AMRIDGE UNIVERSITY

GOD’S COVENANT

SUBMITTED TO DR. DAVID MUSGRAVE

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
TH9318 – RESEARCH IN OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

BY
TABBITHA RICHARDSON
AUGUST 2, 202020
 CONTENTS

GOD’S COVENANT......................................................................................................................1

COVENANT....................................................................................................................................1

Genesis 15 Covenant Actions 5

ABRAHAM’S PROMISE...............................................................................................................6

Covenant with Noah and Moses 7

Abraham’s Covenant 8

THE NEW PROMISE...................................................................................................................12

Jeremiah 31:31–34 19

CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................22

BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................................................25

ii
 GOD’S COVENANT

The word “covenant” is mentioned multiple times throughout the Bible. For example, YHWH

made covenants with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and then the new covenant mentioned in

Jeremiah. Despite these many instances, the covenant with Abraham stands out from the rest

because He does not require Abraham to uphold any conditions/commands. In Gen 15, YHWH

made a covenant with Abram unlike any of the other covenants of the OT; that is, until the new

covenant is mentioned where Jesus and His death on the cross are foretold. This paper will

compare the covenant made between God and Abram to the covenant made by the death of

Jesus, arguing that such a comparison makes it evident that only Jesus can be God. By

combining tradition history with a theological method, the importance of covenants in the OT

can be examined to further the comparison between Gen 15 and Jer 31. This analysis will help to

examine God’s role in the covenant of Gen 15 compared to His role in the new covenant.

Covenant

The meaning of the word covenant is just as vast as its use throughout Scripture. The secular

dictionary defines covenant as “an agreement, usually formal, between two or more persons to

do or not do something specified.”1 The dictionary also provides two biblical definitions: “The

conditional promises made to humanity by God and the agreement between God and the ancient

Israelites, in which God promised to protect them if they kept His law and were faithful to

Him.”2 These secular definitions provide a segue into the biblical understanding of the word.
1
“Covenant,” Dictionary.com Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc.
2
“Covenant,” Dictionary.com.

1
 2

The biblical word for covenant is ‫ברית‬. The BDB defines bérit as “covenant, alliance,

pledge; 1a) between men, 1a1) treaty, alliance, league, 1a2) constitution, ordinance, 1a3)

agreement, pledge, 1a4) alliance (of friendship), 1a5) alliance (of marriage); 1b) between God

and man, 1b1) alliance (of friendship), 1b2) covenant (divine ordinance with signs or pledges).”3

This word derives from the literal meaning “to cut out.” Which alludes to a “Drohritus, a

representation or, better, an effective sign of what will happen to the covenanter who dares to be

faithless.”4 It is widely accepted amongst scholars that Gen 15, the Abrahamic covenant, contains

such a sign.

As observed, the Hebrew definitions provide a base for comparison to the other ANE

cultures, particularly the Hittite culture. The comparable Hittite word to bérit is išḫiul which

translates to “political treaty.”5 Ada Taggar-Cohen states: “The išḫiul is a legal procedure

through which the Hittite king obtains the loyalty of his servants. Its foundational concept

therefore, is the legal relationship between kingship and the divine on the one hand and the king

and his kingdom’s social political structure on the other.”6 While Taggar-Cohen’s description,

through a legal lens, pertains more to the covenant with Moses, it helps present the legality of the

actions taken in Gen 15. According to Stuart J. Foster, ANE covenants, suzerainty treaties, may

also be “defined in their prototypical form as (1) a chosen (2) relationship of (3) mutual

obligation, (4) guaranteed by oath sanctions…the relationship was chosen, perhaps by one party

3
“‫ ברית‬b@riyth {ber-eeth’},” Hebrew & Aramaic Dictionary (Lexicon-Concordance),
http://www.lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/125.html.
4
Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Meaning of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15,” Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament 19 (1981): 62.
5
Ada Taggar-Cohen, “Biblical Covenant and Hittite Išḫiul Reexamined,” VT 61 (2011):462.
6
Taggar-Cohen, “Biblical Covenant and Hittite Išḫiul Reexamined.” 482.
 3

much more than the other; it was not something people were born into.”7 Taggar-Cohen adds to

this concept stating: “Both the Hittite išḫiul and biblical bérit are forms of legal relationships

meant to induce loyalty, and include mutual understanding of ownership and rights. Their basic

components are the land, the divine, the king and the people.”8 Most of these components will

play a factor in the Abrahamic covenant along with the New Covenant.

Although Taggar-Cohen’s assessment is true, Foster’s relational concept highlights two

important factors. First, if the OT tells us nothing it tells us that humanity strayed from YHWH

on numerous occasions to follow the customs of surrounding cultures. Secondly, it shows how

YHWH used the relationship “type” the people had grown accustomed to in order to rebuild His

relationship with man. Ancient covenants were made with the pagan gods as the witnesses and

punishers of those that did not keep their part of the deal. Contracts were primarily between

people; the gods were not involved with actually being a part of the contract themselves. Dennis

McCarthy calls these covenants “purely religious, because there was no civil machinery to

enforce the law”.9 Despite the pagan origins of these covenants, God changed the process and

became a part of the contract Himself.

