Not according to the testament which I made to their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt: because they continued not in my testament: and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

“"But finding fault with them, He saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when 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 when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt: because they continued not in My covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord." Yea, verily. And whence does it appear that the first Covenant came to an end? He showed it indeed also from the Priest, but now he shows more clearly by express words that it has been cast out. But how is it "upon better promises"? For how, tell me, can earth and heaven be equal? But do thou consider, how he speaks of promises there in that other covenant also, that thou mayest not bring this charge against it. For there also, he says "a better hope, by which we draw nigh unto God" (Heb. vii. 19), showing that a Hope was there also; and in this place "better promises," hinting that there also He had made promises. But inasmuch as they were forever making objections, he says, "Behold! the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." He is not speaking of any old Covenant: for, that they might not assert this, he determined the time also. Thus he did not say simply, "according to the covenant which I made with their fathers," lest thou shouldest say it was the one made with Abraham, or that with Noah: but he declares what covenant it was, "not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers" in the Exodus. Wherefore he added also, "in the day that I took them by the hand, to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in My covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord." Thou seest that the evils begin first from ourselves ("they" themselves first, saith he, "continued not in the covenant") and the negligence is from ourselves, but the good things from Him; I mean the acts of bounty. He here introduces, as it were, an apology showing the cause why He forsakes them.”

“Prophetic utterances are of three kinds: (1) some relating to the earthly Jerusalem; (2) some to the heavenly Jerusalem; (3) and some to both simultaneously. I think it proper to prove what I say by examples. The prophet Nathan was sent to convict King David of heinous sin and predict what future evils would happen to him because of his sin. Who can question that this pertains to the earthly city? There are other instances, sometimes addressed to the public at large for their safety and benefit, and sometimes addressed to someone in private who merited an utterance from God in order to know in advance about some event to guide his temporal life.The following prophecy, however, without a doubt references the heavenly Jerusalem. "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, that I will make for the house of Israel, and for the house of Judah, a new testament: not according to the testament that I settled for their fathers in the day when I laid hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my testament, and I regarded them not, says the Lord. For this is the testament that I will make for the house of Israel: after those days, says the Lord, I will give my laws in their mind, and will write them upon their hearts, and I will see to them; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people." Here, God himself is Jerusalem's reward. Its chief and entire good is to possess him and to be possessed by him. Both cities are indicated when the city of God is called Jerusalem and when it is prophesied that the house of God shall one day be in Jerusalem. This prophecy seems to be fulfilled when King Solomon builds that most noble temple. For these things both happened in the earthly Jerusalem, as history shows, and were types of the heavenly Jerusalem. This kind of prophecy, as it were, blending both the others in the ancient canonical books devoted to historical narratives, is very common. It has exercised and continues to exercise greatly the talents of those who search holy Scripture.”

“[The Lord] ascended into the retirement of a neighboring mountain and called his apostles to him there. From the height of that mystical seat he could instruct them in the loftier doctrines, signifying from the very nature of the place and act that it was he who had once honored Moses by speaking to him. He spoke with Moses then, indeed, with a more terrifying justice, but now with a holier mercy in order that what had been promised might be fulfilled when the prophet Jeremiah says, "Behold, the days are coming when I will complete a new covenant for the house of Israel and for the house of Judah. After those days, says the Lord, I will put my laws in their minds, and in their heart will I write them." He therefore who had spoken to Moses, spoke also to the apostles, and the swift hand of the Word wrote and deposited the secrets of the new covenant in the disciples' hearts. There were no thick clouds surrounding him as of old, nor were the people frightened off from approaching the mountain by frightful sounds and lightning. Rather, quietly and freely his discourse reached the ears of those who stood by. In this way the harshness of the law might give way before the gentleness of grace, and "the spirit of adoption" might dispel the terrors of bondage.”

