The Announcement of a New Covenant An Exegetical Analysis on Jr 31:31-34 The Announcement of a New Covenant Valentín Aparicio Lara 0 The Announcement of a New Covenant 1 1. Textual basis and translation To take full advantage of all the possibilities that this passage conveys, it is suitable focusing on some considerations regarding the critical points which might be stressed by confronting the Masoretic text and the Greek version. As can be easily perceived in green letters, the text’s attention goes over the covenant topic. The word bәrît1 is repeated four times, once associated with the adjective new. The expression new covenant (v31) occurs only here, it is unique within the OT. Verse 31 TM ‫ ת־‬Э‫ְ א‬п ‫ ֛אל‬ђЯ ‫ִ ְש‬у ‫ת‬уѨ‫ת־‬ ֧ Э‫ א‬у‫ ֗ ִת‬ђЯЮ х ְп о֑ Япо ְу‫־‬ч ֻ‫ְ א‬ъ чу‫ ִ ֖א‬ЯѨ чушЯ֥ ִ у о֛‫ִ נ‬о ‫׃‬о‫ ֽש‬Я ЯнЩ‫ת ח‬уђ֥ ִ ְѨ онּо ֖ Я ְу ‫ת‬уѨ֥ 32 чнЯЯ ֔ у ְл уёуִ ֣ ִ р‫ח‬Ш Эо ַчֹу ְѨ ч ֔Я‫ֹת‬л Щ‫ ת־א‬Э‫ַ א‬у‫ ִת‬ђЯַ Ю ѱ ђ‫ ֤ש‬Э Щ‫ת א‬уђ֗ ִ ְѨхЮ ‫֣לא‬ у‫ת‬у ִ ֗ ђִ ְѨ‫ ת־‬Э‫ּ א‬ђ֣юо о Я‫מ‬о‫־‬ђ ֜ Э‫ ש‬Щ‫ א‬ч ִуђ֑ Я ְѐшִ яђЭ ‫ ֖א‬Э ш ч‫א‬у ֖ Я ִѐֹо ְ‫ל‬ ‫׃‬оֽпо Я ְу‫־‬ч ֻ‫ְ א‬ъ ч֖лЯ у‫ ֥לְ ִת‬Ю‫ ע‬ЯѨ ух֛ ִ ъ Я‫ְ א‬п 33 чушЯ֤ ִ ѯ Юо уђַ ‫ח‬Щ Ю‫ ֜אל א‬ђЯ ‫ִ ְש‬у ‫ת‬уѨ‫ת־‬ ַ Э‫ ֩ת א‬ђ ְх Э‫ א‬ђ‫ ֣ש‬Э Щ‫ת א‬уђ֡ ִ ְѨ Юо ‫את‬р֣ уѱ֣ ִ чѨ֖ Я ִ‫ ל־ל‬Ю‫ְ ע‬п чѨЯ ֔ ђְ ִё ְѨ ַу‫ ִת‬ђֹ Я ‫ת־ת‬ ֽ Э‫ א‬у‫ת ִת‬Я֤ Ю ъ опЯ ֔ о ְу‫־‬ч ֻ‫ְ א‬ъ ַчо Яо ‫׃‬ч‫ ֽע‬Я ְ‫ ל‬у‫ּ־ל‬у ֥ ִ ְоуֽ ִ о Я‫֖מ‬о ְп чуоֹ‫א‬ ִ֔ ‫ַ ֽל‬ч ЭоЯ‫ ל‬у‫ת‬у֤ ִ уִ Яо ְп оЯ‫נ‬л֑ Э Щ‫ְ ת‬х Э‫א‬ 34 ּ ֖‫ע‬Ѫְ ђш‫א‬ ֔ ‫ַ ל‬пу ִ‫ ח‬Я‫ ת־א‬Э‫ש א‬у‫ְ ִ ֤א‬п ּо‫ ֜ע‬ђ‫ ת־‬Э‫ש א‬у‫ ִ ֣א‬нֹь֗ ּн֣ ‫מ‬Юְ ‫ְ ל‬у ‫ְ ֧לא‬п ‫־‬ч ֻ‫ְ א‬ъ ַчЯ‫ֹל‬н ְѩ‫־‬н Ю‫ְ ע‬п ч֤ Я‫ נ‬Ют ְёшִ ְ‫ ל‬у‫אֹת‬ ִ ֜ ּ ַьнְ у ч֩ ѲЯ ּх‫־‬уѱֽ ִ о֑ Япо ְу‫ ת־‬Э‫א‬ ‫׃ ס‬нֹ ֽ‫־ע‬ђЯѱрְ Э‫ ֥לא א‬ч‫את‬ ֖ Я ЯѮ Ю‫ ּלְ ח‬чъ֔Я ֹЩ‫ ֽלע‬Ю ַ‫ח‬Ю‫ ְסל‬Э‫ א‬уѱ֤ ִ опЯ ֔ о ְу LXX ἰ κ η λαδ λξκθ αδ φβ θ ε λδκμ εα δαγ κηαδ κ εῳ Ι λαβζ εα κ εῳ Ικυ α δαγ εβθ εαδθ θ κὐ εα θ δαγ εβθ ἣθ δ γ ηβθ κῖμ πα λ δθ αὐ θ ἐθ η λᾳ ἐπδζαίκη θκυ ηκυ μ ξ δλ μ αὐ θ ἐιαΰαΰ ῖθ αὐ κ μ ἐε ΰ μ Αἰΰ π κυ ὅ δ αὐ κ κὐε ἐθ η δθαθ ἐθ δαγ εῃ ηκυ εα ἐΰ η ζβ α αὐ θ φβ θ ε λδκμ ὅ δ αὕ β δαγ εβ ἣθ δαγ κηαδ κ εῳ Ι λαβζ η μ η λαμ ἐε θαμ φβ θ ε λδκμ δ κ μ π θ ηκυμ ηκυ ἰμ θ δ θκδαθ αὐ θ εα ἐπ εαλ αμ αὐ θ ΰλ οπ αὐ κ μ εα κηαδ αὐ κῖμ ἰμ γ θ εα αὐ κ κθ α ηκδ ἰμ ζα θ εα κὐ η δ ιπ δθ εα κμ θ πκζ βθ αὐ κῦ εα εα κμ θ ζφ θ αὐ κῦ ζ ΰπθ ΰθ γδ θ ε λδκθ ὅ δ π θ μ ἰ κυ θ η π ηδελκῦ αὐ θ εα πμ η ΰ ζκυ αὐ θ ὅ δ ζ πμ κηαδ αῖμ δε αδμ αὐ θ εα θ ηαλ δ θ αὐ θ κὐ η ηθβ γ δ Engilsh translation: Behold, the days are coming – says the Lord – when I shall make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke (*LXX they did not persevere), although I was their master (* I was a husband for them) – says the Lord –. But this is the covenant I shall make with the house of Israel after those days – says the Lord –: I will put (*TM: I put – past tense) my law within them (*LXX in their mind) and on their heart I will write it, and I will be their God and they will be my people. They will teach no longer each man his neighbor and each man his brother saying “know the Lord” for they all will know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them – says the Lord – for I will forgive their iniquity and their sins I will remember no more. The importance of this passage cannot be overstated. It constitutes the spiritual climax of the whole book of Jeremiah and provides us an outstanding material to connect both testaments through the concept of covenant2. In fact, this text is the longest quotation we find within the writings of the New For some introductory notes about the meaning of bәrît, go over WEINFELD, “‫ת‬уђл”, GLAT I, 1590-1664; and BARR, “Some Semantiἵ ἠotes on the ωovenant”, ἀἁ-38. 2 For a discrepant opinion arguing about the exaggerated importance that many scholars concede to this passage, cf. CARROL, From Chaos to Covenant, 215. For him, the titular distinction between Old and New testament comes from this text (new covenant is translated into Latin as novum testamentum), whereby the passage is intended to bring a value that does not correspond to its inner signification within the book of Jeremiah. 