As defined above, bérit holds many meanings, but the key lies in “alliance (of

friendship),” which brings the word closer to a promise. Richard Hooker states: “It is a

relationship made between a lord and his servants, for in Hebrew, a bérit is a promise that is

made unilaterally by a lord to his servants that he will protect and provide for those servants.”10

7
Stuart Foster, “The Missiology of Old Testament Covenant,” International Bulletin of Missionary
Research 34 (2010): 205.
8
Taggar-Cohen, “Biblical Covenant and Hittite Išḫiul Reexamined,” 483.
9
Dennis McCarthy, “Covenant in the Old Testament: The Present State of Inquiry,” The Catholic Bible
Quarterly 27 (1965): 220.
10
Richard Hooker, “Jewish Concepts: Berit,” Washington State University,
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/berit.html.
 4

This verbal distinction has enormous consequences. Since YHWH did not establish the covenant

as defined by the secular dictionary, it could not be broken every time the people of Israel

strayed from Him. YHWH would have had no obligation to continue His relationship with the

people; rather, YHWH made a promise that He sealed with a covenant. The concept presented by

Hooker builds on Taggar-Cohen’s discussion of išḫiul. The Hittites used the act of, “taken by the

hand,” to represent protection, but to also seal a covenant.

Taggar-Cohen examines a Hittite prayer: “‘Let the Labarna govern constantly by hand

the whole land’ (in Hittite: [nu-uš]-ša-an KUR-e ḫu-u-ma-an la-ba-ar-na-aš ŠU-az ma-ni-[i̯ a-aḫ-

ḫi-i]š-ki-it-du).”11 The figurative use of the hand in this prayer shows the god holding the hand of

the king and the king holding the hand of the vassal. Applying this Hittite concept to the

examination of Gen 15, as well as Jer 31, presents the major differences found between the two

“treaty” types.12 The Hittite god did not play any direct role in the išḫiul between the two human

parties, which is in direct contrast to the actions of YHWH. Although YHWH used a concept

familiar to man to establish a relationship with the people of Israel, it by no means gave man a

bargaining chip with God.13 A covenant was made between two people and dependent on each

party upholding their end of the deal, which is what makes the Abrahamic and New Covenants

so unique. There are no direct requirements on the human side to maintain the covenant.

Genesis 15 Covenant Actions

11
Taggar-Cohen, “Biblical Covenant and Hittite Išḫiul Reexamined,” 465.
12
This language can also be found in Isa 41:13, “For I, the LORD your God, hold your right hand; it is I
who say to you, ‘Fear not, I am the one who helps you’” (Isa 41:13, ESV).
13
Henry Gehman, “The Covenant: The Old Testament Foundation of the Church,” Theology Today 7
(1950): 27.
 5

The people of ANE cultures made covenants with one another while their gods served as

witnesses. These cultural covenants are comparable to the sacrificial covenant found in Gen 15

where the two parties involved will walk through the split sacrificial offering together.14 This act

served as a public display of a contract being made openly between the two parties. The terms

and conditions were usually stated aloud before the two walked through the sacrifice; if either

person failed to uphold their end of the covenant, they would face judgment and wrath from their

gods.15 In other words, they would become like the sacrificial animals, split and torn apart.

The major implication of this ritual is that it requires both parties to pass through the

sacrificial covenant offerings but, in Gen 15, only YHWH walks through the sacrifices. The

significance to the number of offerings and the age of the sacrificial offerings is uncertain,

because they differed throughout history.16 The real importance to this particular animal rite was

that it served as a covenant ratification rite between God and Abram.17 This understanding is

crucial to grasping the oneness of YHWH.

Throughout the OT, humans saw the covenant as bilateral. This is a natural reaction of

human sin to try and bargain with God.18 The covenant was only bilateral in the sense that it

required the covenant partner to provide evidence of acceptance by following God’s law.19 This

condition can be seen by all the acts of faith Abram performed at YHWH’s command prior to the

covenant being made. YHWH did not make an actual covenant with Abram until he had proven

14
Hasel, “The Meaning of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15,” 61.
15
Hasel, “The Meaning of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15,” 61.
16
Hasel, “The Meaning of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15,” 67.
17
Hasel, “The Meaning of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15,” 69.
18
Walter Roehrs, “Covenant and Justification in the Old Testament.” Concordia Theological Monthly 35
(1964): 587.
19
Walter Roehrs, “Covenant Theme of the Old Testament.” Concordia Journal 3 (1977): 27.
 6

he had faith in YHWH. An important aspect to YHWH walking through the sacrificial offerings

alone is that He only obligated Himself to fulfill the commitments.20 This conclusion reveals that

the covenant was unconditional. Jeffrey Niehaus writes that the covenant is unconditional in the

fact that God will see it through to the end, “but it is conditional in the sense that an individual

can forfeit his place in it.”21 That is to say, the covenant does not become void if someone along

the road to completion betrays YHWH.

Abraham’s Promise

The covenants made with Noah and Moses must be briefly assessed because they precede and

follow the Abrahamic covenant. Although there are many similarities between the two

covenants, there are many differences as well. For example, the Noahic covenant was one of

universality compared to the Mosaic covenant. The Mosaic covenant was specific to a certain

group of people rather than humanity. These differences are where the importance lies.

Covenant with Noah and Moses

With all of God’s covenants, there is a promise and then a sign of that covenant to serve as a

reminder. In Gen 8, Noah offered a sacrifice of every clean animal to God after the flood waters

had receded. YHWH was so pleased with the sacrifice that He promised Noah He would never

destroy the earth with the flood waters again, and He made the rainbow to serve as a sign to that

covenant. The universality of the Noahic covenant relates to the whole of creation. Noah was in

essence a “new Adam” and was charged with the care of the earth and animals. It could be said

20
Keith Essex. “The Abrahamic Covenant,” TMSJ 10 (1992): 209.
21
Jeffrey Niehaus, “God’s Covenant with Abraham.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 56
(2013): 268.
 7

that the Noahic covenant alludes to the work of Jesus Christ. The covenant was meant to redeem

all of creation but fell short of that task because of sin. Now, the covenant made with Moses is

slightly different from that of Noah.