“Above, the Apostle proved that Christ is a high priest, and consequently a minister of the sacraments, though not according to the old law; here he shows that he is the minister of greater and better things than those were. And concerning this he does three things. For first he sets forth what he intends; second he assigns the cause of it; third he proves it. The second, at by how much also of a better. The third, at for if that. He says therefore: I say that he has nothing earthly to offer, but now, that is, in the time of grace, he has obtained by lot, that is, has received by lot, a better ministry, that is, a more worthy priesthood. The priesthood of Christ is called a ministry, because it belongs to him only insofar as, as man, he was a minister. Rom. XV, 8: for I say that Christ Jesus was a minister, etc. He says obtained by lot, that is, received by lot, because that which is had by lot is awaited from the Lord. Ps. XXX, 15: in thy hands are my lots. And therefore all things that come about according to the distribution of the divine will are said to be given by lot, and such are the effects of grace. Eph. I, 11: we are called by lot, that is, by divine election, because when it happens that human judgment fails, men are accustomed to betake themselves to divine election and disposition, casting lots, as is clear from Acts I, 26, concerning the election of Matthias. Hence Prov. XVI, 33: lots are cast into the lap, but they are tempered by the Lord. Christ indeed obtained this ministry by lot, that is, by divine disposition. Then when he says by how much also of a better, etc., he assigns the cause why this ministry is greater. For every priest is a mediator. But this one is the mediator of a better covenant, namely of man to God. For it belongs to a mediator to reconcile the extremes. But he brought divine things to us, because through him we have been made partakers of the divine nature, as is said in II Pet. I, 4. He also offers our things to God. And therefore the Apostle says, I Tim. II, 5: the mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus. There temporal things were promised. Is. I, 19: if you be willing and will hear me, you shall eat the good things of the land. But here, heavenly things, as was said above. Thus therefore this is better as to that which the Lord promises to men. Likewise, in that covenant certain things are set down which pertain to the worship of God, and these are the ceremonial precepts; and certain others which pertain to the rightness of life, and these are the moral precepts, which remain — but the others do not. But in the new covenant, counsels are added to those precepts, which are given to the perfect, who are capable of spiritual things. And thus the precepts remain the same, but the promises are different. Likewise the sacraments are different, because there the figure alone was present, but here the truth of the figure is expressed. In every respect, therefore, that covenant is better. Then when he says whether if that, etc., he proves that the covenant of which Christ is the mediator is better. And he makes such an argument: if the first covenant had not had fault, another would not be sought to correct its defect; but one is sought, therefore, etc. The antecedent is set down, and is clear in the text. But against this, Rom. VII, 7: is the law then sin? God forbid. Therefore he speaks wrongly in saying that it was not free from fault. I answer. It must be said that something can belong to the law in two ways: either according to itself, and thus it was good; or by reason of those to whom it was given, and thus it is said to have fault, on account of two things. First, because it did not give the power to cleanse away sins committed. Below, X, 4: it is impossible that sins should be taken away by the blood of bulls or of goats. Second, because it did not give a helping grace to avoid sins, but only to know them; and thus it was an occasion of sin. Rom. VII, 7: I had not known concupiscence, unless the law said: thou shalt not covet. And thus it is said not to have been free from fault, because men were left in fault by it. But he says a place would not be sought. For just as a body never perfectly comes to rest, but is always in motion, until it reaches its own place, so as long as something is possessed imperfectly, desire does not rest, but always tends further, until it comes to the perfect. The place of this, therefore, was sought by man, who desired it; but more by God, who is said to seek it on account of his desire for our salvation. Then when he says for finding fault, etc., he proves the truth of the consequent, namely that a place for the covenant is sought, and this by the authority of Jer. XXXI, 31: behold the days shall come, etc. And concerning this he does two things. First he sets down the authority; second he argues from it, at but in saying a new. The first is divided into two. For first he sets forth the prophecy concerning the giving of the new covenant; second he describes it, at not according to the covenant, etc. Again the first is divided into three. For first he shows the fitness of the time of the giving; second, the perfection of the new covenant, at I will perfect a new covenant; third, to whom it was given, at upon