149
150
with the dedication of the second temple in Jerusalem.
178Whereas Hezekiah’s and Josiah’s Passover celebrations involved the renewal and restoration of temple worship in Solomon’s temple, the post-exile Passover comes on the heels of the return from exile and the second temple’s completion. Furthermore, Allen concludes that just as the Passover was instituted to commemorate the Exodus, the returned exiles celebrate their second exodus through the events of chapter 6.
179The Lord is reconstituting his people.
The Lord’s presence in the temple, the sacrificial blood covering their sins, and the covenant-participating meal of Passover confirm the Lord’s promises to renew them after exile.
180The construction of this second temple, the reconstitution of the people, and Lord’s presence within it (Hag 2:5) suggests that the second temple is at least a partial fulfillment of Ezekiel’s temple vision.
181The text does not mention circumcision. However, the description of the participants deserves closer scrutiny. The Israelites who returned from exile were presumably circumcised (v. 21). The group that joined the Israelites may have been sojourners who came back with them from exile and/or sojourners dwelling near Jerusalem during the Israelites’ absence.
182A comparison with Ezra 4:1-4 suggests that
178 The temple was completed around one month prior to the Passover celebration. Fensham acknowledges that one reason Passover was not celebrated after the dedication of Solomon’s temple was the timing of that temple’s completion. It was the wrong time of year. Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, 95.
179 Leslie Allen contends that the completion of the temple, the sin offerings (the first in seventy years), and the Passover are intended by the author to draw the reader’s mind to the exodus theme introduced in 1:4-6. There, Cyrus commanded that the people of Israel could return to Judah to build a house for the Lord with articles of gold and jewelry they were to receive before their exit, reminiscent of the plundering of the Egyptians (cf. Exod 12:35-38). For a prediction of a second exodus after exile, see Isa 43:19-21; 48:21; 51:9-11; 52:11-12. Leslie C. Allen, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther: Based on the New
International Version, New International Biblical Commentary, vol. 9 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 88, 39–40. For the timing of the sacrifices, see Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, 94.
180 For more on these themes, see Matthew Levering, Ezra and Nehemiah, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2007), 77; Ross, Hope of Glory, 350–51.
181 Hamilton Jr., God’s Indwelling Presence, 51.
182 Breneman opts for the latter but does not seek to demonstrate the point. Breneman, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 122.
151
proselytes may well be the referent to which Ezra refers.
183If the group included
proselytes, presumably separating from the Gentile uncleanness included circumcision, as it seems to in Numbers 9. One cannot be dogmatic here. At the least, all who participated performed the ceremonial rites for ritual purification (cf. Lev 11).
The New Covenant
The promises of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 round out this chapter’s consideration of the old covenant signs of circumcision and Passover and should be read in connection with the analysis of Ezekiel 36:26-27 throughout this chapter. Given Israel’s inability to keep the Mosaic covenant, the promise of the new covenant establishes the eschatological hope of the Mosaic covenant age because the world-wide scope of the blessing of Abraham and the reversal of sin’s effects comes to fruition through an “ideal Israel.”
184Israel’s failure to keep the Mosaic covenant lies in the immediate background of Jeremiah 31:31-34. As Thompson explains, “They had not merely refused to obey the law or to acknowledge Yahweh’s complete and sole
sovereignty, but were incapable of such obedience.”
185Only the Lord’s actions could make covenant faithfulness possible, because the change required to uphold God’s covenant was humanly impossible (cf. 13:23). Thus, the Lord promises three things to Israel:
186(1) to change his people’s “inner nature which will make them capable of
183 Allen, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 89; Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, 96.
Whereas the people (goy) of 4:4 were not allowed to join the returned exiles in building the temple, “all”
(kol) who separated themselves from the uncleanness of the peoples (goy) of the land were included in the Passover.
184 Wellum defines “ideal Israel” as “a community tied to the servant of the Lord, located in a rejuvenated new heavens and new earth.” Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 645.
