūm–

baa'EEM

yaaMEEM

hĭn·NÆ^h °

cut

I shall

have

that

Yahweh

says

ones

ing

com-

s

day

behold

ddo

future perfect

ptc. בוא

cħə đ^haaSHAA^h

bəREET^h

yə hooĐ^hAA^h

BÆT^h

wə'et^h–

yĭş-raa'ÆL

BÆT^h  °

of

house

the

and

f.  חדש

n.f.

cstr.

ddo

cstr.

bəYŌM

'ə vōT^hAAM

'et^h–

kaaRAŦ·ŦEE

'əSHER

k^hab·bəREET^h

LO'   °

'ə sher–

mĭts-RAAyĭm

mæ'Erets

lə hō tsee'AAM

bə yaaĐ^hAAM

he cħə ZEEqee   °

VAAM

baa"AL-ŧee

 wə 'aa nō K^hEE

bə reeT^hEE

'et^h–

hæ FÆ roo

HÆM·maa^h

unto them

LXX: against

had been married

LXX: loathed

and I

my binding

they acted to break

they–

yah-WÆ^h

nə'ūm–   °

Cross References:

Jer. 31:33

Commentary:

     31 Behold, days are coming, says YHWH when I shall have cut with the house of Israel and the house of Judah a renewed covenant binding, 32 but it will not be like the covenant binding (that I cut with their fathers, at the time I acted to lead them by the hand to cause them to come out from the land of Egypt)– when they had acted to break my covenant, and I loathed against them, says YHWH.

     The meaning of the noun /bəREET^h/ is derived from a verb to bind.   As a noun, the verb for bind becomes binding.  A covenant is a binding between two parties of mutual obligations and liabilities.  One party is invariably the greater, in this case the LORD.   He promises to provide for and save His people, and to bless them, or to discipline judge and punish them if they do not hold up their end of the covenant.  This is what the LORD has "bound" himself to.   The people are also 'bound' in the covenant to obey the commandments and to serve the LORD with love and faithfulness in spirit and truth.

      In English the word 'covenant' stands for a whole compact or treaty, or agreement, as laid down in some document.  This view of covenant is deficient.   The Hebrew word /bəREET^h/ is broader in meaning.  Translating it as 'covenanting' or 'covenant binding' will help bring this out.    'Covenant binding' is historically dynamic.   Both parties are 'covenanting' are 'binding' themselves according to the actions of the other party.   Covenanting is not just a stale document, take it or leave it.   Covenanting is something that both parties are obligated to, even if one party tries to rebel against it, the other party is still covenanting according to the negative terms of the binding.

     The outcome is according to the fidelity of both parties to the terms of the binding.   If the lesser party is unfaithful, then they will be bound to the negative terms of the binding, but if they are faithful, then the greater party is bound to bless and provide for them.

       "Covenant binding" or literally just 'binding' can have two senses.   It refers either to the whole covenant or particular 'bindings', i.e. 'terms' of the covenant that the parties have 'bound' themselves to, i.e. sworn an oath to keep or do.   This includes penalty provisions as well as blessings.  The penalties are called 'curses'.   It is up to the greater party to enforce the binding of the curses if the people should be unfaithful.  Therefore, whatever is according to a 'covenant binding' is dynamically implemented.  What the greater party is 'bound' to implement of the covenant binding is contingent on the fidelity of the lesser party to their part of the binding.

       To be more specific, the whole covenant is a 'binding', but also particular terms are a 'binding' of the 'binding'.   The whole 'binding' is unchangeable, but the part of the covenant 'binding' on the greater party varies with the faithfulness of the lesser party.

        Without understanding vs. 32 properly, the whole text cannot be understood.  So we will discuss that first here:

32 but it will not be like the covenant binding (that I cut with their fathers, at the time I acted to lead them by the hand to cause them to come out from the land of Egypt)– when they had acted to break my covenant, and I loathed against them, says YHWH.

        The whole parenthetical section is merely an explanation of when and how the covenant binding was made.   The important part is in the red type.   The 'binding' or 'covenant binding' spoken of here is not the whole covenant, but merely the 'binding' on the greater party to implement the curses and judgments stipulated as the 'binding' in the case of disobedience.   The Septuagint reads the last phrase as:  evidently reading from a Hebrew text that substituted a for a (cf. BHS).   The reading /gaa"AL-ŧee/ instead of /baa"AL-ŧee/ leads to the reading, "and I loathed against them".   If the LXX reads the original correctly, then the text is stipulating the covenant binding that was implemented, "I loathed against them says Yahweh", meaning that he put the curses into action.

        " ... but it will not be like the covenant binding ... when they had acted to break my covenant, and I loathed against them";    The reader should now be able to see clearly that the 'renewed covenant binding' in the previous verse is not a different covenant in respect of its terms from the covenant they received at Mt. Sinai, but only in respect of its outcome, and in respect of the binding that is implemented in the case of disobedience.

