John Calvin Commentary Jeremiah 31:31-32

"Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith Jehovah." — Jeremiah 31:31-32 (ASV)

Jeremiah proceeds with the same subject but shows more clearly how much more abundant and richer the favor of God would be towards his people than formerly. He then does not simply promise the restoration of that dignity and greatness which they had lost, but something better and more excellent. From this we see that this passage necessarily refers to the kingdom of Christ, for without Christ, nothing superior to the Law could or should have been hoped for by the people; for the Law was a rule of the most perfect doctrine. If then Christ is taken away, it is certain that we must abide in the Law.

We therefore conclude that the Prophet predicts the kingdom of Christ; and this passage is also quoted by the Apostles as being remarkable and worthy of notice (Romans 11:27; Hebrews 8:8–12; Hebrews 10:16).

But we must observe the order and manner of teaching followed here. The Prophet confirms what I have said before: that what we have been considering was incredible to the Jews. Having then already spoken of the benefits of God, which could hardly have been recognized by human senses, in order to overcome their lack of faith, he adds that the Lord would manifest His mercy towards them in a new and unusual manner.

Thus we see why the Prophet added this passage to his previous teaching. For if he had not spoken of a new covenant, those miserable men, whom he sought to inspire with the hope of salvation, would have continually wavered; indeed, since the greater part were already overwhelmed with despair, he would have effected nothing.

Here then he sets before them a new covenant, as if he had said that they should not look further or higher, nor measure the benefit of God, of which he had spoken, by the outward appearance of their current situation, for God would make a new covenant.

Yet there is no doubt that he commends the favor of God, which was later to be manifested in the fullness of time. Besides, we must always bear in mind that from the time the people returned to their own country, the faith of those who had embraced the blessing of deliverance was assailed by the most severe trials, for it would have been better for them to continue in perpetual exile than to be cruelly harassed by all their neighbors and to be exposed to so many troubles.

If, then, the people had only been restored from their exile in Babylon, it was a matter of little importance; but it was necessary for the godly to direct their minds to Christ.

And from this we see that the Prophets, who served as teachers after the restoration, dwelt on this point: that they were to hope for something better than what appeared at that time. They urged them not to lose hope, because they saw that they did not enjoy rest and were drawn into weary and severe conflicts rather than freed from tyranny.

We indeed know what Haggai says of the future temple, and what Zechariah says, and also Malachi. This was also the purpose of our Prophet in speaking of the new covenant: namely, that the faithful, after having returned to their own country, might not complain loudly against God because He did not bestow on them the happiness He had promised. This was the second reason why the Prophet spoke of the new covenant.

As before, he now repeats the words that the days would come, in which God would make a covenant with Israel as well as with Judah. For the ten tribes, as is well known, had been driven into exile while the kingdom of Judah was still standing. Besides, when they revolted from the family of David, they became, as it were, another nation.

God indeed did not cease to acknowledge them as His people, but they had alienated themselves as far as they could from the Church. God then promises that there would be one body again, for He would gather them so that they might unite together and not be like two houses.

Now, as to the new covenant, it is not called new because it is contrary to the first covenant. For God is never inconsistent with Himself, nor is He unlike Himself. He then who once made a covenant with His chosen people had not changed His purpose, as though He had forgotten His faithfulness.

It then follows that the first covenant was inviolable; besides, He had already made His covenant with Abraham, and the Law was a confirmation of that covenant. Since then the Law depended on that covenant which God made with His servant Abraham, it follows that God could never have made a new, that is, a contrary or a different covenant.

For from where do we derive our hope of salvation, except from that blessed seed promised to Abraham? Further, why are we called the children of Abraham, except on account of the common bond of faith? Why are the faithful said to be gathered into the bosom of Abraham? Why does Christ say that some will come from the east and the west, and sit down in the kingdom of heaven with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? (Luke 16:22; Matthew 8:11)

These things no doubt sufficiently show that God has never made any other covenant than that which He made formerly with Abraham, and at length confirmed by the hand of Moses. This subject could be handled more fully, but it is enough to show briefly that the covenant which God made at first is perpetual.

Let us now see why He promises to the people a new covenant. Its being new no doubt refers to what is called its form; and the form, or manner, concerns not only words, but first Christ, then the grace of the Holy Spirit, and the entire external way of teaching. But the substance remains the same.

By substance I understand the doctrine, for God in the Gospel brings forward nothing but what the Law contains. From this we see that God has so spoken from the beginning that He has not changed, not even a syllable, with regard to the substance of the doctrine. For He has included in the Law the rule of a perfect life, and has also shown what is the way of salvation, and by types and figures led the people to Christ, so that the remission of sin is clearly manifested there, and whatever is necessary to be known.

Since then God has added nothing to the Law regarding the substance of the doctrine, we must come, as I have already said, to the form, since Christ was not yet manifested. God made a new covenant when He accomplished through His Son whatever had been foreshadowed under the Law.