185 J. A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 580.
186 Representing progressive dispensationalists, Ware argues that God promises to make the new covenant with Israel and Judah specifically and exclusively. Yet, Ware recognizes that that same new covenant would “extend beyond Israel to the nations” (Isa 55:3-5). Bruce A. Ware, “The New Covenant and the People(s) of God,” in Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church: The Search for Definition, ed.
Darrell L. Bock and Craig A. Blaising (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), pt. 1, sec. 1. Kindle. By contrast, this dissertation follows Wellum’s argument that the new covenant is universal in scope (Isa 42:6; 49:6;
152
obedience” by writing his law on their hearts;
187(2) to be the God of all of his people and to make them his own, entailing a personal and saving knowledge of him (31:34; cf. 7:23;
11:4; 24:7; 30:22; 31:1; 32:38; Ezek 11:20; 36:28);
188and (3) full forgiveness of sins as the means to that relational knowledge (Jer 31:34). In order to prepare biblically-
theologically for chapters 4 and 5, this section presents three promises of the new covenant and three points of theological summary.
First, the new covenant would be structurally different from the old.
189Rather than mediating his rule through the offices of prophet, priest, and king, the Lord would work effectually within each member of the covenant community so that each would know the Lord, be indwelt by the Spirit, and possess a circumcised heart (cf. Joel 2:28-
55:3-5; 56:4-8; and 66:18-24). Across the OT canon, the promises of God are narrowed from Abraham, to Israel, to David as representative of the nation, to a son of David who would fulfill the promises (Isa 9:6-7;
11:1-10; Jer 23:5-6; 33:14-26; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-28). Because this son of David would also be a son of Adam (Gen 1:26-28; Exod 4:21-22) and Son of God (Dan 7:14; Ps 2; Ps 110:1), he would represent Israel and all humanity as the new covenant head. See Stephen J. Wellum, “Beyond Mere Ecclesiology,” in The Community of Jesus: A Theology of the Church, ed. Kendell H. Easley and Christopher W. Morgan (Nashville: B & H Academic, 2013), 196–97.
187 Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, 581; Charles L. Feinberg, Jeremiah, in vol. 6 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 576. Neill claims, “what is new [about the new covenant] is that the ceremonial law is written on the hearts of God’s people.” Jeffery Neill, “The Newness of the New Covenant,” in Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, 147. For problems with viewing the law as divided into ceremonial, civil, and moral, see Brian S. Rosner, Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God, New Studies in Biblical
Theology, vol. 31 (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 36–38. The repetition of “I will” (Jer 31:31- 34) indicates God’s initiative to unilaterally bring about the new covenant. Yet, the new covenant partners, by having the law written on their hearts, would be divinely enabled to uphold their covenantal obligations.
See Ware, “The New Covenant and the People(s) of God,” p. 1. sec. 3, para. 4-6.
188 The references are to the covenantal formula: “I will be your God and you shall be my people.” See Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, 581. The statement in Jer 31:34 that “no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother saying, 'know the Lord,'” appears to affirm the structural removal of the Levitical priesthood from their mediatorial role and the replacement of that human mediation by the future Messiah.” Neill, “The Newness of the New Covenant,” 148.
189 Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 646. Ware helpfully describes four new elements of the new covenant as “(1) a new mode of implementation, namely the internalization of the law . . . (2) a new result, namely faithfulness to God . . . (3) a new basis, namely, full and final forgiveness . . . [and] (4) a new scope of inclusion, namely, covenant faithfulness characteristic of all covenant
participants.” Ware, “The New Covenant and the People(s) of God,” pt. 1, sec. 2, para. 4. The theological points that follow present the promises of the new covenant as exegetically and redemptive-historically requiring that the new covenant is not merely an extension and continuation of the old covenant. Contra Richard Pratt Jr., “Infant Baptism in the New Covenant,” in Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, 179.
153
32).
