A few weeks ago we had a reading on Sunday morning from Jeremiah 31, the promise of a New Covenant with Israel. For those unfamiliar with it, Jeremiah gives this hopeful vision for his people in this brief - but hopeful - section of his book:
31 The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, “Know the Lord,” for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more.
That is the section worth focusing on. It's significance for Maundy Thursday, is that many (myself included) within Christianity have seen this prophecy as a reference to Jesus. In fact the Christian addition to the Hebrew Bible and their subsequent divisions has been in some ways categorized under this passage. The "Old Covenant" and the "New Covenant", or from the latin testimentum we get the old and new testament. The new covenant is the one which Jesus himself institutes.
But not everyone sees it this way. In fact one of the leading Old Testament scholars alive today Walter Brueggemann does not believe it appropriate to see this passage as a basis for a supersessionist reading of the covenant of Jesus over the Sinai covenant. Brueggemann is particularly challenging such a reading of Hebrews which uses this specific text in speaking of a new and better covenant rendering the first one obsolete. Brueggemann writes:
My own inclination is to say that in our time and place the reading of Hebrews is a distorted reading, and we are back to the recognition of the Jewishness of the new covenant. At best, we may say that Christians come derivatively and belatedly to share the promised newness. This is not to deny Christian participation in the newness, but Christian participation is utterly grounded in Jewish categories and claims, and can have participation on no other terms. Moreover, the Jewish mediation of newness is left open as an act of profound grace to all who come under these commandments and allegiance to this God. It is of course possible to read this in terms of Jewish triumphalism, but such is not the intent of the text. Indeed, the text invites Jews (and belatedly Christians and others) to stand in grateful awe before the miracle of forgiveness, to receive it, and to take from it a new, regenerated life. Thus the promise occasions no arrogance or pride, but only genuine gratitude. The offer of newness is not narrowly construed, but it has at its core the commandments which God has given first of all to the Jews.
This final point is also reflected in the Jewish Study Bible and its claim that this passage cannot be a reference to a Christian covenant. Their notes state "The new covenant has been interpreted by Christians as a prophecy of the new covenant through Jesus (New Testament means new covenant), but here it refers to the restoration of Israel after the Babylonian exile and the reconstruction of the Temple. According to this passage, it is not the content of the new covenant which will be different, but how it is learned." This last phrase is a very interesting and good one for their case. Like Brueggemann, they note that the Torah is integral to this passage in relation to the new covenant.
Both of these readings had me really wondering and thinking about it: Was it appropriate for me to see this passage primarily in relation to the New Covenant of Holy Communion? Wrestling with their words I believe the answer is yes still, but their objections raised some new insights. Let me address their objections and what they opened up for me about Maundy Thursday. What we will especially find is how this text gives an essential aspect to the details John gives of that evening when the synoptic Gospels tells us he instituted the New Covenant.
First, I find it hard to agree with Brueggemann that the Hebrews text is either wrong or does not suggest any form of supersessionism. I find Hebrews 8.13 particularly hard to simply downplay when it states "In speaking of a 'new covenant,' he has made the first one obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear." While I agree with Brueggemann about the Jewishness of Christianity, that is, properly read Christianity can only be understood by Jewish roots and having established itself as a faithful Jewish movement. But I don't think that the way the Christian movement included gentiles into the Jewish promise automatically validates his claim that therefore there is no supersessionism or such would be an inappropriate reading of the text. That is, even the Jeremiah passage has a supersessionist feel to it when God says "it will not be like the covenant I made" and the verses that follow seem to imply it is a better covenant and one that takes precedence over the old. Even if one concludes this text's primary context is all that it speaks of, it provides the example that Hebrews is claiming, namely, that a new covenant can take the place and role over from a previous one. In fact, the immediate context of what it meant for Israel was essential. Jeremiah was promising that God would renew a covenant in a manner that mattered more than the previous one, which was essential because they were in violation of the previous one. Come back now to Jesus and the New Covenant. It stands then that the institution of the new covenant he establishes in his own blood, does in fact reflect the words of the prophet. Brueggemann notes the struggle there is with Hebrews and the fact it is canonized in the New Testament, and whether he agrees with it or not it holds weight by that very fact. I also find it hard to read Hebrews as if the writer did not have any Jewish background or understanding of the Jewishness categories and claims of Christianity as he seems to suggest. The book in fact is essentially a series of sermons/reflections on the Jewish texts in relation to Jesus and argues how Jesus (and faith in him) is essentially the heart and height of Jewish belief. I suspect (although this argument doesn't in and of itself discount his argument) that his argument is born out of our modern awareness of Jewish sentimentality and a reaction to ways in which Christian theology has led to or supported anti-semitism and persecution of Jewish people.