The covenant with Moses ties into the covenant with Abraham, which will be discussed

later in detail. In Exod 19, God makes a covenant with the people of Israel. To consecrate the

covenant, Moses offers a sacrifice of bulls to YHWH and the people verbally agree to keep

God’s covenant. Moses then returns from the top of Mount Sanai with the tablets, inscribed with

the Ten Commandments. It is evident that Moses becomes the mediator between the people and

God, but that was not always the plan. In Exod 19:6, YHWH calls the people of Israel to be a

priestly nation but they fall short of that expectation.22 YHWH’s requirement for the people of

Israel to keep the commands of His covenant is what distinguishes the two from one another.

Rolf Rendtorff offers a great comparison of these two covenants. He states, “In both

cases the original gift of God (creation/covenant) is counteracted by human sin; in both cases

God determines to destroy the responsible human community (humanity/Israel); in both cases the

future depends on one man (Noah/Moses); and in both cases the covenant is (re)established.”23

By comparing the roles of Noah and Moses, it is evident that there is always an intercessor

between God and the guilty peoples and a re-establishment of a relationship with YHWH. David

Norris writes: “Where Yahweh is in covenant, His people experience Him in face-to-face

relationship.”24 In other words, YHWH is always seeking a relationship with humankind. These

facts help to strengthen the analysis of Gen 15.

22
One may see a pattern develop: Noah was the mediator for the whole world, Israel was supposed to be
the mediator for the whole world, Jesus Christ becomes the mediator for the whole world. One entity is meant to
bridge the gap.
23
Rolf Rendtorff, “‘Covenant’ as a Structuring Concept in Genesis and Exodus,” JBL 108 (1989): 389.
24
David Norris, I Am: A Oneness Pentecostal Theology (Hazelwood, MO: WAP Academic, 2009), 37.
 8

Abraham’s Covenant

Genesis 15 is the main OT covenant that serves as the prime example for the extent to which

YHWH is willing to go for a relationship with His people. Genesis 15 opens with a continuance

of the events from chapter 14. Vv. 1–6 follow a specific pattern which is continued through vv.

7–21. YHWH speaks in v.1, which is followed by Abram in vv. 2–3. In v. 4, YHWH reacts to

Abram’s response and follows up with a public action in addition His Word in v. 5. Then v. 6

provides the conclusion to that initial dilemma. This same pattern begins again in v. 7 and

continues to the conclusion with vv. 18–21.

V. 1 opens with God coming to Abram in a vision (Gen 15:1). This particular language

presents Abram as a great prophet because, throughout the OT, the prophets received visions

from YHWH. God has not yet changed Abram’s name to Abraham, because He has not yet made

the covenant. YHWH tells Abram not to fear for God is his shield and his reward will be great.

Gordon Wenham connects this promise to one of Abram being a “great and successful warrior

enjoying the spoils of battle.”25 Terence Fretheim points out that the reward does not involve

deliverance nor a promise of land or posterity, because those were already promised previously.26

Along the lines of Fretheim, Victor Hamilton writes, “A second emendation calls for reading

māǥān, ‘benefactor, suzerain.’ This suggestion has the advantage of making more sense of the

following line: ‘your reward shall be exceedingly great,’ or ‘who will reward you greatly.’ It is a

benefactor, rather than a shield, who provides a reward…This might suggest that the reward

25
Gordon Wenham. Genesis 15, vol. 1 of Word Biblical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987),
334.
26
Terence Fretheim, Genesis, vol. 1 of the NIB (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2015), 117.
 9

Yahweh has prepared for Abram is a son.”27 Hamilton’s assessment provides the most reasonable

explanation for Abram’s response of concern, it also aligns with the suzerainty concept.

In vv. 2–3, Abram addresses the fact that he has no heir for his fortune (Gen 15: 2–3).

Since God has not provided a seed from his loins to inherit the spoils, someone from his

household, Eliezer, will inherit everything. One should note that “childlessness was viewed as an

unmitigated disaster in the ancient world”.28 The importance of the heir is seen by Abram’s

response. He recognizes all of his success and the things God has promised him are all for

nothing if he has no one to inherit the riches; Abram seeks assurance that an heir of his loins is

forth coming. In v. 4, YHWH answers these concerns.

He assures Abram that the one he fathers will gain his inheritance, not Eliezer (Gen

15:4). God then takes Abram outside and tells him that his descendants with be as numerous as

the stars of the night sky (Gen 15:5). “The stars are not a sign to Abram, but a rhetorical move to

make a point about the promise in the face of his questions: God keeps promises.”29 With this

answer, Abram believed God, and God counted him as righteous. V. 6 holds importance of its

own. The verbiage of, “Abram believed the Lord” (Gen 15:6, NIV), implies that Abram

repeatedly performed acts of faith, as seen in Gen 12:1–7; 13:8–13; 14:13–18, 17–24. The

implication is significant because “Abram is a model for all his descendants to imitate: whatever

their circumstances, they must have faith in God.”30 This conclusion of continued faith

guaranteed Abram’s salvation.