1 The Announcement of a New Covenant 2 Testament, it is fully copied in Heb 8:8-123. Before tackling exegetical issues, let us go through few critical considerations4. v31. The reference to the house of Judah is an addition aἵἵording to ψHS’ ἵritical apparatus. It was added later to avoid any kind of misunderstanding. Nevertheless, Israel as such may be taken as referring both Israel and Juda as we plainly note in v33a. The adjective ‫ש‬н‫ ח‬attached to the substantive “covenant” is used in opposition to the former things in Isa 50-66; to describe the new heavens and the new earth in Isa c50-66; and the new heart in Eze 36:24-285. Some semantics notes might be drawn from this samples. v32. The Greek translator seems to smoother the text in some extent. The Hebrew verb ђђю has a strong meaning: break (in Hif. linked to “ἵovenant” as direct object, Clines); break, destroy, suspend (in Hif. linked to “ἵovenant” as direct object, HALOT). However, the Greek ἐηη θπ signifies to abide (Muraoka); to persevere in, stand by (Danker-Bauer). It is easy to discover here a kind of “politiἵal ἵorreἵtion”. In this view, Israel would have not broken the Sinaitic Covenant, but rather it would have overlooked their commitments. More difficult is to decide the case in 32b. Is God regarding himself as a husband or as a lord? Most of the modern translations prefer the former. The support for this theory came from the rest of the Book of Jeremiah6. He piἵks up muἵh of the typiἵal Hosea’s motifs aἴout matrimonial love7. The Targum also underlines the ἵontinuanἵe of Yahweh’s regard for his people. On the basis of textual tradition, the Vg and Greek version of Aq translate dominates super eorum or ekyríeusa8. The meaning of the Hebrew ‫ל‬ьл, to rule over, be a Lord, to marry (HALOT) is preserved in any case, even if we prefer the although I was their master. Quite different is the case of the Greek verb ἀ ε έω, which means neglect (Danker-Bauer), to be unconcerned (Muraoka). It may come from a Vorlage version in common with the Syrian translation, which maybe read the Hebrew root g’l, to loathe (HALOT). The waw attached to the pronoun ‘ānōkî seems to be adversative. That is the reason why it could be translated for although I was your husband. v33. The LXX changes inner parts for mind, rendering more elegant the pair of terms with a beautiful couple: mind & heart. Nevertheless, the most baffling feature of this verse is the qatal form у‫תת‬ъ. It should be rendered in place of weqatalti, as the critical apparatus suggests by considering many manuscripts. A risk is run if we propose that the MT might have changed the original form to qatal, just to not play down the importance of the Sinaitic Covenant. On the other hand, the LXX seems to confirm a different Vorlage ( π) but we cannot be completely sure. v34. In this last verse we only find a minor addition, one more Yahwe’s word, summing up four in our text, one for each verse. They hold together the clauses and strengthen the text’s dynamics. 2. Definition and context of the textual unit In this brief passage, all the main features which allow us to define the genre of the composition are found. From the point of view of the formal analysis, the text reproduces the direct style of an utterance (v31). It is God himself who speaks. The literary genre is the oracle. In v35 it is read again The current paper will not engage in the use that Heἴrews’ author makes of this concept. For a detailed view and exegesis of the Pauline and Lukan texts, I address the reader to a well-performed study, cf. ADEYEMI, The New Covenant Torah in Jeremiah and the law of Christ in Paul (SBlit 94; New York 2006). 4 For further developments regarding textual variations, cf. MCKANE, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 817-827. 5 Intertextual connections noted by CARROL, From Chaos to Covenant, 222 and RATA, The Covenant Motif in Jeremiah’s, 42. 6 In light of 3:1, the verb would stand for marry: God says, "If a husband divorces his wife and she goes from him and belongs to another man, will he still return to her? Will not that land be completely polluted? But you are a harlot with many lovers; yet you turn to Me," declares the Lord. Cf. KEOWN et al., Jeremiah 26-52, 132. 7 Go over LALLEMAN DE WINKEL, Jeremiah in Prophetic Tradition, 90-11η for a ἵomment on the importanἵe of Hosea’s prophecy in the book of Jeremiah. The author examines all the covenantal expressions common to both books. 