         Since, the covenant bound curses on the people for transgression, any renewal of the covenant binding that restores the situation to one of blessing before the curses were put into action, must somehow nullify Yahweh's obligation to implement the curses.   This is being done by Messiah at two levels.  First he is agreed to receive the penalty of the curses himself using the principle of substitution, which is an exceptional term of the covenant taught and spelled out in the sacrificial system.   Second, he is sanctifying the repentant by enabling them to obey Him and be faithful to the terms of the covenant.   Under this condition a renewal of the covenant is possible, since the covenant provides this principle for its renewal in the first place, by teaching the principle of atonement, and amending the covenant in the Prophets so that Messiah can atone for transgressions.

           The blessings of the renewed covenant are promised in Deut. 30:1-6, where the LORD says he will 'circumcise' hearts, and this after Israel has rebelled against Him and then has repented and returned unto him.

           The key word in vs. 31 is /cħə đ^haaSHAA^h/, which is an adjective derived from the verbal root /CĦ·Đ^h·SH/.   The word means, renew, renewed, anew, and new.  In this context, it strictly means 'renew' since we are talking about the original covenant.   This is also much more the case when we consider the fact that the original covenant contained all the provisions necessary for such a renewal, which are repentance, a provision of the principle of atonement, and provision for amendment to the concept of atonement in the Prophets.   Looking in the context of the next verse, we will see that is is the same Torah that is written on the heart that was promised to be circumcised on the heart in Deut. 30:6.   Therefore, all that is necessary is covenant renewal.  No replacement is necessary since the original covenant binding was faultless.  For the LORD does not make defective covenants.   He has promised to keep his end of the covenant to bless Israel, and to allow this without violating the covenant terms, he provided Messiah to atone for the transgressions.

           This understanding of the renewed covenant is reflected in the saying of Yeshua at the Passover Seder, "This is my blood of the covenant" in Matthew and Mark, where the evangelists omit the word 'renewed' entirely (Mat. 26:28; Mark 14:24).  The reason they can justly omit this word is only because renewed covenant and the covenant are in fact the same covenant.   /cħə đ^haaSHAA^h/  in Jeremiah's usage, merely meant 'renewed'.   Certainly Luke inserts the word 'renewed' into the text (Luke 22:20; Acts ), but we must take it in the sense of 'renewed' from the original Hebrew utterance of Yeshua based on the Prophet Jeremiah.   Luke was making no attempt to 'correct' the Hebrew by putting the modern meaning of 'new' into the text.  We must think likewise of Paul's usage in 1 Cor. 11:25 and 2 Cor. 3:6.

            The more thorny problem is the book of Hebrews or those statements that seem to portray a  'new covenant' as a replacement for an 'old testament';  We cannot attribute this idea to Paul.  The style and syntax of the Greek are not the style and syntax of Paul.   Nor is the customary Pauline greeting at the beginning of the book.   There is only one place elsewhere that the words 'old testament' are used in translation, and this is 2 Cor. 3:14.   The word's used in Greek are the equivalent of /bəREET^h "ōLAAM/ which means, "eternal covenant" or "perpetual covenant".   And what is the 'new testament' in the translation of 2 Corinthians 3:6 is really the 'renewed covenant';  So we are dealing with a 'renewed covenant' that is the same as the 'eternal covenant';  And when the translation says 'abolished', the original word really means 'made of no effect' and refers to the "ministration of death", which are the curses of the covenant.   These curses are not abolished.  According to the Greek and to Paul's theology, they are only "made of no effect" for condemning us, by Yeshua, who volunteered to take the penalty on himself.   So we see that the unique theology of Hebrews does not truly have external support.

             This of course reopens the question of the canonicity of Hebrews, which was rejected by the Western Church till the 4th century, and only accepted by the Eastern Church because they bought into the argument of Pauline authorship with its implied apostolic sanction.   Was the Church correct in Canonizing Hebrews?  Or could the problem of Hebrews be cleared up by the discovery of an earlier version that will vindicate its status and show its compliance with the Torah and Prophets? Or will it be possible to do a better translation or commentary of Hebrews that will then show its agreement with the Torah and the Prophets?    Or will we find that only a few offending statements were added by a later hand that corrupted an original that is completely inspired?

          One shouldn't say that such is impossible (an earlier MSS could have become corrupted), but there are enough apparent contradictions between the received text and the Torah or Prophets to ask these legitimate questions.   These are not the run of the mill sort of apparent contradictions that an agnostic or someone from a professional skeptics society would propose based on faulty translations or misleading commentary produced by the Church.  Though, I do congratulate them for their intelligence if they pick up on them properly exercising the mind God gave them on this point.   The apparent contradictions in Hebrews run much deeper, perhaps in the mind of the author himself, whoever he was.    Until these questions are satisfactorily resolved, it is hazardous to use proof texts in Hebrews as the foundation for proof that a new revelation has come to contradict and supersede what was previously given in the Torah and Prophets.