27
Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 1–17 in NICOT ( ), 419.
28
Wenham, Genesis 15, 334.
29
Fretheim, Genesis, 117.
30
Wenham, Genesis 15, 334.
 10

V. 7 begins with the Lord reminding Abram that He had brought him out of the land of

Ur and promised to give him the land of Canaan (Gen 15:7). In v. 8, Abram asks the Lord how

he will know he will possess it (Gen 15:8). This question is not one of doubt but in search of

confirmation. Naturally, Abram is a man and is requesting a sign that will guarantee these

promises and the Lord answered his request favorably in v. 9. YHWH told Abram to bring Him

“a three year old heifer, and a three year old female goat, and a three year old ram, and a turtle

dove, and a young pigeon” (Gen 15:9, ESV). V. 10 shows that Abram brought all the animals

and cut them in half except for the birds (Gen 15:10). He then placed the opposite halves beside

each other. In vv. 11–12, Abram drove the birds of prey away as he waited for YHWH and he

fell into a deep sleep as the sun set (Gen 15:11–12). In vv. 13–16, God reveals to Abram the

future of his descendants.

YHWH explains that Abram’s descendants will travel to a land that is not theirs where

they will become slaves for four hundred years (Gen 15:13). He says He will deliver them from

the land of the oppressors, while punishing the former oppressor and providing abundant wealth

to Abram’s descendants (Gen 15:14). The Lord tells Abram that he will die at a good old age and

return to his ancestors (Gen 15:15). YHWH then reverts the focus to Abram’s descendants and

states that they will return to the Promised Land in the fourth generation (Gen 15:16). Fretheim

places particular emphasis on these passages. He states that, essentially, Abram can die in peace

because he knows his descendants will inherit the land.31 Fretheim also goes on to say that his

“descendants will return to the land, but Abram will receive a kind of immortality.”32 It is unclear

whether the immortality the commentary is referring to is Abram’s long lasting legacy or a literal

immortality with his ancestors.

31
Fretheim, Genesis, 119.
32
Fretheim, Genesis, 119.
 11

V. 17 says the sun had gone down when Abram awoke to see a smoking fire pot and

flaming torch passing between the pieces of the sacrificial covenant offerings (Gen 15:17). This

verse is the climax to understanding the oneness of YHWH. The Lord manifested Himself as the

smoking fire pot and flaming torch and walked through the covenant pieces alone. This act

should remind the reader that the historical rite required both involved parties to walk through

the sacrifices. Fretheim states, “the promise depends decisively on the very nature of God; God

has staked God’s very own life on the promise.”33 This was a unilateral promise/covenant that

only God could fulfill because Abram had not walked through the pieces with Him.

In vv. 18–21, God tells Abram the exact lands that his descendants will inherit. This large

stretch of land holds significance throughout the Israelite history because “only with Solomon

does the land even approach this size, and then not totally.”34 Fretheim wrote, “that God has

promised such a land, however, does not necessarily mean that they must possess every territory

noted or at all times.”35 This type of thought seems to portray YHWH in a fraudulent manner.

While it is understood they are only trying to present an explanation for the lack of Israel’s

owning all that land, it can be misleading. To add to this notion, there are no known maps that

explicitly show where the exact borders of these particular nations were, to say for sure if they

had, in fact, owned all of the territory at one time. Despite this disagreement, Abraham’s

covenant is ultimately fulfilled through the realization of the New Covenant.

The New Promise

33
Fretheim, Genesis, 119. (emphasis in the original)
34
Fretheim, Genesis, 119.
35
Fretheim, Genesis, 119.
 12

By reviewing the Mosaic covenant, the reader will understand the importance of the intercessor

to the covenants. Unlike the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant was not unilateral nor

was it unconditional. The people of Israel were required to follow the laws set in place by

YHWH in addition to keeping the Sabbath holy. Unfortunately, Scripture records that the people

broke the covenant within days of making it and Moses had to intercede on their behalf to restore

the covenant. There were also consequences for Israel’s unfaithfulness to the covenant and

YHWH, such as, the battles that YHWH would allow Israel to lose to their conquering enemies

and years in exile. A significant difference between the events of the Mosaic covenant and the

new covenant found in Jer 31 was the role of intercessor. YHWH did not allow Jeremiah to

intercede on Israel’s behalf as Moses had done previously, as is evidenced by Jeremiah’s plea in

Jer 14:7–9 and YHWH’s refusal to hear in Jer 14:10.

This fact is quite interesting considering Jeremiah’s ministry was spent warning the

people of their wrongdoing, which also explains why so many scholars debate on the placement

of the new covenant in Jer 31. John Rogers points out, the placement of Jer 31 amongst the

warnings refers back to the consistent Biblical theme of broken humanity and the grace and

compassion of a God that will not leave them.36 His thought sheds light on the message of v. 1.

It is evident, from v. 1, that the Lord is speaking in the future tense of a time when all of

His people have been reunited as one and serve YHWH as their Lord. During this time, Israel

was no longer a nation, and Judah was slowly beginning to fade away which is evidenced in 2

Kgs 17. In vv. 7–23 of 2 Kgs 17, “we read that abandonment of the torah, evidence for which is

mustered in ample detail, led to Israel’s removal from the land…vv. 34–40, states: Even after

punishment, i.e., exile, Israel persisted in its ‘former ways’ (vv. 34–40) and sought no return.”37

36
John Rogers Jr., “Jeremiah 31:7–14,” Interpretation 42 (1988): 282.
37
Mordechai Cogan, “Israel in Exile: The View of A Josianic Historian, JBL 97 (1978): 41.
 13

Mordechai Cogan writes: “The Israelite exiles, by their continued idolatry, forfeit any rights to

their former inheritance.”38 These words provide another example of the grace and compassion

that YHWH has for His people when compared to the message of Jer 31.