8 MCKANE, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 819. 3 The Announcement of a New Covenant 3 the introductory formula: thus says the Lord. Therefore, what follows is rightly interpreted as the beginning of something new. Perhaps it is most problematic grasping the relationship of our text with what precedes (vv27-30). In v27 the parallel expression the days are coming shows somewhat that the oracle of the “new covenant” is linked to this previous oracle. Moreover, there is also a mention of Israel and Judah. Regarding the genre, the direct style is also clear in this foregoing utterance. God himself addresses his word to the people. As far as we focus on the formal features, this preceding oracle is very similar9. However, assuming as a criterion the contents, our text is plainly different from the foregoing oracles. At first glance, the themes are connected: in both cases Jeremiah is dealing with a future reconstruction of the people. Jerusalem will not be spared; Babylonian army is about to sweep away the city and the oracles are projecting a forecast of a hopeful future. But what is at stake is the nature of this salvation. Whereas the first prediction focuses on a material reconstruction – as all the chapter does at large –, the oracle of the New Covenant is related to an inner renovation. Both aspects are important, but the special nature of the second one is decisive. The idea of a material reconstruction is conveyed by this couple of verbs in v28: ‫ע‬Ю ֹт ְъ ִ‫ְ ל‬п ‫ֹת‬ъ ְл ִ‫( ל‬to build and to plant)10. This classical pair stresses the necessity of renewal in a waste land after the siege and subsequent abandon. It is a merism for referring to an integral reconstruction; in fact, to plant is associated with the countryside prosperity and to build with the city’s reἵonstruἵtion. But the text we are analyzing is deeper in terms of significance because the renewal is interior and affecting radically the relationship between God and the people: the covenantal language enter stage. Although the so-ἵalled “ψook of ωomfort” (ἵ30-31) puts together many oracles and may be regarded as a collection, some interesting connections in vocabulary should be noted between our text and the surrounding oracles. In 30:21 the Sinaitic covenant-formula is repeated: ч‫ע‬Я ְ‫ ל‬у ִ‫ ל‬ч Э‫ת‬у ִу ְо ִп чуоֹ‫א‬ ִ ‫ ל‬чЭх‫ל‬Я оЭуоְ Э‫ א‬у ִхъ Я‫ְ א‬п (you will be my people and I will be your God). Still, the most remarkable coincidence appears outside this collection, in 24:7. Just as in our text, the major theme of “ἴeing the ἕod’s people” is linked with the knowledge of God: у ִхъ Я‫ְ א‬п ч‫ע‬Я ְ‫ ל‬у ִ‫ּ־ל‬у Яо ְп оЯпо ְу у ִъЩ‫ א‬у ִѱ у‫ת א ִת‬Ю‫ ע‬ЮнЯ‫ ל‬л‫ ל‬ч ЭоЯ‫ ל‬у‫ ִת‬Ю‫ת‬Яъ ְп чуоֹ‫א‬ ִ ‫ ל‬ч ЭоЯ‫ ל‬оЭуоְ Э‫( א‬I will give them a heart to know me because I am the Lord and the will me people and I will be their God). This text arises another question: who are the addressees of this message? the “vision of the two baskets” (24:1-10) gives us some clues because this passage seeks to narrow down the salvation to a group. Moreover, although the New Covenant oracle is addressed to the whole house of Israel and Judah, some of the surrounding oracles are intended to bring salvation only to a rest (31:7). Finally, it is worthy to move towards 32:37-40. This passage could be regarded as a reshaping of 31:31-34. The New Covenant (о Я‫ ש‬ЯнЩ‫ת ח‬уђִ Ѩ) ְ is now called Eternal Covenant (чЯ‫ֹל‬ь ‫ת‬уђִ ְѨ). The Sinaitic promise is uttered again (v38, they shall be my people) and there are several references to the new way in which the law will be accomplished. The addressees are the people who had been scattered before (v37), so that the rest that has been mentioned before, now is considered to be the exiled people11. 9 LUNDBOM provides a few clues about the climatic position of the oracle. Jer 31:23-30 (the preceding oracle) contains 101 words; likewise, Jer 31:30-40 (the following one) contains exactly 101. That could be consider like a special frame to underscore what is considered the highest preaching of Jeremiah. Cf. LUNDBOM, Jeremiah 21-36, 465. 