the house of Judah. He says therefore, for finding fault, not indeed with the law, but with those who, namely, were under the law, the Lord says: behold the days come, etc. This is the authority, which is Jer. XXXI, v. 31; and it is not held entirely under these words, but a few are changed. For there it is said thus: behold the days come, says the Lord, and I will make with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, a new covenant, not according to the covenant which I made with your fathers in the day when I stretched out my hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, a covenant which they made void, and I had dominion over them. Thus therefore it is clear that the covenants are changed. He says, therefore, as to the fitness of the time, behold the days come, that is, the time of grace, which is compared to the day, because it is illumined by the sun of justice. Rom. XIII, 12: the night is passed, and the day is at hand. As to the perfection of the new covenant he says, I will perfect a new covenant. And he says I will perfect, which sounds toward perfection. Apoc. XXI, 5: behold, I make all things new. But this word I will perfect is not found there, but the Apostle uses it to designate the perfection of the new covenant. Is. c. X, 23: the Lord shall make a consummation and an abridgment upon the earth. For the new covenant was perfect as to the instruction of life, which is extended not only to a general instruction of justice, but to a perfect one. Matth. V, 20: unless your justice abound, etc. Likewise in the old covenant there were only figurative things; but in the new, the truth of the figures; and thus the new consummates and perfects the old. As to the third he says, upon the house of Israel, and of Judah. But is it given only to the Jews? No. Rom. IX, 6: not all who are of Israel, these are Israelites; and it follows: not they who are the children of the flesh are the children of God, but they who are the children of the promise are accounted for the seed. Those, therefore, who have obtained the grace of God, are Israel through faith, and Judah through confession. Rom. X, 10: with the heart, belief is unto justice, etc. Now it is said upon the house, etc., for a threefold reason. One, because Christ in his own person preached to the Jews, not to the Gentiles. Matth. XV, 24: I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel. The second, because the Gentiles were made participants of the new covenant, just as a wild olive grafted into a good olive tree partakes of its richness, Rom. XI, 24. Another, because in the time of Rehoboam and Jeroboam the kingdom of Judah was divided from the kingdom of the ten tribes, which indeed remained in idolatry, but the kingdom of Judah adhered more to God, although not entirely. And therefore he touched on both. Then when he says not according to the covenant, he describes the new covenant, and first by its difference from the old; second by its own conditions, at for this is the covenant. Again the first is divided into two. First he shows the distinction of the new and the old covenant; second, the weakness of the old, at in the day in which. For someone could say: is this new one like that one? Therefore, as if answering, he says: no. Because not according to that which I did with their fathers — in which he shows that the old is not to be kept together with the new. Gal. V, 1: stand fast, and be not held again under the yoke of servitude. Matth. IX, 17: neither do they put new wine into old bottles, etc. And Rom. VII, 6: let us serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. For if anything is found in the old which is indicated to the Gentiles for keeping, it must be referred to a spiritual understanding, as is said in Is. XIX, 21: they shall worship him with sacrifices and offerings — which is wholly to be understood spiritually. Then when he says in the day when I took, etc., he shows the defect of the old covenant, first from its handing down; second from the outcome, at because they themselves. For the old covenant was handed down to slaves and to the weak. To slaves indeed, because they had at one time come out of the servitude of Egypt. And as to this he says, that I might lead them out, etc. Gal. IV, 24: the one indeed begetting unto servitude, etc. Likewise, because it was a law of servile fear. Rom. VIII, 15: you have not received the spirit of servitude again in fear, etc. Augustine: the brief difference of the old and new covenant is fear and love. Likewise to the weak, because by themselves they were not able to help themselves. And as to this he says, I took them by the hand, which belongs to the weak. Ps. LXXII, 23: thou hast held my right hand. Rom. VIII, 3: what was impossible to the law, in that it was weak. Now he says their fathers, namely Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with whom he entered into a special covenant. Ps. CIV, 8f.: he hath been mindful for ever of his covenant, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations, which he appointed to Abraham, etc. But to these, at the exodus from Egypt, he promised carnal things. Then when he says because they themselves did not, etc., he shows the defect of the old covenant from the outcome; and first as to the