Returning to Jer 31, vv. 2–3 provide a flashback of when the Israelites were brought up

from Egypt and delivered from the cruelty of their oppressors; it refers to when they found grace

at Mount Sinai (Jer 31:2). These passages also provided hope to the survivors of the Babylonian

reign. “The audience for the oracle could see the similarity between themselves and early Israel

and could hope, like them, to find favor and rest.”39 V. 4 begins to speak of a post-exilic

rebuilding time.

The Lord refers to the nation as “Virgin Israel”40 which could be paralleled to the role of

a woman. A woman adorns ornaments as she prepares for matrimony.41 “Women playing

tambourines, dancing, and singing went out to meet the victors in battle. Worshipers could be

merrymakers, and dancing to the accompaniment of tambourines could express praise to the

Lord.”42 All of these acts are in stark contrast to the commands of Jeremiah in earlier writings;

such as, Jer 7:34; 16:9; 25:10. Vv. 5–6 talk of a time when the people will once again enjoy

planting their vineyards and harvesting the return of their crops (Jer 31:5). The watchmen will no

longer have to warn of a village take over, but rather call the people to Zion to worship the Lord

(Jer 31:6). These verses speak of a time of joy and gladness, where the people seek to worship

the Lord.

38
Cogan, “Israel in Exile,” 43.

Gerald Keown, Pamela Scalise, and Thomas Smothers, eds., Jeremiah 31, vol. 27 of Word Biblical
39

Commentary (Nelson Reference & Electronic, 1995), 108.

40
Jer 31: 4
41
Keown, Scalise, and Smothers, Jeremiah 31, 109.
42
Keown, Scalise, and Smothers, Jeremiah 31, 109.
 14

V. 7 brings the focus back to the Israelite’s current suffering, their past suffering, and the

suffering they will endure as they come out of exile. It describes a time when the people will still

shout to the Lord praises for help (Jer 31:7). Israel is in a time of utter disarray, but they are the

“chief of the nations” because they are God’s chosen people. V. 8 describes how the people will

return and be a strong nation again, which explicitly includes the blind, the lame, and the woman

in labor (Jer 31:8). These inclusions are important because of the status quo. According to the

culture of that day, the blind and lame were excluded, and postpartum women were considered

unclean.43 The specific use of these individuals also shows that Israel will not come back as a

powerful army but as a strong group.44 This understanding helps to show that they will be in

constant reliance on YHWH’s strength rather than their own.

V. 9 describes the journey of the Israelites back to Zion and their cries of sorrow and

repentance along the journey (Jer 31:9). The allusions to streams and straight paths have double

meanings. They show YHWH’s provision for their journey. Just as God provided for Israel in the

desert after Egypt, He will provide for the Zion pilgrims.45 The straight path also represents the

path of a believer in the way of the Lord, straight and do not stumble as sinners do.46 V. 9

prepares the reader for the message of vv. 10–11.

These verses describe how the people of Israel have to proclaim to their conquerors that

the only reason they won the territory was because God allowed them to take over.47 The people

were forced to admit their shame, but because YHWH cared for them, He was gathering them all

43
Keown, Scalise, and Smothers, Jeremiah 31, 113.
44
Keown, Scalise, and Smothers, Jeremiah 31, 113.
45
Keown, Scalise, and Smothers, Jeremiah 31, 113.
46
Keown, Scalise, and Smothers, Jeremiah 31, 113.
47
Keown, Scalise, and Smothers, Jeremiah 31, 114.
 15

together (Jer 31:10). He paid a ransom for His people and He would protect and guide them on

their journey back to Zion (Jer 31:11).48 Vv. 12–14 describe the feast that will ensue once the

children of Israel reach the top of Zion where they will no longer cry due to current sufferings

but will rejoice in the goodness of the Lord. God promises to reverse a covenant curse from Deut

28:65 when they reach Zion.49 The people will be physically full of the food and spiritually

satisfied by the presence of YHWH.

YHWH’s love for Israel is described in vv. 15–22. “The Lord, like Rachel the bereaved

matriarch, yearns to bring back precious son Ephraim and beloved daughter Israel.”50 These

verses stand to show that God’s love rivals that of any mother. Just as a mother is willing to die

in childbirth if it means survival of the child, YHWH is willing to bring His children back to

Zion despite sin. No matter how many times His children reject Him and walk away, YHWH

always wants them to return to a relationship with Him.

Vv. 23–30 begin to show the difference between the old covenant and the new covenant

that begins in v. 31. V. 23 describes when words of praise and worship will once again reign in

the cities of Judah. They will once again say, “The Lord bless you, O habitation of righteousness,

O holy hill!” (Jer 31:23). To reiterate the message of vv. 12–14, vv. 24–25 show that all of Judah

shall again rejoice in the Lord and enjoy the blessings of Zion. “Filling those who languish also

reverses the covenant curse of Deut 28:65.”51 This reversal shows that Judah will be included in

the restoration of God’s people. Vv. 26–28 describe a time when YHWH will not place past

judgments on the present people, rather He will bless them to repopulate. This blessing will

V.11 produces more suzerainty language where the king would be doing the protecting, but instead it is
48

YHWH fulfilling that role.

49
Keown, Scalise, and Smothers, Jeremiah 31, 115.
50
Keown, Scalise, and Smothers, Jeremiah 31, 124.
51
Keown, Scalise, and Smothers, Jeremiah 31, 128.
 16

extend beyond the restoration generation into the future generations of the whole nation.52 This

verse shows that the former brokenness will be restored under YHWH’s supervision.

YHWH’s promise to not judge the people for their ancestors’ sins is found in vv. 29–30.

It is to stand as hope for the people of the future to be free of guilt for their ancestor’s sin.53

These verses show there is always hope with YHWH and they begin to allude to life under the

new covenant.