           One of the most difficult texts in Hebrews to justify is 9:19 where it says that Moses sprinkled the book of the Law.  The problem is that there is no statement to this effect in the Torah (cf. Exodus 24:6-8).  Another difficult text is 9:4 wherein the altar of incense is said to be in the most holy place, whereas the Torah has it only in the holy place (Exodus 30:1-8).  Another hard text is 8:6 wherein the 'new covenant' is said to be established on 'better promises', but then how can this be if God promised Israel in the original covenant to "circumcise thine heart ... that thou mayest live" (Deut. 30:6).  What promise in the 'renewed covenant' is superior to this that it must be called 'new' and replace the earlier promise?  It seems that the promise to inscribe the Torah on the heart (Jer. 31:33) is exactly the same promise in Deut. 30:6, just in different words.  How then can it be superior?    What about the idea that heaven itself must be cleansed by offerings (Heb. 9:23)?  When was heaven defiled by sin that it needs cleansing?  Does not Isaiah 6:5-7 show that any impurity in heaven is cleansed by fire off the altar without sacrifice?   And what about the passage in Hebrews 10:3-4 wherein it claims that the Levitical sacrifices do not, "take away sins", but are only "a remembrance again made of sins"?  Yet the Torah connects forgiveness with the Levitical sacrifices many times (cf. Lev. 4:20; Lev. 4:26; Lev. 4:31; Lev. 4:35; Lev. 5:10; Lev. 5:13; Lev. 5:16; Lev. 5:18; Lev. 6:7).   While it might be pointed out that the sin nature remains after such forgiveness, is it not true, that even with Yeshua's offering, the sin nature remains with us today?  Why then does Hebrews put down the Levitical system?

           Since no one knows who wrote Hebrews, it cannot establish apostolic credentials.   Since, it makes no new prophetic predictions, it has nothing prophetic to recommend it as divine revelation.  And since it contradicts the Torah in several places, it does not measure up to the level of even an accurate history book that is not divine revelation, but just an honest history written by a regular person.   The declaration of independence is probably freer from historical error than this book.

           The argument that Hebrews is in the 'accepted canon' is also without weight.   Also in the 'accepted canon' are Tobias, Judith, Wisdom,  Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees.   "But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire ... let him be anathema" ("Decree concerning the canonical Scriptures", Trent, April 8, 1546).   Where did reformers get the authority to dump all these books against the accepted tradition of the Mother Church?   Could it be that these books did not measure up to the tests of divine revelation?  But the sad fact is that such books are regarded as accepted scripture by so many when they were not.   Can the reformers then presume to have known all truth so that they completed the job of reformation?   Looking back 500 years to their time, clearly that is presumption against the truth.  So the continued presence of a book in the official canon is no proof of canonicity.

            Also the title of the book, "Hebrews" is no proof of a Messianic Jewish nature.  The author was clearly one who worked and lived in the dispersion using the LXX.  The title, "To the Hebrews" is no part of the original author's composition, yet some have presumed to give it new authority by calling it "Messianic Jews" or by supposing that it was written by an expert in the Torah.   An expert in the Torah appointed by God to write holy Scripture would not have made the careless mistakes mentioned above.

             Some would like to determine that other books are not canonical perhaps, but the other Pauline epistles can be reformed simply by correcting poor translation, as demonstrated by this author, or by explaining them in a way agreeable to the Torah and Prophets.   Paul, unlike the author of Hebrews is an accredited apostle who spoke with Yeshua.    In fact, on that matter of speaking with Yeshua, the author of Hebrews denies that he knew Yeshua personally or had a direct revelation from him.  See Hebrews 2:3.   With Paul, perhaps a few errant statements got edited in, but I'm willing to bet that they are fewer than the fingers on one of my hands.   With Hebrews, on the other hand, the whole thought structure is united under an anti-Levitical theme.  So dealing with it is not as simple.

              Now is the time to get down to what people really believe.   Do people really believe even the books they regard as canonical?   That is hardly the case.  There are millions that accept the 'official canon' while denying the very things written in it!   If any one wants to challenge me on this matter, then let me say that I have studied and believe more of the Scripture than many of the would be challengers who claim to believe all of Scripture, and yet deny a good deal of it.   Nor is this a new opinion with me.   I spent seven years trying to find some way to rescue this book, reading it in Greek and trying to square the circle with Torah, without success.  I spent the next 17 years settled in the conclusion that the book is simply another official imposter like the Catholic apocryphal books mentioned above.   And 10 of those years, I said little about it.   But since this book is such an impediment in its present state to the understanding of the covenant, I must make my conclusion known.   Until the severe problems with this book are addressed this will remain by conclusion regarding the book in its received form.