10 Jer 1:10 depicts the goal of the prophetic mission in these same terms: I have appointed you this day over the nations and over the kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant. The twofold task of Jeremiah is accomplished in the first part of the book (to destroy and to overthrow) and afterwards in “the ψook of Comfort” (to build and to plant). The later represents, in rhetorical categories, a countertheme. Cf. BRUEGGEMANN, Jeremiah, 39. 11 This point helps us to avoid a frequent misinterpretation. A few scholars regard the inwardness of the law (v33) and the aἵἵountaἴility for one’s own faults (vἁ0) as an inception of a more individualistic religion. However, the mention of the house of Israel and Judah is not backing an individualistic comprehension of faith, rather it is reflecting the Deuteronomy concern for community. Cf. CARROL, From Chaos to Covenant, 221. The Announcement of a New Covenant 4 3. Structure and dynamics ‫׃‬о‫ ֽש‬Я ЯнЩ‫ת ח‬уђ֥ ִ Ѩְ онּоְу ֖ Я ‫ת‬у֥Ѩ‫ ת־‬Э‫ְ א‬п ‫ ֛אל‬ђЯ ‫ִ ְש‬у ‫ת‬уѨ‫ת־‬ ֧ Э‫ א‬у‫ ֗ ִת‬ђЯЮ х ְп о֑ Япо ְу‫־‬ч‫ְ ֻא‬ъ чу‫ ִ ֖א‬ЯѨ чушЯ֥ ִ у о֛‫ִ נ‬о у‫ת‬у ִ ֗ ђִ Ѩ‫ת־‬ ְ Э‫ּ א‬ђ֣юо о Я‫מ‬о‫־‬ђ ֜ Э‫ש‬Щ‫ א‬чуִ ђ֑ Я ְѐшִ яђЭ ‫ ֖א‬Э ш ч‫א‬у ֖ Я ִѐֹо ְ‫ ל‬чнЯЯ ֔ у ְл уёуִ ֣ ִ р‫ח‬Ш Эо ַчֹу ְѨ ч‫ֹת‬л Я ֔ ‫א‬Щ ‫ ת־‬Э‫ַ א‬у‫ ִת‬ђַ Ю ѱЯ ђ‫ש‬Щ ֤ Э ‫ת א‬уђ֗ ִ ְѨхЮ ‫֣לא‬ ‫׃‬оֽпо Я ְу‫־‬ч‫ְ ֻא‬ъ ч֖лЯ у‫ ֥לְ ִת‬Ю‫ ע‬ЯѨ ух֛ ִ ъ Я‫ְ א‬п опЯ ֔ о ְу‫־‬ч‫ְ ֻא‬ъ ַчо Яо чушЯ֤ ִ ѯ Юо уђЩַ ‫ ח‬Ю‫ ֜אל א‬ђЯ ‫ִ ְש‬у ‫ת‬уѨַ ‫ ת־‬Э‫ ֩ת א‬ђ ְх Э‫ א‬ђ‫ש‬Щ ֣ Э ‫ת א‬уђ֡ ִ ְѨ Юо ‫את‬р֣ уѱ֣ ִ оЯ‫נ‬л֑ Э Щ‫ְ ת‬х Э‫ א‬ч֖ѨЯ ִ‫ל־ל‬Ю‫ְ ע‬п чѨЯ ֔ ђְ ִё ְѨ ַу‫ ִת‬ђֹЯ ‫ת־ת‬ ֽ Э‫ א‬у‫ת ִת‬Я֤ Ю ъ ч‫ ֽע‬Я ְ‫ ל‬у‫ּ־ל‬у ֥ ִ ְоуֽ ִ о Я‫מ‬о֖ ְп чуоֹ‫א‬ ִ֔ ‫ַ ֽל‬ч ЭоЯ‫ ל‬у‫ת‬у֤ ִ уִ Яо ְп ч֤ Я‫ נ‬Ют ְёшִ ְ‫ ל‬у‫אֹת‬ ִ ֜ ּ ַьнְ у ч֩ ѲЯ ּх‫־‬уѱֽ ִ о֑ Япоְу‫ ת־‬Э‫ ֖עּ א‬Ѫְ ђш‫א‬ ֔ ‫ַ ל‬пу ִ‫ ח‬Я‫ ת־א‬Э‫ש א‬у‫ְ ִ ֤א‬п ּо‫ ֜ע‬ђ‫ ת־‬Э‫ש א‬у‫ ִ ֣א‬нֹь֗ ּн֣ ‫מ‬Юְ ‫ְ ל‬у ‫ְ ֧לא‬п опЯ ֔ о ְу‫־‬ч‫ְ ֻא‬ъ ַчЯ‫ֹל‬н ְѩ‫־‬н‫ע‬Ю ְп ‫׃‬нֹ ֽ‫־ע‬ђЯѱрְ Э‫ ֥לא א‬ч‫את‬ ֖ Я ЯѮ Ю‫ ּלְ ח‬чъ֔Я ֹЩ‫ ֽלע‬Ю ַ‫ח‬Ю‫ ְסל‬Э‫ א‬уѱ֤ ִ Color codes: Temporal clause/ Dinamicstructural motifs/ Addressee/ Actions will be accomplished/ Further specific actions As it is clearly perceived, the first part gathers some of the classical features of an oracle, God himself speaks. Those who receive the message are the house of Israel and Juda12. The typical expression the days are coming places the achievement not too far in time. It is customary in the prophetic style to use the participle (чу‫ ִא‬ЯѨ) to refer a close future, adding also the nuance of actual achievement (JM §121e). The introductory part points out the oraἵle’s subject: a new covenant is announced. Statically, two parts could be distinguished in the following scheme (the second one subdivided in turn)13. In a lexical ground, the connector formula thus says the Lord (оЯпо ְу‫־‬ч‫ְ ֻא‬ъ) goes throughout the text strengthening its inner coherence and marking its steps. 1. An introduction which issues the topic (New Covenant) and addressees (house of Israel and Judah). 2. Another two parts which pin down the nature of this new covenant. 2.1 Pars destruens. In the forefront appears what this “new covenant” is not going to be14. We stand before a clear case of definition by opposition: the covenant enacted in Sinai is reἵalled and ἵonsidered as aἴrogated ἴeἵause of the people’s transgression. 2.2 Pars construens. It sets out the positive definition of what this “new covenant” brings of new. The material is arranged around three elements linked in paratactic style (go above for a further clarification on the strange ntn in qatal). In the last clause, it is easily recognizable a grammatical parallelism whit a former causal-kî (JM §170d). 12 In the book of Jeremiah the houses of Israel an Judah stand together under judgment (5:11; 11:10, 17) and promise (33:14). Indeed, the reunification of the two houses is part of the promised restoration (3:18). KEOWN et al., Jeremiah 26-52, 131. What is striking is that in v33a is only mentioned the house of Israel. It would be perhaps a case of rhetorical abbreviation. Cf. HOLLADAY, A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, 197. 13 Another way of dividing the text is displayed in HOLLADAY, A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, 197. He rather splits the text in prose section (31-32) and poetic section (33-34), considering that both stand in chiastic relation. The first section would focus on the old covenant and the second one on the new promise. 