Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not
turn away from doing them good; but I will put My fear in their hearts
so that they will not depart from Me.” Jeremiah 32:40
I have read the entire chapter of Jeremiah 32 to see the greater context. Yet, I am still puzzled of whether or not this refers to the New Covenant in Christ.
Hebrews chapter 8 gives us some OT quotations & information regarding the New Covenant vs the Old Covenant. However, nowhere in Hebrews 8, let alone all of Hebrews is Jeremiah 32:40 even mentioned.
I’ve heard of pastors in their books make mention of Jeremiah 32:40 as the primary prophecy text concerning the New Covenant in Christ. Yet, this passage seems to be speaking historically of Ethnic Israel.
I have 3 questions regarding the interpretation of this verse:
1.) Is Jeremiah 32:40 a typological prophecy of the New Covenant for both Jews & Gentiles?
2.) Is Jeremiah 32:40 even about the New Covenant in Christ at all?
3.) If Jeremiah 32:40 isn’t about the New Covenant in Christ, what is the reason God gives for using the term “everlasting covenant”?
I really want to understand the meaning of this text.
Troy Day
@followers @highlight @john mushenhouse @phillip williams @kyle williams
Jeremiah 32:40 indeed represents a significant covenantal text, though its relationship to the “New Covenant” of Jeremiah 31:31-34 warrants careful exegesis. The verse states: “I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from doing them good” (NKJV).
Scholarly consensus generally views Jer 32:40 as part of the broader covenantal theology in Jeremiah’s restoration oracles (chapters 30-33), often called the “Book of Consolation.” While Jer 31:31-34 explicitly introduces the “new covenant” (בְּרִית חֲדָשָה), Jer 32:40 emphasizes the eternal nature and divine faithfulness of this covenant without using the specific terminology “new.”
Several theological connections emerge: (1) Both passages stress divine initiative and permanence, (2) Both emphasize internal transformation (31:33’s heart-writing parallels 32:39’s “one heart and one way”), and (3) Both occur within the same literary context of restoration promises during the siege of Jerusalem.
Patristic and Reformation commentators (including Calvin and Matthew Henry) typically treated these as complementary descriptions of the same covenantal reality. Contemporary scholars like Walter Brueggemann and J.A. Thompson view 32:40 as an elaboration or reaffirmation of the new covenant concept, emphasizing its everlasting character. The Septuagint’s rendering and New Testament allusions (particularly Hebrews 8:8-12, 10:16-17) primarily cite Jer 31:31-34, suggesting that passage held priority as the definitive “new covenant” text.
In conclusion, Jer 32:40 is best understood as a direct theological parallel and expansion of the new covenant promise rather than its initial announcement, contributing the crucial element of eternality (עוֹלָם) to the covenantal framework that finds its ultimate fulfillment in Christ’s mediatorial work.