It is important to note here, there has been no attempt made by the children of Israel to

seek forgiveness to try and re-establish a new covenant with YHWH. The previous examination

of vv. 1–30 shows that this section is all a vision of what is to come in the future. One may recall

the details of the Abrahamic covenant, Gen 15:17–18, wherein YHWH made a unilateral,

unconditional covenant/promise with Abram. He was the only entity of the agreement to walk

through the pieces of the sacrificial covenant offerings, thus making YHWH the only responsible

party for upholding the agreement. Abram had to prove his faithfulness prior to YHWH entering

into a covenant relationship with him, guiding the discussion into v. 31.

Vv. 31–32 describe YHWH declaring He will create a new covenant with Israel and

Judah. Although it does not specify when the new covenant will take place, it does state that it

will not be like the Mosaic covenant of their ancestors (Jer 31:31–32). The people could not

uphold their end of the covenant despite the relationship that YHWH longed for. In v. 33, the

Lord declares He will put His law within the people of Israel by writing His law on their hearts

(Jer 31:33). The message of v. 33 alludes to the events that led to the exile. YHWH’s law was

written on tablets, things that could disappear or fade away. The children of Israel had not put

YHWH’s law in their hearts, thus the Lord’s law was easily forgotten. When the Lord said He

52
Keown, Scalise, and Smothers, Jeremiah 31, 129.
53
Keown, Scalise, and Smothers, Jeremiah 31, 130.
 17

would put His Word on their hearts, He was not simply referring to the laws established through

Moses. The Lord was going to make them sensitive to His will. As pointed out by Adeyemi, it

was tradition that a public copy of the whole law was periodically placed in the temples for the

people to refresh themselves to the requirements of the covenant.54 This tradition is what makes

the new covenant so radical, because the periodical public reading will become a mut point.

V. 34 continues the changes that YHWH will make with the new covenant. It will no

longer be necessary for the people of Israel to share God’s Word with one another because

everyone will know the Lord from the rich to the poor (Jer 31:34). V. 34 is extended by the Lord

also declaring, “I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (Jer 31:34).

The first part of v 34 holds multiple meanings. First, this verse is, in part, addressing Jer 9:3–8.

Another meaning to the first part of v. 34 is that there will no longer be a need for the educated

elite to say what YHWH’s Word commands, because His Word will be on their hearts. The

second part of v. 34 addresses the sins of the people. The Lord declares He will forget their sins,

which in turn, will allow them to live a life free of guilt for their ancestor’s sin as well as their

own.

Continuing with vv. 35–36, YHWH addresses His supreme power by declaring He is

responsible for the light of day, maintains the moon and stars, and creates the waves of the sea

(Jer 31:35). YHWH is pointing out that He has maintained his covenant established with Noah

by declaring a fresh start. This declaration assures the “permanence of Israel’s future relationship

with the Lord.”55 In other words, the Lord is declaring that this new covenant will not be applied

to the current generation but it will apply to the future generations of Israel. In v. 37, the Lord

continues with His grandiose comparisons. YHWH is saying that if the heavens can ever be
54
Femi Adeyemi, “What is the New Covenant ‘Law’ in Jeremiah 31:33?,” Bibliotheca Sacra 163 (2006):
318.
55
Keown, Scalise, and Smothers, Jeremiah 31, 136.
 18

measured and the core of the Earth can be explored by humans, He will cease to be their Lord

and judge them for all their sins (Jer 31:37). Although these types of explorations seem more

feasible today, they are still impossible. These impossibilities guarantee that the Lord will never

go back on His new covenant with the future of Israel nation.56 The Lord is reiterating that He is

a faithful God and that future generations will escape punishment because they will have

YHWH’s Word on their heart.

Vv. 38–40 speak of a day when Jerusalem will be rebuilt for the Lord and then map out

the territories it will encompass. Terence Fretheim writes: “While this text may seem to shift

from theology to geography, theology remains basic. According to this text Jerusalem is to be

rebuilt, not for the returning exiles (except implicitly), but for God!”57 The city will be God’s

dwelling placing and future generations will be clean of their ancestor’s idolatry as will the land.

“The city made holy to the Lord symbolizes the same spiritual transformation for its people.”58

The people’s sin will be forgotten, they will live for YHWH, and their lands will be free idolatry.

Jer 31:31–34

The cursory look at all of Jer 31 set the background for a more detailed assessment of vv.

31–34. The children of Israel could not ask to initiate a new covenant with God because they

were the ones that broke the agreement, Mosaic covenant. Despite this fact, YHWH begins

speaking of creating a new covenant with His chosen people that would include other nations.59

This message is even before the current generation has completely gone into exile; He does not

56
Terence Fretheim, Jeremiah, SHBC (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2002) 446.
57
Keown, Scalise, and Smothers, Jeremiah 31, 137.
58
Keown, Scalise, and Smothers, Jeremiah 31, 139.
59
The inclusion of other nations alludes to the universality of the Noahic covenant. A picture of unity and
oneness forms throughout these covenants.
 19

wait for their repentance.60 These actions show the level of grace and commitment YHWH has

towards His people.

Although v. 31 does not state when the new covenant will occur, v. 32 explains that the

new covenant will be like no other covenant made before. Abram was not required to uphold any

commands to maintain the covenant in Gen 15, but he did perform acts of faith prior to God

entering into an unconditional covenant. Walter Kaiser writes, “Covenant theologians have

properly emphasized the Biblical role of the ‘obedience of faith’ which follows all genuine

saving faith, but they have erred when they pressed the case for the conditionality of all of God’s

covenants as the condition for divine fulfillment.”61 Kaiser confirms a previously mentioned

statement, no one will stand in the way of the Lord accomplishing His will. As YHWH was the

only entity to pass through the sacrificial covenant offerings.