14 Discontinuity with the past is also emphasized by the adverbs “no like” (v32) and “not anymore” (twice in v34). KEOWN et al., Jeremiah 26-52, 130. Nevertheless, to avoid any kind of misunderstanding, we will have the occasion to check out the extent of such an apparent opposition, because it hides beneath some elements of continuity between both covenants that should not be overlooked. The Announcement of a New Covenant 5 The dynamical arrangement of this composition is brilliant because sets forth a wonderful shift from a bitter rebuke (у‫ת‬у ִ ђִ Ѩ‫ת־‬ ְ Э‫ּ א‬ђюо о Я‫מ‬о v32a) towards an encouraging hope of renewal15. The former covenant clauses were breakable and in fact, their fathers broke them out (v32). The oracle stresses the gravity of this aἵt ἴy means of deliveranἵe’s mention. ἕod ἴrought his people out of Egypt, he behaved like a husband or, at least, like a Lord who rules them and nevertheless, they rejected to remain in his alliance. It supposes a lack not just of loyalty but also of love and gratitude. Since the rejection of ἕod’s guidanἵe is the main blame, the oracle finishes with an offer of forgiveness (I will forgive their iniquity, v34b), creating a vivid inclusion in which the newness is unfolded (v.33-34a). The εosaiἵ ωovenant was rooted in Yahweh’s love for Israel, now again this feature is displayed. Therefore, the features of the New Covenant are three: i) the law will be written in their hearts; ii) they will become the ἕod’s peopleν iii) a truly acquaintance of God’s will. 4. Literary devices The apparent simplicity of these verses hides a resourceful author who employs a large range of literary technics. In v31 a temporal clause (чу‫ ִא‬ЯѨ чушЯִ у о‫נ‬оִ ) connects the speech with the second part of the oracle (v33), in which the temporal framework is picked up again ( чо Яо чушЯִ ѯ Юо уђЩ‫ ח‬Ю‫)א‬. In the second part, some of the most common poetry devices are used to bring out the features of the covenant: - The first one has to do with the acquaintance of the law. In v33b we see a syndetic parallelism: I will put my law within them and on their heart I will write it. The two terms ч ЯѨђְ ִё (their inner parts) and ч ЯѨ ִ‫( ל‬their heart) are similar enough, but the second phrase adds something slightly new because it connects the Sinaitic Covenant and the new one. The motif of the stony tablets is changed into heart, which would rightly stand for mind (just as LXX translates). Yet, the action performed by God in this occasion is the same, namely to write, as he did in Ex 24:12 and 31:18. This connection is a prominent feature because, the law will remain in the New Covenant16. The only change affects the modality of this knowledge, but it is not meant that any legal frame will be superfluous or abolished. The new relationship between God and people will not be lawless. Moreover, this text is not far from Deuteromistic rhetoric. In Deut 30:11-14 the Law is said to reside in human mouths and hearts, enabling people to carry it out without difficulty17. Hence, we are not allowed to interpret the Jeremiah’s passage as a chink in the armor or Old Testament’s covenantal theology. Another reference, in this case within Jeremiah himself, is read in 17:1. In our opinion, it is a key verse to shed light over our text and put us on the right track. There, it is stated that the sin of the people is written and engraved in the tablets of their hearts18, whereby the illness (sin in their hearts) will determine the solution proposed by Jeremiah: law in their heart. - The central promise of the Covenant in v33 (they shall be my people) is the same clause that we read in Ex 19:5-6 and Deut 26:18; 27:9. This element portrays a sort of continuity between the A useful scheme is the so-called theme-rheme structure in whiἵh “theme” is understood as the starting point of the communication and the “rheme” is ἵonsidered the new element being communicated (RATA, The Covenant Motif in Jeremiah’s, 51). 16 LUNDBOM, Jeremiah, 467. Also in CARROLL, but in less balanced terms: the only difference between the old and the new form of the covenant would appear to be the internalization principle employed in the new covenant. The stipulations, effects and purpose remain the same for both models. CARROL, From Chaos to Covenant, 218. Let us note the significant “only”, that represents very well the position of his author. 