Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Jeremiah 31:32
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 broke, although I was a husband unto them, saith the LORD:
32. in the day ] See on Jer 7:22.
took them by the hand ] with fostering care, as of a father guiding the faltering steps of a young child. Cp. Hos 11:1-4.
to bring them Egypt ] omitted by Co., as well as the last three words of the v., so restoring the inah measure.
which my covenant they brake ] mg. forasmuch as they brake my covenant. The contrast between “they” and the “I” of the next clause is emphasized in the original.
although I was an husband unto them ] mg. lord over them. We should, however, changing one Heb. letter, read (supported by LXX and Syr.) and I abhorred them. Cp. “and I regarded them not” in Heb 8:9. Jehovah’s rejection of them was a gradual process, culminating in the overthrow of the Northern and later of the Southern kingdom.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Not in substance differing from it, but in circumstances vastly differing, as was showed before, and is further declared afterward. The covenant which God made with the Jews when they came out of the land of Egypt, was on Gods part the law which he gave them, with the promises annexed to their observation of it; on their part (which made it a formal covenant) their promise of obedience to it, of which see Exo 24:7,8; Deu 26:17,18. This covenant God saith he made with them when they were an impotent, weak people, the care of whom he took upon him, and led them as a parent leadeth the feeble child by his hand. None must imagine that this covenant did not contain the promise of pardon, through the blood of the Messiah, upon their application to him, for to what purpose else was it confirmed by blood? Exo 24:8. Which covenant they are said to have broken, not because of every disobedience to the law of God, for so every one daily breaketh it, but by their gross and eminent sinnings, so oft repeated and continued in without repentance; and more particularly by their idolatry, which is compared to whoredom, which breaketh the covenant and bond of marriage, and causeth God to say unto a people, Lo Ammi, You are not my people. And this covenant-breaking is aggravated from Gods kindness to them, and care of them; who had for them the love, and declared the care, of a husband, and gave them no temptation to go a whoring from him.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
32. Not . . . the covenant that Imade with . . . fathersthe Old Testament covenant, ascontrasted with our gospel covenant (Heb 8:8-12;Heb 10:16; Heb 10:17,where this prophecy is quoted to prove the abrogation of the law bythe gospel), of which the distinguishing features are its securing byan adequate atonement the forgiveness of sins, and by the inworkingof effectual grace ensuring permanent obedience. An earnest of thisis given partially in the present eclectic or elect Church gatheredout of Jews and Gentiles. But the promise here to Israel in the lastdays is national and universal, and effected by an extraordinaryoutpouring of the Spirit (Jer 31:33;Jer 31:34; Eze 11:17-20),independent of any merit on their part (Eze 36:25-32;Eze 37:1-28; Eze 39:29;Joe 2:23-28; Zec 12:10;2Co 3:16).
took . . . by . . . hand(Deu 1:31; Hos 11:3).
although I was anhusband(compare Jer 3:14;Hos 2:7; Hos 2:8).But the Septuagint, Syriac, and St. Paul (Heb8:9) translate, “I regarded them not”; andGESENIUS, &c., justifythis rendering of the Hebrew from the Arabic. TheHebrews regarded not God, so God regarded them not.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers,…. Meaning not Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; but the ancestors of the Jews that came out of Egypt, as appears by what follows. This was the covenant made at Sinai, which is here referred to; but the above covenant was not according to that; for, though it was not properly a covenant of works, but a typical one; yet it was in some sense faulty and deficient; or, however, the persons under it were faulty, and did not keep it; and besides, it was made with the Israelites; whereas this new covenant belongs both to Jews and Gentiles. That the Sinai covenant is intended is clear by the following circumstances:
in the day [that] I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt; that is, immediately after their being brought out of Egypt, the covenant was made with them; see Ex 19:1; at which time of their bringing out, the Lord took them by the hand, as being unable to deliver themselves, and to go out of themselves; which is expressive, as of their weakness, so of his power and goodness, kindness and tenderness to them; and is an aggravation of their ingratitude to him in breaking the covenant, made with them at such a time by the Lord, who was so kind and indulgent to them; and which is still more fully expressed in the following clause:
which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them,
saith the Lord; they promised fair, but did not perform; their hearts were not right with God, nor were they steadfast in his covenant; though it was such a solemn transaction, and had the nature of a matrimonial contract; it was the day of their espousal; they were betrothed to the Lord, and he acted the part of a husband to them in nourishing and cherishing them in providing food and raiment for them; manna that continued with them, and clothes that waxed not old; and in protecting them from their enemies, and bringing them to a good settlement in the land of Canaan. The Septuagint version renders it, “and I regarded them not”; and so the apostle, Heb 8:9; for the reconciliation of which to the Hebrew text [See comments on Heb 8:9].
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
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 ought to 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 ardor of zeal that they were so devoted to the Law, that they thought that 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 what God had only for a time instituted. It was therefore necessary that the Law should be here contrasted with the new covenant, that the Jews might know that the favor in reserve for them would be far more excellent than what had been formerly 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 hardly would have received the favor of God, had they not been convinced of this truth: for this would have been always in their mouth, “Did not God shew 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 have therefore rejected the favor of God, had not the Prophet openly declared that the Law had been and would be still useless to them, and that there was therefore a necessity for a new covenant, otherwise they must have perished.