My primary critique may be that Brueggemann's reading seems to want to suggest the working of God graciously through both covenants continually. This is the real issue, and here it is not only a matter of whether God is continuing both covenants through two separated movements today (although that especially seems to be the case in his comments) but within the text itself. And that is why it is important to note that even in its context of speaking to a post-exilic community it does not seem to imply the continuation of the old and the new, but the new covenant being the one that renews, restores, and establishes God's relationship with the people, even if one sees the content as the same covenant. If that is the case then, that it would no longer be like the covenant before, it doesn't seem like an appropriate read of the text to not see some form of supersession. Brueggemann (as I understand him) is ultimately unconvincing in this regard, and his conclusions would for me require greater explanation as to why even in its earliest roots as a Jewish movement the Christian community still had similar expectations of welcome into the covenant community for Jews and Gentiles alike, and that this welcome was into the New Covenant of Jesus. His explanation does not adequately state why circumcised Jews needed to be baptized, or why Paul for all his high view of Israel and all God's work belonging to them still ultimately suggests that the vast majority have been cut off and do not belong to the true Israel (Romans 9.3-8) and in their unbelief must be grafted back in through faith (Romans 11.23). All of these point not to the church existing as the gentile covenant that lets us share with Israel, it all points to the view of Paul that the Christians were the true Israel (that is, faithful Isreal). It is for this reason also that the church today ought still consider those of the Jewish faith as still needing to be (for lack of a better word) converted. They may be closer, have more common ground, and we must be respectful and mindful of how we interact with them, that much we have unfortunately learned through the ignorance of Christian history. But more than any other non-Christian religion do we seem perfectly content to let Judaism be as though the Church has no Gospel to offer. Instead we should rejoice that they already have Moses and the Prophets to listen to, for Jesus himself shows how sufficient they are (Luke 17.19-31).
All these lead me to reject an idea that there is in neither this text nor in the biblical canon as a whole any sense of covenantal replacement. Of course, before going further we should acknowledge that the Abrahamic covenant was not seen as replaced by the Sinai covenant. This view was held by both the Jews who would harken back to God as the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" and the promised land and nation from that covenant as well as Christians which we see in Paul's teachings on Abraham and faith. But both those who see this text in relation to Jesus or 2nd Temple Judaism both understand it in relation to the Sinai Covenant, the one in which the Torah was given.
This leads me to the second major piece I had to consider. If the first one was asking what this text means in relation to previous covenants (and covenant communities) the second issue is if it is appropriate to see this text in relation to the covenant of Jesus. Brueggemann is not clear. For he shows it inviting Christians, but not exclusively as Christian and he warns against Christians applying to themselves in an exclusive manner (which the new covenant of communion would certainly seem to do). The JSB is clear in their stance: this is the 2nd Temple community, not a prophecy referencing Christ. They make a good claim too if you recall: the content is still the law. Brueggemann likewise noted this when he calls the commandments given to the Jews the core of this covenant.