17 Cf. Ibid., 468. In Deut 6:6 God also orders to keep the laws he is commanding within the heart: these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. 18 That is an important clue for Holladay to solve the puzzle, because whereas the law is written in stony tablets (Deut 5:22), the sin of the people is engraved in their hearts (Jer 17:1). That would constitute the internal handicap of the Old ωovenant in the Jeremiah’s view, and the ἵompelling neἵessity for its renovation. Cf. HOLLADAY, A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, 198. 15 The Announcement of a New Covenant 6 foretold ἵovenant and the past ἕod’s commitment19. Consequently, both covenants cannot be read in dialectic suppression even though a radical newness is attempted by this future enactment. - Another double expression in v. 34a (the man and his neighbor and the man and his brother) underscores the fraternity of the people. Furthermore, the literary device of merism is employed to encompass all the community, from the least of them to the greatest ones. Again, it is easy to track the homiletical rhetoric of Deuteronomy. In Deut 11:19 the necessity of teaching the law to children is not only required, but will constitute a vital point in post-exilic Judaism. Why does it seem to be superfluous now? The answer is not simple. In our guess, it lies along the book of Jeremiah itself. The prophet sadly observes that everyone deceives his neighbor and does not speak the truth (Jer 9:5)20. In other words, Jeremiah is compelled to acknowledge that transmission-chain of the law is broken. The word has lost its overriding purpose, it does not convey the divine teaching any more, but falsehood. - The last verse (v. 34b) presents a synonymic parallelism by confronting two verbs with similar meaning and object: to forgive (‫ח‬Ю‫ ְסל‬Э‫ )א‬ their iniquities (чЯъֹЩ‫לע‬Ю ) and not to remember (ђЯѱрְ Э‫)לא א‬  their sins (ч Я‫ את‬ЯѮ Ю‫)ח‬. This last sentence bears an extremely significant message: faithfulness to the New Covenant will be a gift of divine mercy, not a human achievement21. 5. Theological message The so-ἵalled “ψook of ωomfort” forecasts a new future in a devastated Jerusalem. Its oracles are reacting against the disappointing setting of destruction whiἵh followed ψaἴylonian’s ἵonquest. The cities are ruined and the countryside remains abandoned and wield. In 31, 3 a new hope is announced: I will bring them back to the land. The composition could be aimed by the scope of heartening the exile community. Either chapter 30 and 31 are devoted mainly to the gathering back and material reconstruction (31:28 – to plant and build)22. Likewise, the stress is headed to the healing of the innermost part of the people, their soul. The great piece of 31:10-14 insists not only in the resuming of normal activity (grain, oil, wine, herds) but also in the deep joy that will accompany the return: the virgin will rejoice in the dance, and the young men and the old, together, for I will turn their mourning into joy and will comfort them and give them joy for their sorrow (31:13). Despite of the fact that a new beginning is proclaimed, the exile was the last outcome of an evergrowing process of infidelity. Since the relation between God and the people – signified in the concept of bәrît – was deadly hurt, this new future requests an unavoidable restoration of this relationship and here it is the role whiἵh the oraἵle of the “new ἵovenant” plays in this act. Its purpose is the spiritual renewal of the people. All the covenants are conceived as divine response to critical situations23. Just as the slavery in Egypt finished with a great alliance in Sinai, the exile will be followed by a bәrît ḥădāšāh. There is an element of continuity between both pacts, a bottom thread which unites them, and it is expressed in the famous clause: I will be their God and they will be my people (31:33b). Nevertheless, the causes of the sojourn in Babylonia must be removed for they are clearly pointed out 19 It would constitute a distorted reading the fact of denying the Jewishness of the New Covenant. Cf. BRUEGGEMANN, Jeremiah, 72. 