fault, and therefore he says, because they did not continue in my covenant, namely because it was not written in their hearts. Hence immediately after the law was given they made a molten calf. Ex. XXXII, 8 and Ps. CV, 20: they made a calf in Horeb, and adored a graven thing. And as to the punishment. Therefore he says, and I disregarded them. For a thing is said to be disregarded by someone when he permits it to perish. And thus he disregarded them, because he permitted them to perish by the destroyer, as is said in I Cor. X, 10; and Ps. CXVIII, v. 118: thou hast despised all them that fall off from thy judgments. Another reading: and I had dominion over them, that is, by punishing I showed myself to be their lord. Then when he says for this is the covenant, etc., he describes the conditions of the new covenant. And concerning this he does two things. First he sets down the manner of its promulgation; second, its effect, at and I will be to them a God. He says therefore, for this is, that is, such is, the covenant that I will dispose for the house of Israel, etc.; disposition implies a fittingness of order. And therefore he says after those days, that is, after the law was given. For the new law had to be given after the old law, just as first a pedagogue is given, and afterward a master, so that man might first recognize his own weakness. In this, therefore, the fittingness of the time for giving the new covenant is clear. Now the manner of handing it down is twofold. One is through exterior things, as by setting forth words for someone's knowledge. And this a man can do, and thus the old covenant was handed down. In another way, by working inwardly. And this is proper to God. Job XXXII, 8: the inspiration of the Almighty giveth understanding. And in this manner the new covenant was given, because it consists in the infusion of the Holy Spirit, who instructs inwardly. But it is not enough only to know, for acting is also required. And therefore first he illumines the intellect to know. And therefore he says, I will give my laws, etc. And he says it in the plural, on account of the diverse precepts and counsels. And this the Holy Spirit does. I Jo. II, 27: his unction teacheth you. Jo. XIV, 26: he shall teach you all things, etc. Likewise he inclines the affection to act well, whence it is imprinted on the heart. And as to this he says, I will write them upon their heart, that is, upon knowledge I will write charity. But above all things have charity, etc., Col. III, 14, and Rom. V, 5: the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, etc. And this is the epistle, concerning which he adds, II Cor. III, 3: not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the heart.”

“Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers,.... The ancestors of the Jews at Mount Sinai: in the day when I took then, by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; which is mentioned, not only to observe the time when the former covenant was made with the Israelites, which was just upon their deliverance out of Egypt; but also to show their weakness and inability to have delivered themselves, and the tenderness of God towards them; they were like children, they could not help themselves when God took them by the hand, and brought them forth with an outstretched arm; and likewise to expose their ingratitude, and vindicate his conduct towards them: because they continued not in my covenant; though they promised, at the reading of it, that all that the Lord had said, they would hear and do; but their hearts were not right with God, and they were not steadfast in his covenant, and therefore their carcasses fell in the wilderness: and I regarded them not, saith the Lord; the words in Jer 31:32 are very differently rendered in our translation, "although I was an husband unto them": and so it becomes an aggravation of their sin of ingratitude, in not continuing in his covenant: in the margin it is rendered interrogatively, "should I have continued an husband unto them?" that is, after they had so treated him, no; as if he should say, I will not behave towards them as such; I will reject them, and disregard them. The Chaldee paraphrase is just the reverse of the apostle's translation, "and I was well pleased with them": some render them, "I ruled over them", as a lord over his servants, in a very severe manner. Others, observing the great difference there is between the Hebrew text, and the apostle's version, have supposed a different Hebrew copy from the present, used by the Septuagint, or the apostle, in which, instead of it was read either or but there is no need of such a supposition, since Dr. Pocock (g) has shown, that in the Arabic language, signifies to loath and abhor, and so to disregard; and Kimchi (h) relates it as a rule laid down by his father, that wherever this word is used in construction with it is to be taken in an ill part, and signifies the same as "I have loathed"; in which sense that word is used in Zac 11:8 and so here, I have loathed them, I abhorred them, I rejected them, I took no care of them, disregarded them, left their house desolate, and suffered wrath to come upon them to the uttermost. (g) Not. Miscell. in Port. Mesis, p. 9. (h) In Jer. xxxi. 32. & Sepher Shorashim, rad.”