Since Abram did not pass through the parts as well, he was not subject to any “curses” for

breaking this covenant. In this act, YHWH declared that only He could fulfill the promises of

that covenant. Returning to the terms of the new covenant, v. 33 is surrounded by much debate.

Theologians actively debate over the meaning of the word “law” in v. 33. Some argue that the

law means the Torah, others say it means God’s will. In keeping with other scholars, Femi

Adeyemi writes: “Jeremiah envisioned the New Covenant as ‘rising out of the total destruction

of the covenant made at Sinai,’ so he therefore did not envision a return of the old law. In this

view Jeremiah’s New Covenant, having annulled the Old Covenant, awaits ‘new laws.’”62 At the

end of v. 33, YHWH declares His sovereignty over the people, which can be seen as a

declaration that there is only one God that the people of Israel will serve.
60
John Rogers Jr., “Jeremiah 31:7-14,” 283.
61
Walter Kaiser Jr., “The Old Promise and the New Covenant.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 15 (1972): 18.
62
Femi Adeyemi, “What is the New Covenant ‘Law’ in Jeremiah 31:33?,” 315–16.
 20

The words written by Jeremiah in v. 34 would have been viewed as threatening to the

current generation. This declaration was, in part, to correct Jer 9:3–8. According to the Mosaic

covenant, the priests were commanded to teach the people the Torah and parents were supposed

to reinforce these teachings in their children. Jer 9:5 states, “Everyone deceives his neighbor, and

no one speaks the truth; they have taught their tongue to speak lies; they weary themselves

committing iniquity” (Jer 9:5). The people were no longer teaching one another the laws of the

covenant, so YHWH provided a solution that would prevent this type of behavior in future

generations. This new declaration posed a threat to the current societal status.

During Post-Babylonian exile, the people were not just read the text, but were told

specifically what the text meant as is evidenced in Neh 8:7–8.63 In other words, the people had no

divinely inspired knowledge of the text because they did not have access to it. This point also

threatened the elitist’s status; everyone would have equal access to the knowledge of YHWH.

Allowing everyone access to YHWH would eliminate the need for teachers, preachers, and

pulpits because the poor and uneducated would know just as much as the educated and

privileged. Here, Jeremiah predicts the demise of elitism, which alludes to the universality of the

Noahic covenant. Due to the fact that YHWH will directly educate the people by inscribing His

laws on their hearts, the corrupt will not be able to falsify it.64 By equalizing the access to

knowledge, YHWH has eliminated the powerful from corrupting His Word to suit their needs.

V. 34 ends with YHWH declaring He will no longer remember their sins. According to

the Mosaic covenant, the people of Israel were required to offer up an animal sacrifice every year

as atonement for their sins (e.g. Lev 16:20–24; 19:20–22; Num 15:22–31), which has caused

much debate amongst theologians. The question comes down to: what were the animal sacrifices

63
David Rhymer, “Jeremiah 31:31-34.” Interpretation 59 (2005): 294-295.
64
Harry Potter, “The New Covenant in Jeremiah 31: 31-34.” Vetus Testamentum 33 (1983): 353.
 21

for, if they did not provide forgiveness for their sins? The best answer comes from David

Lipscomb. He states: “animal sacrifices were unable to render the sinner ‘wholly free from sin,’

but the Day of Atonement sacrifices served to ‘roll a sin forward’ annually until Christ’s

crucifixion brought perfect remission.”65 This description brings about the purpose to this paper.

Conclusion

The terms of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants were sealed with a blood sacrifice. In

the Abrahamic covenant, YHWH walked through the bodies of the sacrificial animals. In the

Mosaic covenant, the people were required to offer a blood sacrifice every year to atone for their

sins. The one thing missing from the new covenant is the blood sacrifice to seal the terms laid by

YHWH.

Just as the Abrahamic covenant could only be fulfilled by YHWH, the same applies to

the New Covenant. No man could offer an animal sacrifice that would atone for all the sins of

the people. YHWH had to act as the mediator between himself and Abram, there was no higher

deity than Himself. The same applies to Jesus Christ as the mediator for the New Covenant.

Now, if Jesus is truly the mediator for the New Covenant, it would require Him to be YHWH

because of the precedent set by the other covenants. There is none equal and there is none greater

than YHWH. If there was another that could offer mediation between YHWH and man, then that

equal would have stood in for YHWH with the Abrahamic covenant. Drastically differing from

other ancient covenants that were only enforced by the supreme deity; the deity was not directly

involved with the covenants.

65
Timothy Willis, “‘I Will Remember Their Sins No More’: Jeremiah 31, the New Covenant, and the
Forgiveness of Sins.” Restoration Quarterly 53 (2011): 7.
 22

The Noahic covenant also displays the oneness of YHWH. Following the understanding

of bérit, YHWH was the only fulfiller of the covenant. He gave instructions to Noah to

repopulate the earth and care for it. These instructions hinting to the restoration of all creation

that is hindered by sin. Knowing that the king was the overall ruler according to the suzerainty

treaties, would make YHWH the one and only ruler of creation. In order for YHWH to uphold

His promise in Jer 31, He would have to make an atonement sacrifice. The fate of one that broke

a covenant was the same as the sacrificial animals walked through. Thus, in order to atone for the

sins of humanity and restore all of creation, YHWH would have to sacrifice Himself.