20 This contrast is noted again by HOLLADAY, and it raises a barrier that blocks out the transmission of Old Covenant precepts. Cf. Ibid., 198. Without hesitation, this point must to be stressed. The oracle is not condemning the teaching of the law or considering it out of date. The institution of teaching is not being regarded as flaw, in stark contrast with Deuteronomy. Jeremiah is just noticing the current failure of this process among his fellow citizens. Therefore, the oracle does not mean that all teaching will stop, but from then on, the knowledge of God and His Torah will not be learned “by heart” alone, but will be learnt and felt “from within”. LALLEMAN DE WINKEL, Jeremiah in Prophetic Tradition, 199. 21 KEOWN, Jeremiah, 135. 22 This labor of restoring as a sing of certain divine mercy is usually reflected as well in many Assyrian texts. Cf. MARKL, “Divine Mercy in the Ancient Near East and in the Hebrew Bible” (Università Ubaniana, 14/10/2016) [unpublished paper]. 23 Divine covenants typically follow crises. MARKL, “ἕod’s ωovenants”, 331. The Announcement of a New Covenant 7 as the real root of the divine punishment. In short, the sin of the people has provoked the crisis (31 32b – у‫ת‬у ִ ђִ ְѨ‫ ת־‬Э‫ּ א‬ђюо о Я‫מ‬о) and, unless the forgiveness is offered, it cannot be set out a new flawless relationship with God (31: 34 – чЯъֹЩ‫לע‬Ю ‫ח‬Ю‫ ְסל‬Э‫)א‬24. So far, our text does not seem to offer something slightly original. Let us go straight to the point: will the covenant really be a New one? What is its newness?25 In the long run, any pact or covenant is fragile and breakable. The Law could be transgressed again. As it appears in the text, the newness of 31:31-34 is rooted in the new shape of this enactment. Either in Exodus or Deuteronomy, covenant means disἵlosure of the ἕod’s will. We should not forget that the great sign in both cases are twofold vast legal codes. However, this new one will be written in inner tablets, the tablets of the testimony will be interior to each single person. So that, the matching between divine will and the human purpose will be utterly achieved. That is the reason why, this new pact is regarded later on as everlasting (32:40 –чЯ‫ֹל‬ь ‫ת‬уђִ Ѩְ ч ЭоЯ‫ ל‬у‫ ִת‬ђЯЮ х ְп). Jeremiah had already stated in 17:1 that the sin was engraved in the people’s heart. In this regard, the idea of a simple restoration is exceeded because de new covenant entails that the relationship between God and the people will be changed in its fundament itself. The continuity is open to a great freshness. Finally, a last hard hermeneutical matter is to be comment. The new acquittanced of God (31:34b – у‫אֹת‬ ִ ּьнְ у чЯѲּх‫־‬у ִѱ) refers explicitly to an end in the handing-over process of teaching (31:34a – ‫ְ לא‬п ּо‫ע‬ђ‫ ת־‬Э‫ש א‬у‫ ִא‬нֹь ּн‫מ‬Юְ ‫ְ ל‬у). Since the instruction of the Law is a major theme in Deuteronomy and its covenantal theology, it entails that this passage should not be read as a rejection of the post-exilic ideas. The raise of Judaism implied a vigorous stress in the creation, transmission and interpretation of legal codes. In this line, this new covenant was intended not to be lawless, but rather faithful since the transmission process had been collapsed and driven Jerusalem into ruin (9:5). 24 By means of this forgiveness God has broken the vicious cycle of sin and punishment: it is this broken cycle that permits Israel to begin again at a different place with new possibility (BRUEGGEMANN, Jeremiah, 72). Likewise, this point is connected with 31:29-30, the las two verses of the preceding oracle. In this passage, we read: in those days they will not say again, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children's teeth are set on edge'. This proverb does not allow the raising of any newness, because the cycle of sin-punishment would continue in the exile. Hence, the offer of forgiving is the crucial point to understand fully the significance of this newness. It overturns the current state of affairs. 