For the sacrifices could not of themselves pacify God, as is well known, and whatever the Law taught concerning expiation was in itself useless and of no importance. The new covenant then was made when Christ appeared with water and blood and really fulfilled what God had exhibited under types, so that the faithful might have some taste of salvation.

But the coming of Christ would not have been sufficient had not regeneration by the Holy Spirit been added. It was, then, in some respects, a new thing that God regenerated the faithful by His Spirit, so that it became not only a doctrine of the letter, but also an efficacious one, which not only strikes the ear but penetrates into the heart and truly forms us for the service of God.

The outward mode of teaching was also new, as is evident to all. For when we compare the Law with the Gospel, we find that God speaks to us now openly, as it were, face to face, and not under a veil, as Paul teaches us when speaking of Moses, who put on a veil when he went out to address the people in God’s name (2 Corinthians 3:13). It is not so, says Paul, under the Gospel; but the veil is removed, and God in the face of Christ presents Himself to be seen by us.

This, then, is the reason why the Prophet calls it a new covenant, as will be shown more fully, for I touch only on things that cannot be treated separately, so that the whole context of the Prophet may be better understood. Let us then proceed now with the words.

He says that the covenant which He will make will not be such as He had made with their fathers. Here he clearly distinguishes the new covenant from the Law. The contrast should be borne in mind, for no one of the Jews thought it possible that God would add anything better to the Law.

For though they regarded the Law almost as nothing, yet we know that hypocrites pretended with great, ardent zeal that they were so devoted to the Law that they thought heaven and earth could sooner be blended together than that any change should be made in the Law; and at the same time, they held most tenaciously to what God had instituted only for a time.

It was therefore necessary that the Law should be contrasted here with the new covenant, so that the Jews might know that the favor reserved for them would be far more excellent than what had formerly been manifested to the fathers. This, then, is the reason why he says, not according to the covenant, etc.

He afterwards adds, which I made with their fathers when I laid hold of their hand, etc. Here he shows that they could never have a firm hope of salvation unless God made a new covenant. Such was their pride that they would hardly have received the favor of God had they not been convinced of this truth.

For this would have always been on their lips: “Did not God show Himself a Father to His people when He redeemed them? Was it not a testimony of His paternal favor? Has He not elevated the condition of the Church, which He designs to be perpetual?” They would therefore have rejected the favor of God had the Prophet not openly declared that the Law had been and would still be useless to them, and that there was therefore a necessity for a new covenant; otherwise, they must have perished.

We now perceive the Prophet's design, and this should be carefully observed; for it would not be enough to know what the Prophet says unless we also know why he says this or that. The meaning then is that it should not appear strange that God makes a new covenant, because the first had been useless and was of no avail.

Then he confirms this, because God made the first covenant when He stretched out His hand to His ancient people and became their liberator; and yet they made void that covenant. The circumstance of the time should be noticed, for the memory of a recent benefit should be a most powerful motive for obedience.

For how base an ingratitude it was for those who had been delivered by the wonderful power of God to reject His covenant at a time when divine mercy had so recently been extended to them? Since then they had made void God's covenant even at that time, it may with certainty be concluded that there had been no time in which they had not manifested their impiety and had not been covenant-breakers.

He adds, I however ruled over them, or was Lord over them. Though some confine the verb בעלתי bolti, to the rule exercised by a husband—and this would not be unsuitable, as God not only ruled then over His people but was also their husband, a comparison which is often used—yet I do not know whether this view can be satisfactorily sustained.

We should therefore be satisfied with the general truth that God had the people under His own authority, as though He had said that He only used His own right in ruling over them and prescribing to them the way in which they were to live. At the same time, the word 'covenant' was more honorable to the people. For when a king enjoins anything on his people, it is called an edict; but God deals with His own people more kindly, for He descends and appears in the midst of them, so that He may bind Himself to His people, as He binds the people to Himself.

From this we see, in short, why God says that He ruled over the people: even because He had purchased them for Himself, and yet He had not enjoyed His own right on account of the untamable and perverse disposition of the people.

It should at the same time be observed that the fault for the Law's weakness and insufficient validity is here cast on the people, as we see Paul teaches us in Romans 7:12. For as soon as the weakness of the Law is spoken of, most people seize on something they deem wrong in the Law, and thus the Law is rendered contemptible. Hence the Prophet says here that they had made God’s covenant void, as though he had said that the fault for the need of a new covenant was not to be sought in the Law (for the Law was abundantly sufficient), but that the fault lay in the fickleness and unfaithfulness of the people.

We now then see that nothing is taken away from the Law when it is said to be weak and ineffectual, for this is an incidental fault derived from people who do not observe or keep their pledged faith. There are still more things to be said; but I now, as I have said, touch only briefly on the Prophet's words.