New Covenant

The ESV provides a typical translation of Leviticus 26:40–42:

But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers in their treachery that they committed against me, and also in walking contrary to me, so that I walked contrary to them and brought them into the land of their enemies—if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity, then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and I will remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land.

Since the KJV, English translations have tended to translate these verses as conditionals (“but if they”), and since the RSV, English translations have tended to translate a key phrase in verse 41, “and they make amends for their iniquity,” or some variant of the same.

A better translation is as follows. Here I use the CSB as main translation, but the bold text is brought over from the NKJV:

⁴⁰“But when they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their ancestors—their unfaithfulness that they practiced against me, and how they acted with hostility toward me, ⁴¹and I acted with hostility toward them and brought them into the land of their enemies—and when their uncircumcised hearts are humbled and they accept their guilt, ⁴²then I will remember my covenant with Jacob. I will also remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land.

The CSB, along with the Geneva Bible and the NET Bible, rightly recognize that there is no conditional particle in the Hebrew (as there is earlier in the chapter when the blessings and curses of the Mosaic covenant are outlined). Thus, it is best to translate, as the CSB does, “But when they confess their iniquity” and “when their uncircumcised hearts are humbled.”

Regarding the contested phrase in verse 42, the key verb in the sentence (רצה), translated “make amends” by the ESV and “accept” by the NKJV,” is commonly understood be from one of two identically spelled roots. The first means “to be pleased with, to enjoy, to accept.” The second means “to pay for, to restore.” However, I wonder if the second root with its meaning is necessary to posit. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew cites texts in support of this sense the verse under consideration (Lev 26:41) as well as earlier verses in Leviticus 26 which state (in common translation) that the land will “enjoy its Sabbaths.” In fact, the few other verses cited in support of the second root could be translated in line with the first root and its senses.

In addition, the Hebrew word translated by the ESV as “iniquity” can also be understood to indicate “guilt” (as in the NKJV) or “punishment.” Thus, the translation of the NKJV, “and they accept their guilt.”

The UBS Handbook on Leviticus advocates the same translation I’m advocating in this post:

Make amends for their iniquity: this phrase presents difficulties with regard to the understanding of both the verb, make amends, and the noun, rendered iniquity in RSV, and consequently for the interpretation of the whole. A number of versions have adopted essentially the same interpretation as RSV (NIV, NJV, and NAB). But the noun used here may mean either “guilt” or “punishment for guilt.” The idea of punishment seems more probable in this context, as in 5:1, 7; 10:17; and 16:22; as well as Gen 4:13. The verb translated make amends in RSV is sometimes used in the sense of “accept.” An example of this in Leviticus is God’s accepting a sacrifice in 1:4. MFT translates the whole phrase “submit to be punished for their sins,” while NEB has “accept their punishment in full,” leaving the idea of guilt implicit. It is especially significant that, while JB (1966) rendered the whole phrase “atone for their sins,” the more recent NJB (1985) has “accept the punishment for their guilt.” The latter interpretation is therefore recommended to translators.

René Péter-Contesse and John Ellington, A Handbook on Leviticus, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1992), 420.

What is the theological significance of these translation differences? Leviticus 26 (much like Deuteronomy 28) outlines the covenant blessings and curses of the Mosaic covenant. If Israel kept the covenant, it would enjoy the blessings of the covenant (26:1–13). If Israel spurned and loathed the covenant, and if Israel thus broke the Mosaic covenant and its laws, then all the covenant curses would come upon Israel (26:14–39). But Leviticus 26:40–45 (like Deuteronomy 30) looks ahead to the new covenant. These verses predict Israel’s repentance. Someday Israelites will confess its guilt and the guilt of their fathers, and they will accept their guilt. At that point God will bring to pass the promises of the Abrahamic covenant.

In this section of Jeremiah the phrase “The word that came to Jeremiah from Yhwh” (30:1) marks off the beginning of a major section. The same phrase occurs in 32:1, marking off the next major section. Within Jeremiah 30:1-31:40 the phrase “Thus says Yhwh, the God of Israel” marks the beginning of the prologue (30:1) and epilogue (31:23). Between these are seven songs each marked out by the phrase “Thus says Yhwh.” After the Epilogue there are three promises each marked out by the phrase “Behold, the days are coming, declaration of Yhwh” (31:27, 31, 38). After the second promise, there are two guarantees marked out by the phrase, “Thus says Yhwh.” All this is to say that the new covenant promises that get quoted in the NT are part of a highly structured section of Jeremiah.