We now perceive the design of the Prophet; and this ought to be carefully observed; for it would not be enough to know what the Prophet says, except we also know why he says this or that. The meaning then is, that it ought not to 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 as to the time ought to be noticed, for the memory of a recent benefit ought to be a most powerful motive to 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 they had been anticipated by divine mercy? As then they had made void even at that time the covenant of God, 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 similitude which is often used; yet I know not whether this view can be satisfactorily sustained we ought therefore to 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, that he may bind himself to his people, as he binds the people to himself. We hence 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 untameable and perverse disposition of the people. (53)
It ought at the same time to be observed, that the fault is here cast on the people, that the Law was weak and not sufficiently valid, as we see that Paul teaches us in Rom 7:12. For as soon as the weakness of the Law is spoken of, the greater part lay hold of 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 was not to be sought in the Law that there was need of a new covenant, for the Law was abundantly sufficient, but that the fault was in the levity and the unfaithfulness of the people. We now then see that nothing is detracted from the Law when it is said to be weak and ineffectual; for it is an accidental fault derived from men who do not observe nor keep their pledged faith. There are still more things to be said; but I now, as I have said, touch but briefly on the words of the Prophet. It then follows, —
(53) This clause, as quoted in Heb 8:9, is, “And I regarded them not,” according to the Sept. and the Syr., though the Vulg. is the same with our version. Houbigant says, “Read געלתי I have rejected, I have repudiated.” The only difference is in one letter; and this word is used by Jeremiah in Jer 14:19. There would thus be a perfect correspondence, “and I rejected them, saith Jehovah.”
“
Which my covenant,” in the previous clause, is the Vulg.; but according to the Sept., the Syr., and the Targ., it is, “because they have broken my covenant,” etc. אשר is not used, as given in our version, in connection with a noun that follows, though it is so used with pronouns. — Ed
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(32) Not according to the covenant . . .Our familiarity with the words hinders us, for the most part, from recognising what must have seemed their exceeding boldness. That the Covenant with Israel, given with all conceivable sanctions as coming directly from Jehovah (Exo. 24:7-8), should thus be set aside, as man repeals an earthly law;the man who could say this without trembling must indeed have been confident that he too was taught of God, and that the new teaching was higher than the old.
Although I was an husband unto them.The words declare the ground on which Jehovah might well have looked for the allegiance of Israel. (See Notes on Jer. 2:2; Jer. 3:20.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Jer 31:32 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 an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Ver. 32. Not according to the covenant. ] Not so, but a great deal better, in regard of larger measures of the Spirit now poured out upon all flesh: together with the efficacy thereof in the hearts of God’s covenanters, who have a duplicate of God’s law written within them. Jer 31:33 Lex iubet, gratia iuvat: hence it is an “everlasting covenant,” and the fruits of it are “sure mercies,” “compassions that fail not,” as is here set forth.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
that I made. Reference to Pentateuch (Exo 24:3-8). App-92.
I took them by the hand, &c. Reference to Pentateuch (Exo 19:4. Deu 1:31; Deu 32:11, Deu 32:12). App-92.
although I was an husband unto them. The Hebrew ba’al is a Homonym with two meanings: (1) to be lord, or master, hence to be a husband; (2) to disdain, or reject. If it be the latter here, the last clause will read, “and I rejected (or abhorred)them, declareth Jehovah”. So the Syriac and other ancient interpreters. Moreover, it is quoted thus in Heb 8:9, “and I regarded them not, saith the Lord”.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Not: Jer 31:1, Jer 34:14, Exo 19:5, Exo 24:6-8, Deu 5:3, Deu 29:1, 1Ki 8:9, Eze 16:8, Eze 16:60-62, Heb 9:18-22
in the: Deu 1:31, Psa 73:23, Son 8:5, Isa 41:13, Isa 63:12-14, Hos 11:1, Hos 11:3, Hos 11:4, Mar 8:23
which: Jer 11:7-10, Jer 22:9, Lev 26:15, Deu 29:21, Deu 31:16, Isa 24:5, Eze 16:59, Eze 20:37, Heb 8:9
although I was: or, should I have continued, Jer 2:2, Jer 3:14, Isa 54:5, Eze 16:8, Eze 23:4, Hos 2:2, Hos 3:1, Joh 3:29, 2Co 11:2
Reciprocal: Gen 17:14 – broken Exo 32:19 – brake them Deu 9:9 – the tables Deu 17:2 – in transgressing Deu 26:18 – And the Deu 29:25 – they have forsaken Jos 7:11 – transgressed Jdg 2:20 – transgressed 2Ki 17:15 – his covenant 2Ch 34:30 – the book Psa 44:17 – dealt Psa 78:10 – General Isa 51:18 – that taketh Jer 11:4 – I commanded Jer 11:10 – the house of Israel Jer 34:13 – I made Eze 44:7 – broken Hos 2:7 – first Hos 6:7 – transgressed Hos 8:1 – transgressed Zec 11:10 – that Luk 8:54 – took Act 13:39 – from which Act 23:19 – took
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Jer 31:32. The day is a reference to that period in general, for the covenant was actually delivered at Sinai which was about two months after the exodus from Egypt. The new covenant was to be different from the Sinaite covenant, and some of the differences will be described in the following verses.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
31:32 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 {i} broke, although I was an husband to them, saith the LORD:
(i) And so were the opportunity of their own divorcement through their infidelity, Isa 50:1 .
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
This New Covenant would be different from the Mosaic Covenant, which the Israelites consistently and inevitably broke in spite of Yahweh’s faithful commitment to them. They had worshipped Baal (Heb. ba’al) even though Yahweh had been a faithful husband (Heb. ba’al) to them.