25 Since the expression ḥādās bәrît only appears here in the whole OT, this point has arisen many discussions. LUNDBOM summarizes very well the controversial points: whether this covenant is really new and whether the Mosaic Covenant over against the New one stands continues to be viable. A number of authors defend a renewal of the Old Covenant (DUHM, LOHFINK, RENDTORFF); other scholars think quite the opposite (ZIMMERLI, VON RAD, WOLFF) arguing that there is no attempt here, as in Deuteronomy, to stablish it [a new covenant] on the old basis (LUNDBOM, Jeremiah, 466). For some scholars, the explanation of the “new” covenant as a “restored one” misses the essence (LALLEMAN DE WINKEL, Jeremiah in Prophetic Tradition, 200); for others, this text was one strategy among many for reorganizing the post-exilic community (CARROL, From Chaos to Covenant, 223). Among this forest of opinions, this statement by LUNDBOM seems reasonably equilibrate: what may certainly be said is that for Jeremiah the gulf between the New Covenant and the mosaic event covenant is greater than for any who preceded him (LUNDBOM, Jeremiah, 466). The same holds for EICHRODF, Teología del Antiguo Testameto I, 54. My guess is that the dialectic confrontation does not work at all. The paper has attempted to put forward either elements of continuity and the needed refreshment for an exhausted community in the exile. Hence, the new covenant is not a brand new. The reason is that the old one was not flawed of itself because, after all, it was God-given. Rather its imperfection emerged when the people failed to obey and follow it (RATA, The Covenant Motif in Jeremiah’s, 126). Its discontinuity is perceived in the internalization of the law, its unerasable character. For further considerations, it is worthy to go over SWETNAM, Why Was Jeremiah’s New Covenant New?, 111-115. The Announcement of a New Covenant 8 6. Bibliografía Textual tools: ALONSO SCHÖKEL, L., Manuale di poetica ebraica (Brescia 1989). CLINES, J. A. (ed.), The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield 1993-) I-VI. KOEHLER, L. – BAUMGARTNER, W., The Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden – New York – Köln 1994-1999). MCKANE, W., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Jeremiah (ICC; Edinburgh 1996) II, 817-827. MURAOKA, T., A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Louvain – Paris – Walpole 2009). WEINFELD, M., “‫ת‬уђл”, GLAT I, 1590-1664. Commentaries and studies: ADEYEMI, F., The New Covenant Torah in Jeremiah and the law of Christ in Paul (SBlit 94; New York 2006) 43-74. BACKHAUS, F. J. – MEYER, I., “Il liἴro di ἕeremia”, Introduzione all’Antico Testamento (ed. E. ZENGER) (Brescia 32013) 745-787. BRUEGGEMANN, W., Jeremiah 26-52. To Build and to Plant (ITC; Grand Rapids 1991) 67-78. CARROLL, R. P., From Chaos to Covenant. Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah (New York 1981) 198225. CHILDS, B., Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis 2011) 413-421. CLEMENS, R. E., Jeremiah (Interpretation; Atlanta 1998) 188-193. EICHRODT, W., Teología del Antiguo Testamento. I. Dios y su pueblo (Madrid 1975) 41-62. HOLLADAY, W. L., A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah. II. Chapters 26-52 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis 1989) 197-199. KEOWN, G. L. – SCALISE, P. J. – SMOTHERS, T. J., Jeremiah 26-52 (WBC 27; Dallas 1995) 130-135. LALLEMAN DE WINKEL, H., Jeremiah in Prophetic Tradition. An Examination of the Book of Jeremiah in the δight of Israel’s Prophetiἵ Traditions (Biblical Exegesis & Theology 26; Leuven 2000) 165-208. LUNDBOM, J. R., Jeremiah 21-36. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 21B; New York 2004) 464-482. MARKL, D., “ἕod’s ωovenants with Humanity and Israel”, The Hebrew Bible. A Critical Companion (ed. J. BARTON) (Princetown 2016) 313-337. RATA, T., The Covenant Motif in Jeremiah’s Book of Comfort. Textual and Intertextual Studies of Jeremiah 30-33 (SBlit 105; New York 2007). VON RAD, G., Teología del Antiguo Testamento. II. Teología de las tradiciones proféticas de Israel (Salamanca 1976) 239-274. WESTERMANN, C., Comentario al profeta Jeremías (Madrid 1972). Articles: ALEXANDER, R., “The χrrangement of the ψook of Jeremiah”, ZAW (1989) 390-398. BARR, J., “Some Semantiἵ ἠotes on the ωovenant”, Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichem Theologie. Festschrift W. Zimmerli (Hrsg. H. DONNER – R. HANHART – R. SMEND) (Göttingen 1977) 23-38. SWETNAM, J., “Why Was Jeremiah’s ἠew ωovenant ἠewς”, VT.S 26 (1974) 111-115.