“Not according to the covenant - The new covenant is of a widely different nature to that of the old; it was only temporal and earthly in itself, though it pointed out spiritual and eternal things. The new covenant is totally different from this, as we have already seen; and such a covenant, or system of religion, the Jews should have been prepared to expect, as the Prophet Jeremiah had, in the above place, so clearly foretold it. They continued not in my covenant - It should be observed that the word διαθηκη, which we translate covenant, often means religion itself; and its various precepts. The old covenant in general stated, on God's side, I will be your God; on the Israelites' side, We will be thy people. This covenant they brake; they served other gods, and neglected the precepts of that holy religion which God had delivered to them. And I regarded them not - Καγω ημελησα αυτων· And I neglected them or despised them; but the words in the Hebrew text of the prophet are ואנכי בעלתי בם veanochi baalti bam, which we translate, although I was a husband to them. If our translation be correct, is it possible to account for this most strange difference between the apostle and the prophet? Could the Spirit of God be the author of such a strange, not to say contradictory, translation of the same words? Let it be observed: 1. That the apostle quotes from the Septuagint; and in quoting a version accredited by and commonly used among the Jews, he ought to give the text as he found it, unless the Spirit of God dictated an extension of meaning, as is sometimes the case; but in the present case there seems to be no necessity to alter the meaning. 2. The Hebrew words will bear a translation much nearer to the Septuagint and the apostle than our translation intimates. The words might be literally rendered, And I was Lord over them, or I lorded or ruled over them; i.e., I chastised them for their transgressions, and punished them for their iniquities; ημελησα, I took no farther care of them, and gave them up into the hands of their enemies, and so they were carried away into captivity. This pretty nearly reconciles the Hebrew and the Greek, as it shows the act of God in reference to them is nearly the same when the proper meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words is considered. Some suppose that the letter ע ain in בעלתי is changed for ח cheth, and that the word should be read בחלתי bachalti, I have hated or despised them. An ancient and learned Jew, Rab. Parchon, has these remarkable words on this passage, ואנכי בעלתי בם׃ פ שנאתים וזו העין מתחלבה כחית שג וגם נכשם כחלה בי׃ פ שנאה אותי, and I baalti baam, translate, I hated them; for ע ain is here changed and stands for ח cheth, as it is said, their soul bachalah bi, translate, hath hated me." None of the Hebrew MSS. collated by Kennicott and De Rossi give any various reading on this word. Some of the versions have used as much latitude in their translations of the Hebrew as the Septuagint. But it is unnecessary to discuss this subject any farther; the word בעל baal itself, by the consent of the most learned men, signifies to disdain or despise, and this is pretty nearly the sense of the apostle's expression.”

“Not according to, &c.--very different from, and far superior to, the old covenant, which only "worked wrath" (Rom 4:15) through man's "not regarding" it. The new covenant enables us to obey by the Spirit's inward impulse producing love because of the forgiveness of our sins. made with--rather as Greek, "made to": the Israelites being only recipients, not coagents [ALFORD] with God. I took them by the hand--as a father takes his child by the hand to support and guide his steps. "There are three periods: (1) that of the promise; (2) that of the pedagogical instruction; (3) that of fulfilment" [BENGEL]. The second, that of the pedagogical pupilage, began at the exodus from Egypt. I regarded them not--English Version, Jer 31:32, translates, "Although I was an husband unto them." Paul's translation here is supported by the Septuagint, Syriac, and GESENIUS, and accords with the kindred Arabic. The Hebrews regarded not God, so God, in righteous retribution, regarded them not. On "continued not in my covenant," Schelling observes: The law was in fact the mere ideal of a religious constitution: in practice, the Jews were throughout, before the captivity, more or less polytheists, except in the time of David, and the first years of Solomon (the type of Messiah's reign). Even after the return from Babylon, idolatry was succeeded by what was not much better, formalism and hypocrisy (Mat 12:43). The law was (1) a typical picture, tracing out the features of the glorious Gospel to be revealed; (2) it had a delegated virtue from the Gospel, which ceased, therefore, when the Gospel came.”