Now I come to Jesus and ask myself then how we can apply it to him. But real quick, I will pause and say if it isn't already clear I do believe this had an initial context that was the supersession of a 2nd temple covenant for a post-exilic community over the Sinai covenant of the pre-exilic community, seen essentially as the same. A renewed covenant, but the terms of the renewal superseding the previous. It makes no sense for Jeremiah to write this and the people to treasure it if they didn't in some sense see it applying to themselves. Also, the prophetic rhetoric is consistent with that of other contemporary prophets that the people are forgiven and renewed. That said, like many other prophecies, they point also to a greater truth and fulfillment in Jesus. I believe the same is true here. I always have, but when I came upon the commandment based argument for this new covenant, I had to say to myself "they've got a point". If Brueggemann was correct, it is that this newness was first shared with the Jews, only later to become a reality for Christians in Jesus.
Let's break down this "New Covenant" into what I see as its essential parts:
1. its called a "new covenant" and won't be like the old covenant when he brought them out of Egypt.
2. it is not one that is broken by unfaithfulness to God
3. it is made with the house of Israel
4. God will put the law in them, not others by teaching
5. he will be their God
6. they will be forgiven
Before confronting these critiques I had really only considered 1 & 6. It was "Jesus called this the new covenant and it forgives." Ba-da-boom! Case closed. But when confronted with the claim that the commandment is still at its core I had to ask myself more seriously how well does this text fit with the covenant of communion established in the cross of Jesus?
For one, this also got me rereading the Hebrews text and its argument, which is a fascinating one and well worth your time. Hebrews 8-10 deals with this text in relation to Jesus and the importance of his blood and forgiveness in establishing a new covenant.
But I want to look also at texts about the night it was established. Here I am going to do that unholy harmonizing and assume that John's Gospel assumes Holy Communion in what it presents of Jesus' teachings his final night, since John gives it likewise in the context of that final meal (John's own timeline of events could account for the absence of the passover meal itself).
Now let us look at these elements.
1. As we have already stated, the clearest connection comes from the fact that Jesus himself says "this is my blood of the new covenant". Along with the Hebrews text, this is what explicitly connects the two, and this is what especially connects it to communion. Now we must examine the other points to see how much this covenant relates to the one spoken of in Jeremiah.
2. When God says this new covenant will not be like the old one which they broke in unfaithfulness (remember, in Jeremiah God's case against Judah is earlier presented as an adulterous affair), how true is this! In fact we, in our Words of Institution, echo Paul who recounts communion happened "on the night in which he was betrayed". The context of the new covenant is the context of the disciples breaking their relationship with Jesus. Judas's betrayal is in fact happening in the midst of it. Peter's denial is predicted at its table. And Jesus's death at the hands of sinners is spoken of as the time having come. Unfaithfulness is a part of this covenant, it is the context in which Jesus established it, and even those who partake in it unfaithfully do not break the covenant and may later return in faith and find it still firmly established.
3. This covenant will be established with Israel. Here that question of the relation of the church to Israel is important. Here the Jewishness of the New Testament is shown. It was in the context of Israel that this covenant was made. It was made first with Jews, in Jerusalem, over a Jewish festival. Jesus said he came for the lost sheep of Israel (Matt 15.24) and was clear that the Gentile mission was an inclusion that began in Israel (Acts 1.8). The context is just as Brueggemann reminds us, a Jewish one that will hold within it Gentile inclusion (although that language appears more appropriate than his "Jewish that holds Christian" inclusion).