190As opposed to the old covenant, where one entered the covenant community by the physical sign of circumcision based upon the genealogical principle of the Abrahamic covenant, the new covenant would entail entry to the covenant based upon one’s personal connection with the Messianic Servant of the Lord (Isa 49:6-8).
191Second, the new covenant would be different in “nature” from the old.
192Rather than the covenant community being composed of covenant breakers (Jer 31:32), all within the new covenant community would receive full forgiveness of sins and have the law written on the hearts, enabling their Spirit empowered obedience to the covenant (cf. Ezek 36:26-27).
193Therefore, Jeremiah signals that the new covenant community would not be mixed with unbelievers and believers together.
194Rather, in this community the eschatological hope of Deuteronomy 30:6 would be realized.
195Third, the new covenant would provide “complete forgiveness of sin.”
196Rather than continuing to offer sacrifices to atone for sins (Lev 16), the Servant of the Lord would die as a sacrificial lamb and substitutionary sin offering (Isa 53:4-10), through which covenantal fellowship and knowledge of God would come to all the new
190 D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 152. Carson is cited in Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through
Covenant, 647. Contra Neill, “The Newness of the New Covenant,” 134–36. Neill argues that the law written on the heart is not unique to the new covenant community, because, if it were, accounting for any old covenant believer’s obedience would be impossible. On this point, see the section on the circumcision of the heart above.
191 Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 648. Feinberg claims the message of the new covenant is “individual, internal, and universal.” While he is correct, the plural pronouns entail that the individuals form a covenant community. Feinberg, Jeremiah, 577.
192 Wellum, “Beyond Mere Ecclesiology,” 199–200.
193 Feinberg, Jeremiah, 576; Ware, pt. 1, sec. 6. para. 3. Contra Neill, “The Newness of the New Covenant,” 133. Neill argues that new covenant breakers must exist due to his interpretation of the warning passages of Hebrews rather than arguing from Jer 31.
194 Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 649.
195 Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, 581. The phrases “the days are coming” (v. 31) and
“after those days” (v. 33) emphasize the eschatological period in which the promise of the new covenant would (at least begin to) be fulfilled. Feinberg, Jeremiah, 576.
196 Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 650.
154
covenant members, including Gentiles (Isa 56-57).
197God’s choice not to act against his sinful people (Jer 31:34) due to their covenantal relationship entails “harmony restored between creation and God” as before sin entered the world.
198Forgiveness would be the
“new basis” upon which a saving knowledge of God (cf. Ps 1:6), the law could be written on the heart, and the indwelling Spirit would enable obedience.
199The new structure and nature of the new covenant would seem to require new signs of covenant entry and participation. However, knowledge of these signs would only come with the advent of the Messiah.
Summary and Conclusion
As the Old Testament itself develops the theme of circumcision, the tension created by covenant members receiving the sign of circumcision without themselves possessing circumcised hearts moves toward a resolution. By the end of the Old
Testament, the prophets create the expectation that all the members of the new covenant would possess heart circumcision, entailing heart cleansing/renewal and the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Thus, in the Old Testament the physical sign of
circumcision functions typologically and prospectively to point toward heart
circumcision that God would bring under the new covenant. At the same time, physical circumcision functions mark off the people of God from the surrounding nations as God’s representative priest-kings. Circumcision should be understood as a sign of initiation into the covenant community, because the ongoing covenantal meal of God’s people required
197 As Feinberg argues, “The basis of the new covenant is forgiveness of sin” (v. 34). The goal is “I will be their God and they will be my people” (v. 34). See Feinberg, Jeremiah” 577. On the promise of the inclusion of the Gentiles through the Messianic Servant, see Joshua M. Greever, “The Nature of the New Covenant: A Case Study in Ephesians 2:11-22,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 20, no. 1 (2016): 80–83.
198 Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 650.
199 Ware, “The New Covenant and the People(s) of God,” pt. 1, sec. 5.