Now, it is known that Jesus Christ fulfilled the promise when He told His disciples “this

cup is the new covenant in my blood” (1 Cor 11:25).66 Christ’s death on the cross fulfilled the

blood requirement to seal the New Covenant. Before Jesus could seal the New Covenant, the

curse of the Old Covenant had to be handed out. It is clear Jesus suffered the effects of the curse

for a broken covenant, but He was not the guilty party. 67 Jesus served as a substitute for the

people. Additionally, the fact that YHWH initiated the covenant serves as proof to Jesus being

YHWH. Since YHWH was the one to walk through the pieces of the animal sacrifices, without

Abram, He is the only one that could fulfill those terms, there was no substitute.

New Covenant Theology defines the New Covenant as “‘the bond between God and man,

established by the blood of Christ, under which the church of Jesus Christ has come into

being,’”68 Through the act of crucifixion, Jesus offered the blood sacrifice that was required to

hide the sins of all the people from YHWH forever. With the New Covenant, “‘Jehovah will no

longer rule by external constraint, but by the influence of His Spirit in the heart of men…this
66
John Bright, “An Exercise in Hermeneutics: Jeremiah 31:31-34.” Interpretation 20 (1966): 198.
67
F.C. Fensham, “The Covenant as Giving Expression to the Relationship between Old and New
Testament.” Tyndale Bulletin 22 (1971): 92.
68
William Barrick, “New Covenant Theology and the Old Testament Covenants,” TMSJ 18 (2007): 179.
 23

divine revelation is to be written on the heart rather than in books.’”69 The Spirit of God that

resided in Christ was sent back to remain with the people.

The Holy Spirit acts as the guide to YHWH’s will. The Spirit convicts the individual, so

that they remain faithful and the presence of the Spirit fulfills the conditions of the New

Covenant in vv. 33–34. Anyone can receive the Holy Spirit from the young to the old if they ask

for it and with the indwelling of the Spirit, they have YHWH’s law on their heart. This fact

fulfills Jeremiah’s prophecy that a new law would be given, Jesus gave the people new laws to

follow during His ministry. In conclusion, the oneness of YHWH is found in Jesus Christ.

69
Femi Adeyemi, “What is the New Covenant ‘Law’ in Jeremiah 31:33?,” 316.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adeyemi, Femi. “What is the New Covenant ‘Law’ in Jeremiah 31:33?” Bibliotheca Sacra 163
(2006): 312–321.

Barrick, William. “New Covenant Theology and the Old Testament Covenants.” TMSJ 18
(2007): 165–180.

“‫ ברית‬b@riyth {ber-eeth’}.” Hebrew & Aramaic Dictionary (Lexicon-Concordance).

http://www.lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/125.html.

Bright, John. “An Exercise in Hermeneutics: Jeremiah 31:31–34.” Interpretation 20 (1966):

188–210.

Cogan, Mordechai. “Israel in Exile: The View of A Josianic Historian.” JBL 97 (1978): 40–44.

“Covenant.” Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/covenant.

Essex, Keith. “The Abrahamic Covenant.” TMSJ 10 (1992): 191-212.

Fensham, F.C. “The Covenant as Giving Expression to the Relationship Between Old and New
Testament.” Tyndale Bulletin 22 (1971): 82–94.

Foster, Stuart. “The Missiology of Old Testament Covenant.” International Bulletin of

Missionary Research 34 (2010): 205–208.

Fretheim, Terence. Genesis. Vol. 1 of the NIB. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2015.

. Jeremiah. SHBC. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2002.

Gehman, Henry. “The Covenant: The Old Testament Foundation of the Church.” Theology
Today 7 (1950): 26–41.

Hasel, Gerhard. “The Meaning of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15.” Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament 19 (1981): 61–78.

Hooker, Richard. "Jewish Concepts: Berit." Washington State University.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/berit.html.

24
 25

Kaiser Jr., Walter. “The Old Promise and the New Covenant.” Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 15 (1972): 11–23.

Keown, Gerald, Pamela Scalise, and Thomas Smothers, eds. Jeremiah 31. Vol. 27 of Word
Biblical Commentary. Nelson Reference & Electronic, 1995.

McCarthy, Dennis. “Covenant in the Old Testament: The Present State of Inquiry.” The Catholic
Bible Quarterly 27 (1965): 217–240.

Niehaus, Jeffrey. “God’s Covenant with Abraham.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 56 (2013): 249–271.

Norris, David. I Am: A Oneness Pentecostal Theology. Hazelwood, MO: WAP Academic, 2009.

Potter, Harry. “The New Covenant in Jeremiah 31: 31-34.” Vetus Testamentum 33 (1983): 347–
357.

Rendtorff, Rolf. “‘Covenant’ as a Structuring Concept in Genesis and Exodus.” JBL 108 (1989):
385–393.

Rhymer, David. “Jeremiah 31:31–34.” Interpretation 59 (2005): 294–296.

Roehrs, Walter. “Covenant and Justification in the Old Testament.” Concordia Theological
Monthly 35 (1964): 583–602.

Roehrs, Walter. “Covenant Theme of the Old Testament.” Concordia Journal 3 (1977): 25–32.

Rogers Jr., John. “Jeremiah 31:7–14.” Interpretation 42 (1988): 281–291.

Taggar-Cohen, Ada. “Biblical Covenant and Hittite Išḫiul Reexamined.” VT 61 (2011): 461–488.

Wenham, Gordon. Genesis 15. Vol. 1 of Word Biblical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1987.

Willis, Timothy. “‘I Will Remember Their Sins No More’: Jeremiah 31, the New Covenant, and
the Forgiveness of Sins.” Restoration Quarterly 53 (2011): 1–15.