30:1-4	Preamble: Promise of restoration to the land
30:5-11	First Song: Israel’s distress; anticipation of the deliverance and service to Yhwh and the Messiah
30:12-17	Second Song: Yhwh will heal Israel’s incurable wound
30:18-31:1	Third Song: The restoration of Jerusalem under the Messiah; Israel will be God’s people, and He will be their God
31:2-6	Fourth Song: Restoration of the remanent, restoration of the land, Yhwh’s reign from Zion
31:7-14	Fifth Song: Call for rejoicing; announcing Israel’s restoration to the nations
31:15	Sixth Song: Israel’s mourning
31:16-22	Seventh Song: Yhwh will have compassion on Israel and restore her not only to the land but to Himself
31:23-26	Epilogue: The blessing of restoration to the land
31:27-30	First Promise: Yhwh will watch over Israel “to build and to plant”
31:31-34	Second Promise: Yhwh will cut a new covenant with Israel and Judah in place of the Mosaic covenant; it will internalize the law and provide for regeneration and forgiveness
31:35-36	First Guarantee: These promises are as sure as the fixed order of creation
31:37	Second Guarantee: These promises as sure as the immensity of creation
31:38-40	Third promise: Jerusalem will be rebuilt never to be destroyed again

Note: This structure and the wording “preamble,” “song,” “epilogue,” “promise,” and “guarantee” are taken from Andrew Shead, A Mouth Full of Fire: The Word of God in the Words of Jeremiah, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2012), 189. I depart from Shead in taking 31:15 as its own song rather than as the beginning of the final song and in dividing his single “guarantee” into two.

It is notable that the preamble (30:1-4) to this section focuses on restoration of Israel and Judah back to the land that Yhwh gave to their fathers.

The theme of restoration from the land shows up in the first song, third song, fourth, fifth song, and seventh song. And it is the emphasis of the epilogue. The sixth song is a brief song of weeping to which the seventh is a response. The second song seems to be about spiritual renewal rather than physical renewal. The seventh song combines the two.

The first promise uses the metaphor of seed to portray Israel and Judah growing up in the land. The third promise is about the rebuilding of Jerusalem. This has to be eschatological given that the valley of Hinnom is said to be sanctified and the city is said to never again be overthrown.

In the following section, Jeremaih 32:1-33:13 Jeremiah was told to buy a field while Jerusalem was under siege. Jeremiah recognized that it is because of Israel’s violation of the Mosaic covenant that Babylon will conquer Judah (32:23-24; cf. 32:29-35). But God reiterates the new covenant promise of the restoration of exiled Israel to the land—at which point they will fear God (32:36-44; 33:6-13). The transformation of heart indicates that this restoration is eschatological rather than merely post-exilic. In addition, the idea that Jeremiah would received the land purchased presupposes resurrection and also pushes to an eschatological fulfillment.

The emphasis on restoration to the land (along with the phrasing “house of Israel and house of Judah”) require that the new covenant promise in these chapters be focused on the nation of Israel specifically rather than the people of God most broadly. This is confirmed by the fact that the nations are mentioned in these chapters in distinction from Israel and Judah (30:11; 31:7, 10; 33:9). In addition we have the specific statement in 31:36 “If this fixed order departs from before me, declaration of Yhwh, then shall the seed of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever.”

None of this is to deny that the redeemed from the nations have also been made party to the new covenant. From the very beginning, God’s covenant’s with Israel have been for the sake of nations (Gen 12:3; 18:18; 22:18). Jeremiah himself anticipated Gentile inclusion in these blessings (Jer 3:17-18; 4:2; 12:14-17; 16:19; 46:26). In fact, some of these texts are land promises to the nations. See also Isa 19:25; 54-55 (esp. 54:2-3; 55:5 with attention to the covenantal context of these verses) and Zeph 3:9 with Isa 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1, 4; 56:7; Eze 36:23, 36; 37:28; 39:7; Mic 4:1-3. All of these texts point to Gentile inclusion in the new covenant.

The New Testament is clear that the new covenant is now in force for both Jews and Gentiles. Jesus’s death, as memorialized in the Lord’s Supper, cut the new covenant (Matt. 26:28; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25). Paul was a minister of the new covenant (2 Cor. 3:6). Hebrews 8 teaches that the new covenant has already replaced the Mosaic covenant. Romans 11:7 and Ephesians 2:11ff. reveal that Gentile branches were grafted in and that believing Jews and Gentiles have become one new man.

These passages do not teach that ethnic distinctions have been done away. Nor do they cancel the specific land promises made to Israel as part of the promised new covenant. Passages like Hebrews 8 indicate that the new covenant promises regarding relationship with Yhwh are now being equally enjoyed by believing Jews and Gentiles as members of the new covenant together. But the new covenant promises regarding the restoration of Israel and Judah to the land are so pervasive and emphatic that they cannot be dismissed. In the structure of Jeremiah 30-33, the promises regarding relationship with Yhwh serve the land promises since it is only when the people know God and love his law that they can be sure to remain in the land. This is not to say that the land promises are more important than promises regarding relationship to Yhwh. Far from it. But, in the context of Jeremiah, they are intertwined.

Does this mean, then, that there are new covenant land promises to which Gentiles are not party? In that the specific land of Israel is promised to a reunified Israel and Judah, yes. But as noted above, there are land promises to Gentiles in the new covenant as well. The new earth is the fulfillment of the land promises—not as an abstraction but with Israel and the nations all receiving lands.

Some might see the land element of the new covenant as the husk which falls away with the spiritual promises being the kernel. To be sure, the relationship between God and his people is central. But God has always intended for his people to be embodied and emplaced. Embodiment and emplacement are not a husk that can be discarded. That is a gnostic tendency, and Jeremiah 30-31 forecloses that way of thinking for the Christian.

Thoughts on the Translation of Leviticus 26:40–42

Jeremiah 30-31: The New Covenant and the Land