4. This next point is the one that finally sparked this entire blog and where I really felt the critique opened me up to a new look at the institution of the Lord's Supper. The argument (which I had found compelling) against this text really being able to ultimately refer to the covenant of Jesus was that it still focused on the Torah. The fundamental flaw of the Old covenant was unfaithfulness to God's commands and this passage promised freedom from that. But it still concerned itself with the Law. How shall we speak of the evangelical covenant of Christ in this way? This is where I believe John's Gospel illuminates something important about that final meal. Jesus gives a new commandment: love one another as he loved us. What is so key about this commandment in the context of the New Covenant is that it is a law totally dependent on God! That is, the Jeremiah passage tells us God will put the law in their hearts. No more will they teach people to know the Lord, they will simply know the Lord. The will and commandments of God, the Torah, becomes something not taught but received, for this commandment is love as I have loved. It is Torah that can only be known by being given love from Jesus. It is evangelical in that it is love that is imparted. The characteristic message of the New Covenant was not a teaching of the law instead it was a message characterized as belief in Jesus who sanctifies you. The new commandment of John, set in the same context of Jesus' final meal where the other Gospels mention his institution of the New Covenant shows then how God puts the law in our hearts: by putting Jesus there! He brings the law fulfilled, and he reminds us of this by commanding our love to be as he loved us. Now it is the obedience of Jesus that matters, and the partaking of his covenant that allows one to be obedient to the command. This commandment one cannot be obedient to apart from how it is given to us by God. What indication in all of scripture displays the law placed in the hearts of the people better than when the law is entirely formed by the love of Jesus? That is a commandment truly placed or as we say in communion "given for you". We should also note the importance of the ongoing dialogue of Jesus in John's final meal discourse, much of which reinforces obedience as something given. It includes the promise "If you know me, you will also know My Father" (14.7) and the Spirit who will convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgement (16.8) and will guide you in all truth (16.13) - all words that tell us no one will say "know the Lord for they will all know me", words that reinforce this knowledge and continued obedience as something imparted. That emphasis on obedience being given appears also in 15.5 "I am the vine; you are the branches. The one who remains in Me and I in him produces much fruit, because you can do nothing without Me." and his great prayer in which Jesus says to the Father "I sanctify myself for them, so they also may be sanctified by the truth" (17.19) and the final words of which again call to us knowing God by Jesus and his law placed in us: "I made Your name known to them and will make it known, so the love You have loved Me with may be in them and I may be in them" (17.26).
5. He will be their God. John again really illuminates much here, filled with verses that claim us as God's people. "By this all people will know that you are My disciples..." (13.35), "I will not leave you orphans..." (14.18), "The one who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me. And the one who loves Me will be loved by My Father." (14.21), "I have called you friends...You did not choose Me, but I chose you. I appointed you..." (15.15-16), "For the Father himself loves you..." (16.27), "I am in them and You are in Me...so the world may know You have sent Me and have loved them as You have loved Me" (17.23). John's extended discourses, instead of focusing on the giving of the New Covenant meal (which makes sense given John's different Passover timeline) instead gives many aspects of the covenant - being claimed by God. Paul likewise when speaking of this meal reminds us "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for all of us share that one bread." (1 Cor 11.17), words that speak of our inclusion into God's assembly by the meal.
6. They will be forgiven. Matthew gives us those clear words that this body and blood of the New Covenant is shed "for the forgiveness of sins" (26.28). Hebrews looks to this especially as the mark that Jesus did in fact fulfill this promise of Jeremiah. While speaking on the Jeremiah text he said Jesus offered "one sacrifice for sins forever" (10.12) and immediately after quoting specifically the reference to forgiveness the author says "Now where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer an offering for sin. Therefore, brothers, since we have boldness to enter the sanctuary through the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way He has opened for us through the curtain (that is, His flesh),...let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, our hearts sprinkled clean" (Hebrews 10.18-21). Many other passages in scripture reinforce that the blood of Jesus (which is the blood he gives to establish this covenant) forgives; such as 1 John 1.7 that says "the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin." Indeed this is essential to the New Covenant. While the renewal of Israel after the exile spoke of a forgiveness, and the second temple community sought renewal in confession and forgiveness (see Ezra's prayer of confession in Ezra 9-10) it is the enduring quality of forgiveness in and from the covenant of Jesus, and the fact that the forgiveness of his covenant stood and did not need repeated sacrifices (as Hebrews notes when calling this the New and better covenant in chapters 8 and 9) that makes the case that his is a covenant based on forgiveness that Jeremiah was ultimately speaking of. God's reconciling work among the exiles stands example to the covenant God sought to establish through Jesus.
